Magpie

You appear to deliberately mis-understand my point Huguenot - locals often cannot be "bothered" to work as wages are too low relative to benefits - this is partly as a result of immigration putting downwards pressure on wages, partly as a result of a benefits system that provides perverse incentives that fail to encourage work at low wage levels, and of course partly because the're really are some people who would never work regardless - again they are supported by a benefit system that rewards such behaviour. The government and society has a responsibility to break the cycle of dependency - mass immigration makes this more difficult. I don't think I have ever heard the phrase "desperately needed social workers" - quite a novel idea really

I should perhaps correct the last sentence of my post Unskilled Immigrants do not do jobs that locals won't do, they do jobs that locals would do, but at a lower wage. Immigrants often don't have families to support, have lower living costs, and are not in receipt of benefits, they hence are happier to accept lower wages than the locals. This is effectively the low income trap - why work, when you lose benefits pretty much like for like if you do work. "In balance, intelligent well informed people recognise that the the overall result is better than a closed door policy." However, intelligent well informed people should be realistic enough to accept that the status quo - ie the largest change in the make up of the countries population in the shortest space of time (eg what the country has experienced in the last 10 years) - is not sustainable, acceptable, nor beneficial to the majority of the indigenous population (as opposed to the upper-middle classes), and therefore sensible caps on migration are the way forward.

Well not really - social cohesion is essentially a qualitative measure, such as increased vibrance and diversity. The quantifiable impact, is that mass un-skilled immigration leads to depressed wages, and competition for scarce resources - eg housing, hospitals, schools. The disbenefits are felt most by the already poor - working class whites, and second generation immigrants. Immigrants do not do jobs that locals won't do, they do jobs that locals would do, but at a lower wage.

Well of course its impossible to prove that action taken results in an event not happening. However, the absence of proof does not mean that the action was not successful. How about another counterfactual - what action should the US have taken after 9/11?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260 Net immigration last 10 years has been between 150 - 200k - equating to c2m over the period. The UK population was 58.5m in 1998, rising to 61.5m in 2010 - so immigration has inceased the population by 3.4% in 10 years, and accounted for (on a first order basis) around 66% of population growth on a first order effect (probably would be more if we take into account births to first generation immigrants). It might not be a flood, but it is the single largest contributor to population growth in the UK. It also drives lower wages, particularly for low-skilled jobs, and results in a loss of social cohesion and identity. The majority of the benefits of immigration that Huguenot quotes arrive from genuine 2-way immigration - the exchange of highly skilled labour - the negatives - ie housing, wages, benefits, social cohesion all come from low skilled immigration. An intelligent immigration policy would seek to encourage the former but minimise the latter.

"How have any actions taken since 9/11 prevented anything? What actions, and what have they prevented?" From a US-Centric approach - the actions taken by the US - ie aggressive pursuit of Al-Queada/Bin Laden, and increased homeland security measures, have prevented any further large scale Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil, and on that basis have been successful. Anti-Western/US/British sentiment will always be there (whether justified or not) as it is used by the various governments in the region as a smoke scene behind which their failures to deliver freedom, economic growth etc are hidden.

I thought the zebra crossings were removed on grounds of safety - an additional traffic light by Iceland would reduce the speed of traffic, but would increase congestion/pollution, it would end up like the Walworth Road. The obvious improvement has been previously mentioned, which would be to pedastrinise Northcross Road on a Saturday (or at least shut the junction with LL).

Getting a bit bored of this - and we are way off topic - and actually no idea why I'm being so defensive. To immply that the CoE has been anything other than a benign organisation for the last 100 years is rather odd, its about the least militaritic organisation possible - some of the hymns may contain military imagery, but they are hardly encouraging a violent crusade against unbelievers, and certainly a few grannies singing them today hardly draws connotations of Jackboots (which if not a reference to Nazisim I don't know what is) or the crusades. If Churchill used a hymn for inspiration at possibly the darkest time in this countries history against an incredibly evil regime then so what? If you find Jerusalem distastefully jingoistic then I don't really care, its a great tune, the words are inspiring, and to be honest I see nothing wrong with a bit of national pride and love of country now and again. As I keep pointing out its not an aggressive hymn. Perhaps I'm guilty of poor examples - had I said "Great Redeemer" and "Abide with me" you would have had little to argue about. My original point was that the Catholic Church is under no obligation to listen and adjust its doctrine as a result of secular criticism, indeed the fact that it ignores secular opinion is what makes it so powerful. The CoE in contrast follows the prevailing social mores, and as a result is dying on its feet.

It doesn't imply any superiority of England over anything - it is about heaven being created in England - hence its adoption by socialists - its inward looking - not jingoistic or aggressive.

"I have to conceed that the idea that anyone is a 'soldier' for Christ rather than a 'follower of' or 'believer in' does evoke a militaristic image, which can in turn only be associated with violent conquest." I'm not sure it can only be associated with violent conquest. Soldier can be associated with defender, discipline, supporter, follower etc

You were comparing Anglican hymns about spiritual renewal with Nazism - so it meets your definition of Godwin's law. Not sure when the Salvation army have used violence to spread the word. Churchill used the hymn as inspiration to oppose rather than spread oppression. You deliberately interpret the words to suit your world view - yes military imagery is being used, but in an evangelical message - go and be Christs soldier's, conduct a war on poverty, ignorance, want, bring enlightenment etc Its a metaphor and only a metaphor. The first verse of Jerusalem is a set of questions - ie have we created Jerusalem in the UK - the second answer suggests that we haven't and hence need to struggle to do so - it is not jingoistic. The Pope was criticising the failure of the UK to maintain its Christian heritage in general - not the break with Rome. And anyway as I said before - I just like the tunes. It must be a pretty miserable existance disapproving of everything.

And anyway they sound better (and are more fun to sing) than bloody Kum by yah

Actually no I don't. They are about evangelical not military/violent struggle - renewing the nation/self, spreading the word, and in the case of Jerusalem, focused solely on England. You have also lived up to Godwin's law by the way.

My cliches have the benefit of being true - linking the CoE and hymns like Jersulam with the crusades and jackboots just demonstrates ignorance. Many (if not the majority) of the great European works of art, architecture, literature, and music are influenced or inspired by Christianity, dismissing them all is rather bizarre. One can admire art without admiring its creator or its motivation.

Oh dear - now you're just getting hysterical - crusades, jackboots, England Uber allies? Suggest you put away your pocket handbook to being controversial, its all so cliched.

You do like these sweeping assumptions set out as patronising insults Huguenot. However, you have over interpreted my interest. My criticism of the COE is entirely about taste, and is what I consider an observation by an interested observer. The COE in recent times (ie post-war) has sought to do away with its inheritance - ie the King James Bible, traditional hymns, traditional services, and modernise. This modernisation puts off the traditional congregation, or those who respect the quality, integrity and inspiration of the traditional language and the music, while at the same time failing to attract a new congregation. Being pithy when I go to church, I want to hear a few thous, doths, and trespasses, not you, did and sins, I want to sing Jerusalem or Christian soldiers, not kum by yah. This is because I find the traditional language and music vastly superior in terms of aesthetics. Modern interpretations may help the understanding of the key messages, but in my view, fail to inspire. The Catholic church has the self confidence not to sway with the prevailing winds, and hence is a healthier organisation. I agree that the UK arm of the church has been swollen by arrivals from Eastern Europe and Africa, but still think my point holds. On the Saud issue - my understanding of the issue was that the Sauds moved into Mekkah while the British were looking the other direction, and we hence had little choice, I don't think its correct to say they were rubberstamped. However, I haven't read about the period for a while, so maybe we played a greater role. I agree though that they were secular, however, there is certainly a clear partnership betweeh the Sauds and Wahibbists that stretches back to the 1700s

The fact that the COE does not hold firm on doctrine and is far too keen to try and be trendy is one of the key reasons the congregation is collapsing, while Catholicsm is in relative health. I don't want to be read from the Good News Bible with its dumbed down language - as opposed to that great literary work the King James bible. I don't want to sing inane hymns with Guitars and tambourines, give me a pipe organ and a rousing chorus of "Great Redeamer". The COE is dying precisely because it trys to keep in with secular opinion which of its nature is secular. Interesting the Saud family were not sponsered by the Brits - they moved in as a result of the vacumn created by the collapse of the Ottomans. The Brits were focused in modern day Jordan and Iraq and supported the Hussains. Oil was not discovered till the 1930s in Saudi with help from the American - Iraq and Iran were much more British Spheres of influence.

Your definition of human rights are artificial constructs - they are subjective - what you mean is in your view your secular view of human rights outweigh what Catholics see as divine objective doctrine. All parents bring their children up in the manner they believe is appropriate, not just religious parents, and all children, at least in the UK, have the freedom to make up their own minds abour religion, and anything else once they become adults. You seem to have a jaded view of religion if you believe it operates on a system of oppression and fear - those COE vicars with their tambourines and beards how incredibly oppressive.

Well one could argue that the actions taken since 9/11 have prevented a repeat of 9/11 on US soil, and hence have, to some extent been successful.

The primary responsibility of the government is the security of its people. Therefore how can one object to security being provided on occasions where large numbers of people are gathered together (ie the Pope visit). The security is there to protect and police them as much as it is to protect the pope. Any major event requires additional policing costs. The key complaints against the pope seem to be that he was member of the Nazi youth, he is against homosexuallity, proposes abstinance rather than condoms, and his organisation is associated with child abuse. Taking them one at a time 1) He was conscripted into the Hitler youth - he didn't join of his free will, to condemn him for that is to condemn all germans of his generation who effectively had no choice other than face death in a concentration camp. 2) Sex abuse issue - I doubt that sex abuse is any more prevalent in the catholic church than any where else - the church however is guilty historically of covering up sex abuse. The Pope has made numerous statements apologising for whats happened in the past, and has made it clear that in today's chuch it will not be tolerated. Not sure what else he is supposed to do On other issues such as contraception, homosexuality, he is simply stating the doctrine of the church, and refusing to bend in face of secular assualt in the way that the COE does. Not sure why non-catholics feel they can demand the Catholic church changes in doctrine - its none of their business. If you don't like the doctrine you can leave the church, unlike in Islam where in some countries it is against the law for muslims to change faiths or be athiest.

I think in Switzerland you are not allowed to use your washing machine after 7 in case you upset the neighbours - sounds bloody civilised to me

You crazy guys with all your mental parties - how amazingly cool. Why should you have the right in a residential area to play music loud enough to disturb people in neighbouring houses (past the time allowed for pubs and public events) even if it is only one night?

Post-11pm noise is just anti-social, inconsiderate and selfish. If it happens again call Southwark council - they send out people to log the noise, and will then go and tell the guilty to turn the music down or be faced with a formal caution.

I always play it safe - allow an hour for the journey and aim to arrive 2 hours before the flight. On the one occasion where I left it a bit late, the taxi driver was late, and I was automatically bumped off the flight as I checked in 44 mins before the flight and not 45mins. No amount of pleading, whining, shouting, crying etc would persuade them to let me through an empty security as "Computer said no"

Apologies - apparently the special advisor is not a high flyer - only a 2.2 degree. I would imagine the leaking of this story is as a result of his "virtual" greasy pole climbing causing irritation amongst other staffers. You have to say that for Hague to come out with such an unequivical denial, that either the story is completely untrue or he has set himself up for a massive fall - I would tend to believe the former as, whatever people think of his politics, he is certainly a very intelligent man.