HATE preacher Anjem Choudary yesterday said he wants Sharia law in Britain to stop Britons “living like animals”. Choudary, 41 — the man behind the vile Luton protests against our returning troops — said anyone caught drunk should suffer 40 lashes and adulterers should be stoned to death.

He said Brits “live like animals” with their “alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography”.

He said his group’s ultimate aim was to “fly the flag of Allah above 10 Downing Street” and bring about “a pure Islamic State with Sharia Law in Britain”.

But Choudary — right-hand man of exiled Omar Bakri — said he had every right to stay here and is proud to be hated.

Anjem Choudary ... hated

Gary Stone

> Anjem Choudary yesterday said he wants Sharia law in Britain to stop Britons “living like animals”....

> He said Brits “live like animals” with their “alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography”.

Did you post this just to allow someone to reveal Anjem Choudary's documented student past of drinking alcohol and looking at porn and reports of 'relationships' ?

Did you post this just to allow someone to reveal Anjem Choudary's documented student past of drinking alcohol and looking at porn and reports of 'relationships' ?

has he now?? .....

It's a long way from his days as a medical student at Southampton University, where, friends say, he drank, indulged in casual sex, smoked cannabis and even took LSD. He called himself 'Andy' and was famed for his ability to drink a pint of cider in a few seconds.

One former acquaintance said: "At parties, like the rest of us, he was rarely without a joint. The morning after one party, I can remember him getting all the roaches (butts) from the spliffs we had smoked the night before out of the ashtrays, cutting them up and making a new one out of the leftovers.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...tion/article.do

What a hypocritical A-hole this guy is.

amazing !

What a hypocritical A-hole this guy is.

He's a Muslim so it goes without saying that he is a raving hypocrite. Sure there are good ones amongst them but they are spineless and won't stand up to the extremists.

Just go down Walking Street any night of the week, or around the Arab quarter. They are all there drinking, gambling, doing drugs and whoring.

The UK government won't do anything about these scumbags, the police are tied down with unnecessary red tape and PC nonsense so they are powerless. The only people left are the British public who will suffer just so much and then there will come a day of reckoning.

It is coming time for a new Krystalnacht.

Just go down Walking Street any night of the week, or around the Arab quarter. They are all there drinking, gambling, doing drugs and whoring.

dont forget Grace Hotel on Soi 3 ! .... there are maybe 20 - 30 girls ( all quiet chubby and not good lookers ) waiting for the arab clients.......

What a hypocritical A-hole this guy is.

He's a Muslim so it goes without saying that he is a raving hypocrite. Sure there are good ones amongst them but they are spineless and won't stand up to the extremists.

Just go down Walking Street any night of the week, or around the Arab quarter. They are all there drinking, gambling, doing drugs and whoring.

The UK government won't do anything about these scumbags, the police are tied down with unnecessary red tape and PC nonsense so they are powerless. The only people left are the British public who will suffer just so much and then there will come a day of reckoning.

It is coming time for a new Krystalnacht.

You know Phil, you just blew me away with your last sentence. Are you seriously suggesting that genocide is a solution for the problem of intolerant Muslims?

What a hypocritical A-hole this guy is.

He's a Muslim so it goes without saying that he is a raving hypocrite. Sure there are good ones amongst them but they are spineless and won't stand up to the extremists.

Just go down Walking Street any night of the week, or around the Arab quarter. They are all there drinking, gambling, doing drugs and whoring.

The UK government won't do anything about these scumbags, the police are tied down with unnecessary red tape and PC nonsense so they are powerless. The only people left are the British public who will suffer just so much and then there will come a day of reckoning.

It is coming time for a new Krystalnacht.

You know Phil, you just blew me away with your last sentence. Are you seriously suggesting that genocide is a solution for the problem of intolerant Muslims?

Kristallnacht itself was not genocide, however it was one of the precursors to the holocaust.

Maybe Phil means that the mosques should be burnt, Muslim homes and businesses destroyed, and the formation of concentration camps for Muslims ?

I don't agree with the generalisations about Muslims being hypocrites etc, although I can see how it easy to think that given the amount of vile verbal diarrhea coming from the extremists mouths, which IMO is intended to cause a widening of the gap between the local and immigrant population.

The government should get tough on ALL immigration matters, and any immigrant wishing for sharia law or a muslim government should be sent back to where there is one in place. The others who are quite happy to integrate as best they can and lead a good life within the law are welcome, as they also add to the rich multicultural life of the UK

Totster

The government should get tough on ALL immigration matters, and any immigrant wishing for sharia law or a muslim government should be sent back to where there is one in place.

Totster

Therein lies the rub.

Forced deportation of citizens because of their ethneticity or religion is akin to other solutions considered cruel and unusual in posts above.

(do agree however, for Oz too!)

What I was meaning is that unless the moderates get control of their more hot headed brothers the spark will enter the powder keg. The problem with us British is that we are way too tolerant up to a point and with these vermin we are fast approaching that point.

When I say "we" I mean the people in general. The insults these scum threw about when the troops returned home only went unpunished because the British police were there to protect them. It is often said that US/UK policies on Israel, the middle east and Muslims are partially, at least, responsible for the drify of Muslim youth into the arms of the radicals. Well it works in reverse too and the mouthings of this kind of barbarian will only serve to reinforce the ranks of the BNP or worse. Unfortunately the UK government can't see this being blinded by those bending over backwards to accommodate these people into our society. These people do not want to be accommodated, they do not recognise our society, they hate our society and ultimately they are avowed to destroy that very society that gives them shelter and sustenance.

What I was trying to say is that we need a backlash of some kind to serve as a wake up call. My use of krystalnacht was perhaps a bit extreme, and I apologise if it offended anyone, but sometimes a few broken eggs can be used to make an omelette.

> dont forget Grace Hotel on Soi 3 ! .... there are maybe 20 - 30 girls ( all quiet chubby

> and not good lookers ) waiting for the arab clients.......

And every blue eyed fair haired Northern European in every other soi in Pattaya is a church going Christian?

Just because someone is an Arab does not mean his is a pure living Muslim and as such breaking his religious beliefs by screwing and drinking alcohol on holiday.

Live and let live.

Yes, it's intended to polarise opinion both in muslims and non-muslims, with the growing divide ultimately driving borderline radical muslims to extremism and perhaps shifting the conservative muslim base as well. Immigration law needs to be revamped so that there is no guarantee of permanency for people who seek citizenship and then do not comply with local law - including hate crimes and incitement towards treasonous activity.

The government should get tough on ALL immigration matters, and any immigrant wishing for sharia law or a muslim government should be sent back to where there is one in place.

Totster

Therein lies the rub.

Forced deportation of citizens because of their ethneticity or religion is akin to other solutions considered cruel and unusual in posts above.

(do agree however, for Oz too!)

I can't see how deportation of trouble makers and terrorists/terrorist sympathisers being akin to sending them to concentration camps, or genocide for that matter.

Totster

there are maybe 20 - 30 girls ( all quiet chubby and not good lookers ) waiting for the arab clients.......

Arab is not a synonym of fundamentalist.

Actually, back in France, I have plenty of Arab friends who drink, smoke weed and couldn't care less about Islam.

And every blue eyed fair haired Northern European in every other soi in Pattaya is a church going Christian?

Just because someone is an Arab does not mean his is a pure living Muslim and as such breaking his religious beliefs by screwing and drinking alcohol on holiday.

Live and let live.

Unfortunately people like the cleric in the OP do not subscribe to that sentiment.

Often here on ThaiVisa the subject of the behaviour of farangs in Thailand comes up and the general sentiment is that, being guests in the country (putting aside the strict definition of guest for a moment), we should respect the culture and laws of the country (again glossing over thorny issues like prostitution).

But the overwhelming attitude is that, whether a tourist or long term expat, we should display a little respect to our hosts.

Now we, in Thailand, may consider ourselves guests based on the fact that our application to enter the Kingdom may be refused but once here we pay our way and take little or nothing out of Thai society.

These people in Britain are beyond guests as they are being paid to stay there often by way of free government handouts. They have arrived claiming persecution in their country of birth and are shown compassion and given a safe haven in which to live.

Then they stand up screaming out this kind of bile in public in front of the TV cameras and we put up with it!

How do you think the Thais would react if a bunch of expats came out with the same message of hate to their hosts in Thailand?

We have laws against spreading hate against any section of society to restrain us but they cannot be used against these mad mullahs because it is against their human rights.

The government should get tough on ALL immigration matters, and any immigrant wishing for sharia law or a muslim government should be sent back to where there is one in place.

Totster

Therein lies the rub.

Forced deportation of citizens because of their ethneticity or religion is akin to other solutions considered cruel and unusual in posts above.

(do agree however, for Oz too!)

I can't see how deportation of trouble makers and terrorists/terrorist sympathisers being akin to sending them to concentration camps, or genocide for that matter.

Totster

You quoted me in full then responded with some different subjects, this is a topic that stirs strong feelings (IMO quite rightly) so I'll reply indicating my 2 satang's worth to each point in turn.

> "Often here on ThaiVisa the subject of the behaviour of farangs in Thailand comes up and the general sentiment is that, being guests in the country (putting aside the strict definition of guest for a moment), we should respect the culture and laws of the country..."

Indeed, almost all of us (myself included) are guests of Thailand and are here by grace of one or two year visas, and will be expected to leave the country if the terms of that visa is broken or not longer exists. With the UK those people that migrated there went through the hoops and became citizens, the difference with Thailand is one of legal framework for non-citizens established by government. So one can not really compare people without a birth-right to a Thai Passport in Thailand with a UK citizen that was born to parents that did not hold a UK passport in a country that is not within the islands of the UK. These are two different situatons.

> "Now we, in Thailand, may consider ourselves guests based on the fact that our application to enter the Kingdom may be refused but once here we pay our way and take little or nothing out of Thai society... Hhow do you think the Thais would react if a bunch of expats came out with the same message of hate to their hosts in Thailand?"

Indeed - aware of our fragile status we don't stand in large groups blocking access to government buildings demanding equal entrance fees to the national parks all wearing green T shirts. We don't 'consider ourselves guests' we are guests, most are reminded of that fact every 90 days.

Thailand is (IMHO) doing the right thing to protect the nation and it's people form the negative affects of non-Thai new comers. This belief does not help my personal situation in any way - but looking at the mess caused when the barriers come down I understand why it is good for Thailand that it maintains the controls that it does.

These people in Britain are beyond guests as they are being paid to stay there often by way of free government handouts. They have arrived claiming persecution in their country of birth and are shown compassion and given a safe haven in which to live.

Then they stand up screaming out this kind of bile in public in front of the TV cameras and we put up with it!

We have laws against spreading hate against any section of society to restrain us but they cannot be used against these mad mullahs because it is against their human rights.

Right, this is the crux of your post and an issue not to be confused with Thailand or it's policy. Britain has a long history of being a safe haven for those people wishing to escape <something> in a distant lands and seek sanctuary within the UK, generally seen as a good thing. And in the past not abused. I understand that many people in this situation would arrive intergrate into the new nation, learn the langauge, their children playing cricket for their state run school.

Times have changed, the world is less innocent and the whole idea of being born and living within the nation of your birth has gone. I started coming to Thailand as a tourist, then established that getting my hair cut and teeth seen to in Thailand was better that at 'home', then left more clothes here each time until I moved here 18 months ago. Self funded - no Thai government hand-outs. I use Thai services employ Thai staff and have a handful of Thai friends, pay Thai taxes and can be kicked out at short notice.

The UK allows those that settle complete free access to all benifits and rights, even the right to protest against the hand that feeds it. That I agree is wrong - but not wrong of the government to allow it - but wrong of the people that claim (!) to be fleeing evil in the world - but seem to just be leeching off of a host with the sole purpose of converting a nation to their version of a religion.

I don't consider it rocket science to see that if someone will give you funding to support your family and allow you to spread and promote your religion and then they are too stupid or weak to stop the change then they deserve to loose. The UK is lost to policital correctness and human rights 'issues'. The very pillars that made the place stand out amoung other nations and stand up to world agressors are being used to beat the place into the ground.

The person that is the focus (?) of this thread wishes to make the UK an Islamic country. The UK government is supporting his legal right to do so while paying him (I offer no source of evidence but I understand that many can freely claim state aid.). The thin edge of the wedge is a right to stay in the country without a temporary visa status, then freedom to change the country's religion while being funded by the country's good will.

The Thais see the risk and protect the nation with those visa laws that we have to ferret through at regular periods - the UK does nothing to change the situation because can't see the risk or it is already too late, the rot had reached a level where it is self-supporting, prior to it's collapse.

...(again glossing over thorny issues like prostitution).

An establish business (in almost every country the world over) before the first US troops arrived on R&R or the first Non-Imm one year vista was ever issued by Thai Immigration.

But the overwhelming attitude is that, whether a tourist or long term expat, we should display a little respect to our hosts.

Agreed - but the many instances where this does not happen gets wide public coverage and gives the farang a bad name. Many examples covered here, men without shirts at government offices (restaurants, shopping malls) not showing basic respect for the staff there. (I was at an immigration office yesterday and saw people ready for the beach rather than an offical meeting. Would they do that in their own country?), public drunkeness & drug taking, for women topless sunbathing on public beaches. Each incident re-enforces the Thai POV that farang are bad. Can you blame them?

Great Britain 1801 - 2009 R.I.P.

{sorry for strange disjoined formating - I got error messages when trying to post this original reply}

Good post Cuban absolutely spot on.

The sheer hypocracy of these people is that they are protesting against the very thing that allows them to protest in the first place.

Barmy.

What a hypocritical A-hole this guy is.

He's a Muslim so it goes without saying that he is a raving hypocrite. Sure there are good ones amongst them but they are spineless and won't stand up to the extremists.

Just go down Walking Street any night of the week, or around the Arab quarter. They are all there drinking, gambling, doing drugs and whoring.

The UK government won't do anything about these scumbags, the police are tied down with unnecessary red tape and PC nonsense so they are powerless. The only people left are the British public who will suffer just so much and then there will come a day of reckoning.

It is coming time for a new Krystalnacht.

how come it goes without saying that the thought comes into my mind that you are a raving àsshole Phil? having read a lot of your postings i would have never thought to hear that kind of bullshit from you.

p.s. what do you suggest the U.K. government should do about these muslim scumbags in Pattaya's arab quarter?

Therein lies the rub.

Forced deportation of citizens because of their ethneticity or religion is akin to other solutions considered cruel and unusual in posts above.

(do agree however, for Oz too!)

I can't see how deportation of trouble makers and terrorists/terrorist sympathisers being akin to sending them to concentration camps, or genocide for that matter.

Totster

It has been tried in the past. Unfortunately it came back to haunt the Poms.

Rember the first concerntration camps were in South Africa, started by the Poms during the Boer War. As to exporting trouble makers, they just learned how to play sport and take great pleasure in beating the Poms in anything.

The concept of forced integration has also had some unfortunate side effects ask the "Stollen Generation".

It would be very interesting if someone sugested that European countries adopted the immigration policies of Asia. Look at how hard it is to become a Thai citizen if you want to. As to preaching against the establishment, don't even think about it.

I am begining to feel for Europeans.......and Britons, becasue it seems like you guys are more under seige from Muslim whack jobs then we are. I never read about crap like this here, London, Paris, Berlin they are always up to something.

As an American, I am not sure how much right I have in criticizing the UK, and coming from a country which has a history of welcoming immigrants, my viewpoints may seem out-of-whack.  But after following the actions and statements of Anjem Choudary for about a year now, I would simply deport him.  He advocates the violent overthrow of the UK government and wants to implement sharia law.

It seems to me that the UK government has gotten so concerned about PC that it cannot take actions in its own self-interest.

As a visitor, the multi-cultural London is far more intersting than the London of 30 years ago where the only ethnic restaurants I found seemed to be Indian or Carribean.  So I am not one who harps on the loss of a UK "identity."  But when someone advocates for the violent overthrow, well, I think that is criminal and actionable by the authorities.

People such as Anjem Choudary not only cross the line into acts bordering on, if not already there, sedition. And when he spews his hate, he is helping forment hate in return against all Arabs and Muslms by the disaffected amongst the rest of the UK population.  And someday, maybe not in the too distant future, this will erupt into violence.

As an American, I am not sure how much right I have in criticizing the UK, and coming from a country which has a history of welcoming immigrants, my viewpoints may seem out-of-whack. But after following the actions and statements of Anjem Choudary for about a year now, I would simply deport him.

i wholeheartedly second that opinion but am not sure whether this is in line with the british constitution. we have similar (but not as severe) cases in Germany and deal (or rather threatening) them with existing laws which are quite rigid. stripping them from german citizenship and deportation is however unconstitutional and can be done only in rare cases when the citizenship was ex ante acquired based on fraudulent information.

They should have listened 41 years ago.

'The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen." Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions he reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

'Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

'The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.'

Brigadier John Enoch Powell MBE (16 June 1912 - 8 February 1998)

I read half of it and just couldn't take any more. Enoch Powell was a racist bigot, a clever one, but a bigot and hate monger. How one-sided are his remarks?!?

I read half of it and just couldn't take any more. Enoch Powell was a racist bigot, a clever one, but a bigot and hate monger. How one-sided are his remarks?!?

Quite often, the truth is very painful.

As an American, I am not sure how much right I have in criticizing the UK, and coming from a country which has a history of welcoming immigrants, my viewpoints may seem out-of-whack.  But after following the actions and statements of Anjem Choudary for about a year now, I would simply deport him.  He advocates the violent overthrow of the UK government and wants to implement sharia law.

Where to? He's a British Citizen and was born in London.

I read half of it and just couldn't take any more. Enoch Powell was a racist bigot, a clever one, but a bigot and hate monger. How one-sided are his remarks?!?

Quite often, the truth is very painful.

The truth about who? Racist Powell's speech derides 'The Negro' and 'Sikhs'. Nowhere in his filth does he mention Muslims such as Anjem Choudry. He just doesn't like folks who don't share his skin colour.

UK today is a far more integrated place than the Wolverhampton of the Sixties early seventies of which Mr Powell spoke. He was an MP representing the genuine fears of the population that lived there in those times and no matter how awful they may appear today, he voiced the thoughts of the vast majority of the time and his views ( not unrepresentative in any way ) should be taken in that context.

A great deal of the problems came from ignorance of respective cultures on both sides. The Central Market of Wolverhampton in a few short years became dominated by the new arrivals. They were able to do this as they worked in family units with brothers, sisters, cousins, clan members and the like working for food and shelter in the new world and no wages. The old " white ' store holders had to pay their staff and as such could not compete with tight cultural units. This led to hatred and the begining of a poor white underclass in areas of the now city, which exist to this day. Nothing and I mean nothing was done to encourage cultural understanding in the work place and importantly nothing was done to protect the interests of the existing local populace who by paying their workers a living wage, were forced out of business.

You had to be there to appreciate the hatred that existed at that time, which I'm afraid was exasperated by people with genuine fears for their future in an uneven market, being labelled as racist for complaining about practises brought into a work place handed down to them through generations, they could not hope to fairly compete with.

You may say tough, they had to be blown away by the times, hard luck. You may say that, but I'm afraid if you do, this peverse, inverse racism that exisists in the UK, where you can be anything and do anything you like as long as you are not an Anglo Saxon Christian, is the mantra for you.

A true multicultural caring soceity, gives a fair go for all and sets one set of standards and laws to folow which respect all within the community. Powell looked into the future and saw coming inequalities, which one day he thought would lead to social unrest. I agree with him.