Souvenir

Wot he said.

Plus, I think the words have rather different origins. "Mute" most likely derives from French. "Moot" comes from, I think, Norse and is where we get the word "meet" from.

kt0157

I know the French bit is right. From my French dictionary:

muet adj. -ette <mÿè> 1. mute adj. 2. dumb adj. (without the ability to speak; ~ animals)

Used that one quite a lot, given that so many letters are muet en Français.

K.

SANDRAPAUL

Interesting to note that if the person whom you were relating to at the time were none other than Sir Richard Branson who admits to being a bad at spelling due to his dyslexia I wonder if you would take the same narrow minded attitude. Probably it seems.

Mute Moot. Yes I am wrong - I have never upheld my abilities in that department.

But it does explain much again about the direction, in just a few threads, as to where this forum goes...

Happy Xmas.

Pearly_Spencer

Mr. Powell was no 'horrible man' but rather an honourable politician (and that's not an oxymoron in his case), probably the most honourable British politician of the last half of the 20th century. As Minister of Health in the Macmillan government he recruited large numbers of nurses from the sub-continent, hardly the action of the 'racist' ogre that his detractors portray him as. Powell was a man of eloquence and integrity, inspired by a strong sense of history and of Britain's place in it. He was the 100-degree-proof to whom, in stark contrast, modern politicians are decaffeinated mineral water. His nemesis, the lily-livered, chicken-hearted Ted 'Teeth' pales in comparison.

Powell was not 'wrong' as an earlier poster claimed. He was obviously, in his speeches on immigration, projecting ahead a generation or two, perhaps foreseeing Oldham/2001, Burnley, Leeds, Stoke or, indeed, much of the south Pennines today.

dbd33

Do the dark satanic hills of the north run with rivers of blood?

SANDRAPAUL

Applogies for using the word 'horrible'. Out of place and off the cuff. But I listened to him numerous times over the years. If I would alter my stance it would be to say - 'to the point', which, in a more open minded wooly type of person that I hope I am, comes across as aggressively anti anything not white or British. But as I have mentioned before it is very difficult to have a disscussion about the pros and cons of mass migration when the first thing considered is colour, then religion and perhaps ethnic origins. The last thing anyone can discuss without a massive 'crawling down ones throat' is the concept that mass movement too quick too soon can often be detrimental not only to the people that are existing residents but also the wellbeing of the 'newbies'.

There are many sides to this and all the time and economy can keep expanding to accommdate, the down sides are burried. When economies slow as surely each one does the real affects become very much evident. There are two views in Europe. One which seeks instant profit the other which seeks long term balance. Open door versus closed door. Each has its merrits but anything closed door becomes linked with some type of Fascism that escapes me. Perhaps it requires a downturn in the economy in the UK and the scenario that is unfolding in France for those Politicians to realise that a quick fix and an open door is not always the answer to seeking cheap labour. France is suffering from decades of such an open door policy. Fewer jobs. Slower economy and not sufficient integration along the way. Anyone comfotable with 100 cars and now buses being torched every day in the UK?

During the 60's the large influx of immigrants to the UK were mainly concentrated within what one would have called the colonies. Their head of state was the Queen and they had some affinity. There was a push me pull me affect as relates to the changes in the immigration laws which I recall, (I am sure to be put wrong) was a spure to this wave. Plus of course there was a big need for someone who would drive buses, run the underground and clean - all on a very cheap basis. Hence the call to come and live in the UK.

The recent influx / wave into the UK has less of an association with anything that is culturally or socially similar. Unless of course one really believes that all of those entering now have only done so in order that they can swear allegiance to the Queen. Not likely. They have become an important source of cheap labour as if you look back in history cheap labour has helpled empires prosper beyond their capabilities they would not had without it. But cheap labour does have its downsides which those that run businesses could not care about. Any negative affects not considered locally or nationally. There is a short term spur for even those who are already residents to have a slightly higher standard of living as the 'countries' income and activity is heightened. But in a slowdown the negatives are 2 fold. Not only do the immigrants tend to be thrown on the scrap heap first and they do kick and scream at this point, but the locals also see loss of standards as the country has many more people to support than it did previous. Basic economics. Not something even considered at this stage in the UK's cycle. We could be talking 10 years or 20. There will be a slowdown at some point.

The whole issue of immigration is one of a mix of social tension, moral correctness and more to the point 'will it affect me'.

But there is a consensus across the board that mass movement of people is a good thing if it is done in a controlled manner which will have benefits on both sides. I have my doubts about this recent wave into the UK. Not because I looked from the outside in but rather it was the other way round.

I recall a well known reporter returning to the UK about 2 years ago and being interviewed. He stated that he had never seen a Black man in the UK and associated this with some form of major alteration in the UK's make-up. I, and being the same age, had associated and had friends who were Asian, Black, Chinese (no middle eastern as I recall) but all because I lived in a poorer area. I was regularly ashamed of my fellow White British school friends who were rascist to the point at which one person was literally kicked to death outside of the school. This was the early 70's. All because he was asian. It has not altered one bit at the grass roots. The New Labour lot admit that this issue has increased rather than abated. And just waht affect will an open door have on the UK personality once the economy goes south?

So - who benefits. The country that the new person has entered and is working for peanuts or the kids going to school who are hated because of their colour or language who then congregate and eventually settle into their own areas. And why should they not. Ghettos do not have to look like Harlem to be Ghettos.

Is it good it see the coffers of the shareholders grow and who see their wealth increase on the back of a thriving economy. Yes. I suppose so. But if I was to divide all of the people I know who could benefit from shares it would be about 1 in 10. Hardly a basis for social equality.

(Spelling, grammar applogised for in advance)

montreal mike

Some here should google Enoch Powell and read precisely what he said way back then. Perhaps there could be more objectivity and, hopefully, they might rethink their criticism.

Enoch Powell was a visionary who foresaw what could, or might, happen in the years to come and it seems to me that alas, to some extent, he turned out to be correct.

There is no problem with immigration and seeking a better life. But reality is that there are consequences for these newcomers, the 'locals', and society at large.

montreal mike

I had no trouble understanding your point despite many grammatical and spelling errors. What counts is content. And there was plenty.

Souvenir

It is worth remembering that the intra-European migration we see today is happening because it was meant to. It was planned more than 50 years ago.

Europe had seen centuries of countries kicking the crap out of each other. Just after WWII some of the more enlightened thinkers, such as Jean Monnet, realised that, to put a stop to it, European nations needed to become so closely integrated, politically and economically, that wars would be pretty much impossible.

The process began in 1951, when six countries formed the European Coal and Steel Community. Since then we have seen the creation of EURATOM, the EEC and then the EU. The number of member states continues to grow.

Today, most of the European nations are so closely integrated that it is hard to imagine how wars could actually take place. OK, so there are current issues about immigrants; they will pass. Loss of sovereignity is another common bugbear. I do not regret its demise. Sovereignity is what causes wars. Monnet and his associates set out to abolish it and their successors are well on the way to achieving that aim.

Elvira

I couldn't agree more!

My parents could never forget about "the war" (WW2) and, throughout the rest of theuir lives, it continued to dominate how they viewed Germany and the rest of Europe. I am glad that I live at a time where such a war seems unthinkable. (There are plenty more wars outside Europe to worry about...)

Tableland

The first Franco-German attempts to integrate actually happened after World War I with the precise aim at stopping wars between European nations. When it spectacularly failed with the arrival of World War II, the history was later airbrushed to make the venture look like a post-WWII project and claim credit for the peace that was actually brought by NATO. For the European Union to be able to continue to grow in the right direction, it will have to start acting like a democracy. Remember, not one citizen of one European state ever approved the significant transition from EEC to EU. Hardly conducive to good democracy.

Also, I would take issue with the statement that sovereignty causes wars. Wars are caused because of material or ideological conflicts of interests, and substantially determined by systemic factors. Sovereignty is a complex concept, and not directly responsible for conflict. All Monnet's plan could abolish is *national* sovereignty, because there will always be a power source. Now that source is increasingly located in Brussels - the new sovereign power. How is this "abolishing" sovereignty?

iaink

I thought wars were mostly the result of greed and/or bigotry

Tableland

But what causes greed and bigotry?

iaink

Excessive exposure to Rupert Murdochs media empire?

Arent they both baser human instincts. You can clean them up and wrap them up collectively with a nice ribbon and ascribe it all to "nationalism" or whatever, but really at the individual level there is a personal motivation to go along with the crowd, and its usually either greed or bigotry when you strip all the BS away.

Tableland

What makes Rupert Murdoch's media empire make people greedy and bigoted?