norman tebbit: "britain should change to accommodate the moral views of muslims"

I was thinking about this kind of issue from a different angle today, in that I tend to think that attempts to at once aim for a hope in the next world -- that everything gets resolved after death -- and to 'reform' *this* world in the way it 'should' be is by definition contradictory. Hardly a new belief, I realize, but it occurs to me that the wish fulfillment drive of a relentlessly religiously-defined world right here and now based on the imposition of strictures beyond a community that universally and willingly accepts them (and therefore does not consider them strictures, which can be the problem) will simply NOT happen, at least not as planned.

Rewriting history, and ignoring human nature, those sweets never lose their zing. Hey! Why don't we combine those two great tastes? We could ... partition Britain! Hell, it worked in India. And Greece. And Ireland. I'm sure the sweet British public will make it work here. We could play each other at cricket.

I don't think you are. What the fart-chomper's proposing is to sneak in a reversal of the permissive society under the cover of better integration. Let's put hajib on table legs while we're at it.

The better integration thing, though, that's a no-brainer. Of *course* we need better intergration, as Pakistan chided us after the London bombings. What we don't need is a monoculture while we're at it. You can have an integrated multiculture, as swathes of the US so aptly show.

Good god: the US as race-relations model. Who would have thought?

xpost: pretty much everything means that, Ned.

Actually, the US example being followed here is the Republicans' campaign to reach out to Hispanic voters by scaremongering on moral issues. (Never mind that the issues that get them hot and bothered are strongly rooted in conspicuous consumption and laissez-faire principles.)

yes, he is. i'm not denying that. my question was: does he have a point?

and i think he does.

there've been enough threads on ILX alone recently along the lines of "my neighbourhood's gone to shit"/"i got grief from kids on a bus, WTF?"/"is it just me or is society falling apart" to suggest that i'm not the only one who thinks the current standards of "human nature" in society aren't particularly acceptable. indeed: since when has allowing human nature to find its own level been remotely acceptable? call me a fascist, but society - like children - needs boundaries, a clear definition of what is and isn't acceptable. for a whole variety of reasons, a growing number of people in each generation are effectively making the choice to opt out of society. we need to address that; to find out why they're so disaffected at such an early age, then do something to improve matters.

and we wonder why our large muslim population isn't falling over itself to integrate? right-wing commentators keep wheeling out the line about "being part of british society" ... but, er, what is british society right now? i'd be hard-pressed to give you any kind of definition. it depends from city to city; from district to district; from street to street. yet you really believe we've got it right: that society as it stands is absolutely fine, and that the reason many 15-year-old muslims look at us with disgust (this is worth reading too, even though i don't like its tone) is because they're all in the wrong?

yeh, right. good ole fucking britain. we've got it so right, haven't we?

Besides, the only way of getting a tebbitised society, where everyone knows their place and kowtows with defferenc eto their better's, would be through some kind of fascism (forcing matrons and vicars to bicylce through the morning mist, make anyone born within the sound of bow bells say 'cor blimey guvner' and doff his cap on seeing a known better etc.

i think schools do try to do instil decent values in kids - they try very hard - and yes, i agree that "faith schools" are a fucking ridiculous idea. i'm not advocating a return to religion here at all: what i'm dreaming of is a decent secular society in which those who are misguided keen enough to practise their silly wee superstitions are more than welcome to do so. (i'm deliberately staying away from dealing with individual facets of islam such as its approach to homosexuality because a) i don't know enough about the actual beliefs involved, and b) i'm advocating a tolerant society based on mutual respect, not a religious one based on fear of god.)

but i don't think schools can be expected to sort this on their own. i've mentioned this here before, but: my friend was a primary teacher, and ended up quitting because he was so sick of watching the work he'd done - the values he'd tried to instil - being destroyed at the school gates by arsehole parents who'd struggle to bring up a fucking dog, let alone a child. (remind me again why you need a licence to have a dog, and not a kid?) i sound like a stuck record most of the time, but i really do blame the parents for almost everything: schools can try as hard as they want, but it's what children learn at home that sticks with them for life.

yes, we need to educate children to be active participants in a tolerant and understanding society ... but right now we need to work out a way to educate their parents too. or, at the very least, to ensure that what children are taught in schools isn't destroyed the second they get home.

xpost - dv

OMIGOD - you are a genius. A sick genius.

they wouldn't need to spin a sob story cos anyone who asked for it would get it, chav or otherwise. the idea isn't to stop children being born to the "wrong" type of ppl. all this is for is to check that they've considered the idea of having a child/children and decided that yes, they definitely want to do it, and although you can't know that everyone would really properly think of all the responsibilities, implications blah blah - and you would know that a percentage of them definitely hadn't - at least you know that they've made a decision that this is something they actually genuinely want to do, rather than something that happened accidentally and they couldn't be arsed to do anything about it. the teenage-mum-just-got-pregnant-so-she-could-get-a-council-flat stereotype always seems to me to have been blown out of all proportion wrt statistics, and i think this would reduce the number of kids born to fuckawful harpies & grunters who drag them round the shops by their hair, screeching at them and calling them cunts one minute, stuffing them with mcd0n4lds and t0mmy h1lf1g3r to placate them the next, and shoving them in front of the tv as soon as they get home. fuck, i sound like an insufferable twat here, but i HATE this, HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT. how can you treat your kids like that? do you never stop to think about the consequences of anything you do? argh.

because this is such a big decision a world-wide vote will have to be made, and the winner will thus be someone who has had children, and quite well known. so i guess...

3. michael jackson
2. chris & gweneth martin
1. david & victoria beckham

god have mercy.

"of large parts of britain", as any.

Yeah but *loads* of fine kids are born and raised in exactly the circumstances you're describing in the first bit there

yes, and it's down to luck rather than good planning, isn't it? *loads more* suffer needlessly at the hands of ignorant - and i use that word in a non-pejorative sense - parents.

Yes, and there are ancient Sumerian clay tablets etched with near-impenetrable runes which, after much decoding by boffins with grate branes turn out to say "ye society is goin to hell, ye kids have no respec, i got grief on the cart earli todae". Didn't Aristotle also have a girn about that too? Basically since writing began people have been moaning about the state of things. Two things always goin to hell: grammar and society.

(It's funny: the "golden age" people long for generally seems to be about 50 years in the past. Just long enough ago for those who actually lived it to have died, but short enough for only the good bits to be remembered.)

British society is *fine*. There is no better time for it to "return" to. It can pull together when it wants, as the outpouring of cash and help after the tsunami showed; it is resilient, as the bomb attacks proved; it can be politically active, as the Iraq and G8 protests showed. And as homophobia and racism are becoming ever-more unacceptable, I'd say it has at least two things up on the 1950s.

this jumped out before i read the rest of your post. i now don't see the point in reading a single word of it. it's fine if you're a wealthy middle-class journalist living in a nice flat in park circus or battlefield, yes. but that sure as fuck ain't society as a whole, as i think every other post here demonstrates.

just because things have always been shit, does that mean we can't strive for anything better? sheesh, you might as well start voting tory now and be done with it. after all, you're all right: fuck everyone else.

stet, it doesn't have to return; it has to get better. racism is a complex and changing thing and i'm not actually sure that things have improved on that score. to compare with the 50s makes no sense anyway since that was the pioneer decade of immigration. yes there was racism, but the possibility then of *not* making ethno-religious ghettoes such as you find in britain 2005 was not realized -- and that's a damning relfection on today.

actually, the more i think about it, given that we now live in a british society that is happily nurturing its very own home-grown suicide-bombing psychopaths, i feel this is perhaps the single wrongest statement ever made in the history of, eh, british society.

but that sure as fuck ain't society as a whole, as i think every other post here demonstrates.
No, every other post demonstrates that people *think* society's going to hell. As I was saying with all the other words you didn't read people always think society's going to hell. Usually, a lot of them are also wistful for earlier times. Times when -- yes! --people thought society was goin to hell.

just because things have always been shit, does that mean we can't strive for anything better
Nice strawman. Things haven't always been shit, they've been slowly getting better.

one other point:

And as homophobia and racism are becoming ever-more unacceptable

yes, among nice liberal hand-wringing guardian readers. but i'd refer you to the iain macwhirter column i cited above for some deeply disturbing suggestions on the racism front.

er, really? so the gap between rich and poor *isn't* widening? we *don't* have homegrown suicide bombers? the national diet *isn't* complete shit? we *don't* have serious drug problems as a society?

Things haven't always been shit, they've been slowly getting better.

i'm sorry: i would happily swap the entire 1990s for the present day. how can you possibly say a society in which there is seething resentment from people whose only desire is to kill themselves and as many other people as they can is anything other than totally and utterly fucked? and that's before we even get on to the shocking state of schools (which i think are substantially worse now than when you were a lad, stet); soaring rates of teenage pregnancies; growing fear and loathing of young people (even if actual crime rates are down); etc. society is fucked and sitting there saying, well, it was a bit worse in the 1950s is not going to help.

this looks very wrong now, for some reason. what i mean is: i'd go back to the 1990s in an instant.

It's this that Tebbit is trying to swing. It's this that Major tried to swing with his warm beer. When you see Bush out on the ranch cowboying, it's the same thing.

er, really? so the gap between rich and poor *isn't* widening? we *don't* have homegrown suicide bombers? the national diet *isn't* complete shit? we *don't* have serious drug problems as a society?
Oh wait, so because some things are wrong we're all utterly fucked and society is unfixable? Do you shoot cancer patients in the head?

what i mean is: i'd go back to the 1990s in an instant.
God ye, so would I. I loved that Berlin wall hoonja-doonja. I liked it when the Tories privatised things. I thought it was great when there was no minimum wage, and I thought it was brilliant when single mothers were demonised without even a token attempt to help them out.

how can you possibly say a society ... is anything other than totally and utterly fucked?
Because to say that is to say it's unfixable. And it isn't. It is the same as society has always been, broken in places but trying to get better. The fact that there is potential for this society to get better is imo what makes it un-fucked.

What else can we compare?

well, that's the point: statistics can prove anything. i'm sure stet could come up with a very convincing statistical argument as to why many quality-of-life markers (eg individual wealth) "prove" that things are much better now. and i could scrabble around for some more stats and "prove" the exact opposite.

my point, as always, is simple: we now live in a society where young men brought up here are prepared to become suicide bombers. this, i think we can all admit, is a new one - and suggests something has gone very, very wrong.

which brings me back to the original issue about integration, and why tebbit appears to have a point: which 15-year-old muslim in their right mind would want to integrate with - say - the "society" they see on a sink estate in glasgow or leeds?

I.e., you'll get pie in the sky when you die die die

no, no-one has said things are unfixable. but things get less fixable, don't they? eg: things like jury trials won't be brought back once they're gone. of course the abstract 'potential' is there for change, but i'd like to see a conjunctural analysis as to *where* this change will come from.
the logic that 'the perception is the problem' leads to orwellian conclusions

ok, but ... people's perception of the society in which they live is pretty much what defines whether or not that society works, no? so a society perceived by the majority to be fucked = a society that is fucked.

otherwise who tells us it isn't: totalitarian leaders? :)

I loved that Berlin wall hoonja-doonja. I liked it when the Tories privatised things. I thought it was great when there was no minimum wage, and I thought it was brilliant when single mothers were demonised without even a token attempt to help them out.

i'd rather have all those things than people trying to kill me on the tube. this is a glib retort, but ... you're not comparing like with like. personally, i felt substantially safer and happier and more hopeful in the 1990s than i do now. i think most people would say the same.

The fact that there is potential for this society to get better is imo what makes it un-fucked.

what: so the fact we're not yet at armageddon-style meltdown means society is - to use your word - "fine"? it's not unfixable - not even i'm arguing that - but it sure as fuck isn't "fine", and to even suggest that it might be seems at best glib and at worst blinkered.

which 15-year-old muslim in their right mind would want to integrate with - say - the "society" they see on a sink estate in glasgow or leeds?
Of course not, it's idiotic and nobody apart from Tebbit is saying it. The muslims should want to integrate with the good parts of British society ... presumably the same parts the people on the sink estates wouldn't mind getting to.

personally, i felt substantially safer and happier and more hopeful in the 1990s than i do now. i think most people would say the same.
QED, though you're using a shorter timeframe than my 50 years above. I too think that life was good in the 1990s, but it was also horridly shit in so many ways.

Society is fine in the same way a cancer patient can say they're fine: they're trying to get better. I just don't see why a few terrorists mean we're on a non-stop train to destruction and armageddon.

an odd comparison? Both people I know who had cancer recently - both my step-inlaws - died from it.

!!!!!!!

i kind of feel that part of this feeling of things getting worse has also to do with KNOWING more about it, more exposure to this in the media, i dunno. but i feel the fact that we are more aware of the problem being a problem may well be a sign of progress.

presumably the same parts the people on the sink estates wouldn't mind getting to

exactly. you've summed this up quite neatly: post-thatcher, society is entirely based on greed (now handily retitled "aspiration" to make it more middle-class-friendly). no, i'm not saying everybody should "know their place" ... but everybody has a duty to work for the good of the micro-society in which they live (their tenement/street/neighbourhood) in order to benefit the macro-society as a whole. right now, however, people just look at the next neighbourhood up the chain and go, "fuck this, i want to be there and i don't give a flying fuck who i hurt along the way."

and unless i'm very much mistaken, this is what you're suggesting my hypothetical 15-year-old muslim should do: instead of being part of something, of integrating with his neighbours, he should just fuck off out of there quick-smart?

that is not a workable model for society. we know this because ... well, we only have to look at what's going on around us.

xpost: oh great, now the pursuit of happiness and desire to better oneself is just manifestation of unbridled greed and darwinian thatcherism. I'm suggesting your wee muslim should want the same things the rest of us do. Who, apart from Tebbit and you, is suggesting that anybody wants to integrate with a sink estate?

so what's your proposal? mine is that society as a whole works together to try to improve the existing problems. yours seems to be survival of the fittest: ie those who can escape do, and the rest rot.

socialism. or maybe barbarism.

Is it? First time I've seen a proposal. My contention is that we're *already doing that*, yours appeared to be that the sky was falling.

I firmly believe that changing anything to accommodate religion can only make things much worse.

qv the very first post in the thread!

as for your social darwinism: let's follow this through.

- people getting out of a bad situation in which they find themselves by an accident of birth depends on education. how else (other than crime, natch) can they hope to get a decent job and the money to do so?

- problem: chronic lack of resources from the government (hello PFI)/a fuck from the rest of society (esp those sending their kids to private schools) means many schools are falling apart. also: if the parents don't give a flying toss about anything much anyway (qv marcello above), the kids aren't going to be given much to aspire to. therefore they'll waste their childhoods ... and before they know it they're parents themselves and the cycle continues.

- so without some serious-ass change in social policy, how do you suggest people get the opportunities to escape in the first place? sure, there'll be one or two kids who've got enough natural spark to rise to the top ... but what about the rest? we just write them off because, hey, as a whole things are "fine"?

Are we now talking about why schools are shit, or why society is so awful that no right-thinking muslim would want to integrate with it?

This thread makes me imagine what a sentimentally leftist Daily Mail would look like.

Proof?

Except it wouldn't have any readers cos all their parents would have sterilised by mandate, and those that did make it through would be unable to read owin to shockin skules and poppin out babies in-between shootin up

well, the two are so closely linked as to be inextricable. although as i said above: school teaching staff are actually doing an astonishing job against the odds (crumbling old buildings or shonk-tastic new PFI ones; sports facilities disappearing; budgets disappearing even faster; wanks like blair wanking on about faith schools), so ... i guess what i'm talking about is why society is so awful that we're breeding more and more people who simply don't care; who feel absolutely no sense of civic or civil duty whatsoever.

http://www.oneparentfamilies.org.uk/dr_media/opf/Inquiry_into_Child_Poverty_08-Aug-05.pdf

There are some mighty straw men being lined up in this thread, I notice.

it also means abiding by the fundamental tenets of the society into which you're integrating. the problem, of course, for anyone wanting to "integrate" into british society being that ... there aren't any. other, perhaps, than "everyone for themselves and may the most vicious/sneaky/mendacious/greedy win".

i certainly don't see how "integration" and "multiculturalism" are binary opposites. quite the opposite: why can't you have an integrated, multicultural society?

yeh, humanity's really good at that.

if we followed yr approach we'd still all be living in caves and beating each other over the head with clubs.

If we followed yrs at the first sign of trouble we would throw existing societies out the window because they are "fucked" and design something new, presumably on principles that ignore human nature and history, such as believing that we can all get along and hold hands happily while doing our communal bit. Oh, they tried that, didn't they?

a) different humans have different natures, often depending on how they've been nurtured

and

b) if we didn't occasionally fight to overcome our baser instincts, we'd still all be shagging each other's partners/stealing each other's cars/basically being abject fucking cunts to each other [1]. these failings haven't "evolved out"; we've (ie those of us who want to) have learned to overcome them through a process of education and betterment.

[1] which, eh, some of us still are, hence this, umm, thread existing.

xpost: b) We are!

er, it was exaggeration for dramatic/comic effect, not a savage indictment of the indigenous cavepeople's way of life. i know absolutely fuck all about "primitive" humans, but i have a hunch that they hadn't got as far as judicial systems/fair trials/arbitration/human rights legislation/etc :)

stet's suggestion seems to be that "human nature" is impossible to overcome; mine is that the only way we can ever advance is to strive to overcome our basic instincts. i mean ... i refuse to believe that even these primitive societies we're talking about sprang into being fully formed and with a system of rules by which to live. if we strive to better ourselves, we advance as a society; if we live within a defined set of parameters and laws, we are a more harmonious society. no?

and it's counterfactual to compare primitive societies or communist russia with present-day britain because they work in completely different ways (ok: i'm guessing about the primitive societies, but hey). my belief is simply that in britain today a lack of focus in society, a lack of boundaries and a lack of any shared sense of common goal is the cause of myriad social problems.

it goes back to "social inclusion", which IIRC was a big buzzphrase a few years ago. people want to feel they belong to something, be it a family, a church or a gang. now, i personally believe churches do more harm than good ... but why can't we build secular micro-societies that actually look out for each other and serve the purpose the extended family used to?

hmm. i'd rather begin at the beginning, with education. but yes, i'd rather the carrot than the stick (unless i'm arguing with stet, who brings out my inner fascist). ideally these new social structures would take on a life of their own after a few generations and continue for their own benefit rather than individuals', but ... you're absolutely right, we have to start somewhere.

at the moment we're not really doing much at all, though, are we? and i include myself very much in that "we".

I didn't know I meant Kritarchy, but now I've looked it up that would be an example. I'm thinking of Polynesian/Micronesian communities that run on democratic-ish lines too. I mean, a total "war of all against all" wouldn't've got humanity very far if it had ever existed. And our closest primate relatives don't seem to live that way either. I think the "externally imposed" is more relevant than the purely "hierarchical bit".

x post

There's a balance of first principles, though. Do I prefer some degree of Authoritarianism to some degree of Social Unpleasantness. I don't think I do, but it's a very blurry issue. And if this is a recent phenomenon, why are some modern parents so bad? Because of their parents? And why where they so bad? Ad infinitum. So I'm not convinced those arguments are solid.

ah: see, i do. categorically and absolutely. there's not even a question arising here in my mind.

why are some modern parents so bad? Because of their parents? And why where they so bad? Ad infinitum.

well, there's probably a law of diminishing returns at work here. that plus the whole disaster that was thatcherism, during which any notion of common decency and a duty of care to fellow human beings, be they neighbour or family, went straight out the window.

I think the problems we're talking about on here have at least as much to do with the discarding of unquestioning respect for authority that Tories call "permissiveness". I'm sure Thatcherism's in the mix too, but it seems unduly generous to give it all the credit.

we're not. she had the best part of a decade to fuck it up for us :)

the discarding of unquestioning respect for authority that Tories call "permissiveness"

tolerance, understanding, respect: they're all intrinsically linked. if you respect people, i tend to find they'll respect you back. but thatcher's government completely did away with this notion - ie it, as authority, showed no respect at all for the people - and i think that's where a lot of things started to go very badly wrong.

(blair, with his blatant disregard of the people's wishes, eg over iraq, is actually even worse than thatcher in his respect.)

Let children have a childhood; they will have many years to regret being adults.

also, if there are kids *younger than this* getting pregnant, surely it's better to educate them about contraception than to allow britain to continue having the highest teen pregnancy rate in europe? obviously there are 'otehr factors' that could be addressed to this end.

Especially if they get pregnant at 13.

1) i don't want religious minorities assimilated. in fact, if you wanted to be completely reductionist, i was suggesting the rest of britain should assimilate to religious minorities. (i wasn't, but ... well, i lost sight of what i was on about ages ago anyway.)

2) seriously, as i said upthread: i am vastly in favour of multiculturalism. what i don't understand is how an integrated yet multicultural society isn't possible.

3) my lawyer is on your case. (in fact, he's sitting right behind you now, isn't he?)

4) i never realised how sinister the word "assimilated" could look.

dude, er ... so that means it ... eh ... oh, forget it, i really don't have the energy, willpower, time, inclination or arsed-ness :)

3) He's my lawyer.I saw him first.

you were still jerking for the wankee dollar downstairs when me and ol' lawyer boy were legalling away together. oh yes, we go back years.

what's his name again?

i learned about contraception/sex aged 6; it didn't end my childhood! i really don't understand where you're going with this.

I didn't learn about sex until I was ten, nor about the sexual act or contraception until first year science class when I was twelve, and neither of these events ended my childhood; rather laid the ground for the next phase of puberty, etc. Just because I got turned on by Lynsey de Paul or Suzi Quatro didn't mean that I still didn't cry at chapter ten of The House At Pooh Corner.

Sounds pretty OTM!

Girls are born with all their eggs already in place.

"So, I've decided to take my work underground…"

it made me feel old, i was like wtf? it was all coded messages when i were a lad, this one gets straight to the point

xp

it made me feel old, i was like wtf? it was all coded messages when i were a lad, this one gets straight to the point

Damn right. I was going to post this on 'socially irresponsible pop songs' thread. There is not a single part of the song that warns about getting sand in yer bits.

mmmmm biological discovery corrr *dribbles*

hardly going to inspire your average crazed jihadi with respect for our "liberal" "society" is it?

(xxxxpost)

xpost

I went to a Scottish Catholic School. We didn't get sex education as such, we got "Science Section 6: Reproduction" where we got to draw tadpoles and had to work out what that weird Satanic Goat picture was (ovaries, IIRC).

I got my sex education from Porky's and Kentucky Fried Movie (which differed slightly from my idea of what a Catholic High School Girl In Trouble looked like).

am i the only one who sniggered loudly at this?

o well.

stevem OTM upthread anyway. i'm hardly a prude - anyone who's ever been subjected to one of my foul-mouthed tirades about the slightest possible mishap will know as much - and i've been reading viz and chortling at smut for as long as i can remember. but suddenly sex seems to be absolutely everywhere - every advert, magazine, episode of big brother and T4 link.

if society is going to thrust sex in our faces, as it were, surely it also has a duty to educate children about it as quickly as possible. we can't turn the clock back, so let's just stop the double standards, accept that our society is more sexualised and our children's perception of the world less "innocent" than before, and start getting to grips (ooer) with the nub (fnar) of the matter.

and it's not just a matter of saying: "look, kids, here's a condom." there has to be some kind of moral/emotional element to it; some notion that sex has consequences. (and i don't just mean a baby or an itchy cock.)

yeah, that was pretty much what we had. however my school wasn't catholic, so we didn't get the "brimstone and damnation if you so much as LOOK at a lassie" sermon.

blimey, i went to see kentucky fried movie when i was 14, at la scala in sauchiehall street! quite funny but the "confessions of a whatever he was this time" supporting feature was terrible.

maybe the parents were 4 years and 14 months old respectively. in that case you could perhaps understand their ignorance.

eh? i've never seen an actual prostitute to my knowledge, but this surely isn't so.

some notion that sex has consequences. (and i don't just mean a baby or an itchy cock.)

more realistic portrayals of sex on TV perhaps. the things witnessed on big Brother this year are surely enough to put a teenager off sex for life.

'suddenly' ?

good lord grimly, haven't you been PAYING ATTENTION ?

easiest fix: add anti-aphrodisiac chemical to water supply

and watch the economy collapse

no, i've been reading ILX.

and watch the economy collapse

sorry mrs fiendish, not tonight: my economy's collapsed.

i blame elvis

i like how he addresses blog responders by name

Even worse we had blisarighorowitzskinlik claiming that continental Europe has a better sense of human rights than the UK. Tell that to the Jews, or the Poles, or the Basques, or almost anyone in the Balkans. Come off it.

I fear that sodit misunderstands the difference between linking the parity of one's own currency to that of another with having no currency of one's own.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100175288/the-case-of-louise-mensch-is-a-good-example-of-why-the-tory-grassroots-have-lost-confidence-in-the-national-party/

fb?

where did it all go wrong Norm, SMDH

It was never right to begin with was it?

(assume the bump is bcz of his 'Hitler was extreme leftwing' bollocks)

He is a hideous specimen, hope he gets on his bike and rides it into a volcano.

yeah the Chingford Skinhead has always been a piece of work. I suppose I shouldn't be flippant about a mainstream (though the Telegraph has been going slowly off its rocker in the last decade or so, much like its readership) newspaper normalising the "the Nazis were socialists, it's in the name" alt-right talking point, but what else can you do?