mammothboy2 wrote:First, the pre-Celts ,,,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Celtic

... then Celts, who had well-organized kingdoms by the time the Romans arrived but who never figured out
how to read and write

... then Romans and those who arrived / settled / died in Britannia in the Roman era - Jews, some blacks like
the woman buried in York, people from
the Middle East, like those who left their genes in Lincolnshire

Then (quite horrifically) Angles and Saxons and Jutes and their slaves from Prussia and Courland

Then Normans and their slaves (1066 and all tha)

Then Norse from all of Norway, Sweden and Denmark and their slaves

Then the Danes and their slaves again

Then assorted Frenchmen, Palatine Germans, Heugenots, Flemings and European Jews and a fair few Mediterranean Jews, too

Then the Catholic Irish and
assorted refugees and immigrants from all over but not so many until the vast influx of Eastern European Jews fleeing both
poverty and persecution around 1900

Then - after 1940 - the heroic Poles
and successive waves of immigration [and we can discuss the positives and negatives until the cows come home]

QUICK GUESS: Which groups are over-represented in the prison system and among those who are receiving welfare benefits

ot mien kampf wrote:
Islam is kind of like the kid who is always visiting everyone else's houses but never has anyone over to his and then acts shocked when people feel dissatisfied.

... It was always going to be difficult for a Conservative candidate to win London in 2016, given the demographic and political shifts in the city.

But Zac Goldsmith could have fought an honourable campaign which sought to exploit his cross-party appeal, while deploying credible and effective attacks against his Labour opponent.

He did neither. Instead Goldsmith ran a campaign which was both unrelentingly nasty and also totally ineffective. His attempts to paint Sadiq Khan as a friend of extremists never worked because they never rang true. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Khan knew he was as far from being a dangerous radical as Goldsmith is from being a down-to-earth man of the people.

So Goldsmith's anti-Khan campaign didn't work. But even if it had, it was both morally suspect and outright dangerous. At a time when London faces the real threat of terrorist attack, the Conservatives' attempts to raise and exploit fears about Islamic extremists could have had grave consequences for Muslim people living in the city. The fact that most Londoners have either ignored his campaign, or chosen to reject it altogether, is a huge credit to the city...

There's no shame in losing. There can be shame in the manner of losing. Goldsmith should be thoroughly ashamed of how he lost this race.

Garry.Crabtree wrote:Maybe I should put down my copy of The Guardian and instead read the autobiography of one of the most vile and evil people that ever lived.

ot mien kampf wrote:Yeah, Khan's campaign wasn't divisive was it?



Oh yeah. But it's only bad when it's against Muslims.

Besides, London is already less than 50% native Englishmen, no wonder they elected their own. Might as well cheer a Muslim winning in Pakistan. Still waiting for a Christian to win there.

Enjoy more cultural enrichment like this.