To be deeply disappointed in John Cleese

[drspouse]

I have no idea if this is typical but he just tweeted that London isn't an English city any more
What is it then pray tell? What's not English about it??

Ok. Here’s a different question. What is it that people would like to say or do that they feel they cannot say or do because English culture is under attack?

LaminateAnecdotes - you’re right, sadly.

You make me a new English flag, showing the Tudor Rose perhaps - I can't think of a better symbol of union in England - and I will fly it with pleasure.

Really??? Henry VIII was the first Brexiter, and Mary was hardly a shining example of tolerance.

And just to illustrate the perils of generalising and stereotyping, I am a Leaver, but I am not a fan of Henry VIII. Elizabeth, in the other hand....

And the continual carping about St George is very, very old and I am very, very tired of it. The character of St George has been part of English literary and folkloric tradition for centuries, but it seems the integration of a Middle Eastern saint into English culture somehow isn't a good enough example of multiculturalism.

Why not go away and tell the Scots that St Andrew wasn't Scottish?

“Why not go away and tell the Scots that St Andrew wasn't Scottish?

Well, if the Scots kept telling me that St Andrew was a great patriotic Scottish hero I might!

But yes, I agree with you- the St George thing is tiresome.

Incidentally, i’m not sure the Tudor rose would go down very well in Yorkshire

You make me a new English flag, showing the Tudor Rose perhaps

Except the Tudors were Welsh

There really should be a law like Godwins law (we could call it Laminates Law ) then as any discussion on Englishness, the chances of someone decrying the loss of "Englishness" while simultaneously displaying a total lack of knowledge about English history will approach 1.

A flag with an oak tree would be pretty cool.

Benedick Cumberbatch naked astride a cricket bat!

On a flag.

@BertrandRussell

I’ll ask a question in return. When the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred, why was it that only two UK newspapers and one broadcaster (the BBC, and very briefly) printed the cartoons that had caused such offence to two men that they felt entitled to murder twelve people in cold blood in their office?

Every single newspaper should have published the cartoon in question. We have a long-standing tradition of satire and ridicule in the UK. No one religion, individual or set of ideas is exempt from criticism or ridicule.

You ask what we feel we cannot do. Apparently we cannot publish a cartoon for fear of offending one particular group in society. A cartoon, for goodness sake.

IsabellaLinton

Actually, there seems to be nothing more English than having a law specifically preventing a religion being insulted - ask Stewart Lee who was prosecuted (and acquitted) under such a law. So trying to trumpet we ever had freedom of speech rings hollow ....

Maybe there's nothing more English than privilege ?

Incidentally, i’m not sure the Tudor rose would go down very well in Yorkshire

So these things still matter, even after several hundreds of years have passed?

Yet a high volume of immigration will pose no problem. None of those people will have their own prejudices or preconceptions or rivalries and grudges and hold onto them over generations.

Well, because they were very offensive cartoons. What would have been the point in showing them?

“. None of those people will have their own prejudices or preconceptions or rivalries and grudges and hold onto them over generations.”

Of course they would. All sorts of things akin to jam or cream first. Who do you support in the Rugby. All the usual human things.

Well, because they were very offensive cartoons. What would have been the point in showing them?

There's a lot to find offensive in the Daily Mail - not really sure that argument stacks up.

When it comes to offence, then I'm with Stephen Fry. It's no more than a whinge ...

That offends me.
So fucking what ?

I’m on the fence about this. I think if you can avoid giving offence you should. The point is that there should not be laws to protect you from offence. I can’t see the need to republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. I don’t actually know why the papers decided not to publish them in the U.K. It could have been for security reasons- but it could also have been because they were crude and tasteless and to Islamic eyes blasphemous (Islam forbids the representation of Muhammad). I don’t know.

Always amuses me when people wheel out that Stephen Fry quote, given how quick he is to whine when it's something affecting him.

Presumably the papers did a quick pro/con list and decided that publishing a racist offensive cartoon that doesn't add to the story wasn't really worth it.

a racist offensive

You forgot to explain how it was "racist" ....

I love all the anecdotal posts about "this happened to a friend of mine" and people moving out of London because its changed so much.

Would that be the London that had a higher number of murders every year of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s than it has today ( and a far higher murder rate as the population was lower)?

Violent crime has risen across the country, and in other areas at a far higher rate than in London, so no this cannot be blamed on the immigrant population.

The foreign born population of London is 36%, with British born making up 64% being in the vast majority.

www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/londons-population-country-birth/

The stuff about EAL children is utter drivel too, funny how its white kids, in areas that are virtually mono cultural that under perform in comparison to every other group.

London is still very British, and a British city, those who don't think it is have rose tinted spectacles and remember a past that never was.

The "this is why brexit happened" brigade make me laugh. Areas with very low migration voted for Brexit, areas with higher voted remain. If you want people to listen to your concerns they have to be factually based, not based on your ridiculous prejudices.

Henry VIII was not a Brexiter btw, he claimed to be King of France.

Isabella why do you think that British media outlets should have risked their staff's lives given that the French paper who published these was attacked in such a lethal fashion? Do you not think that there was a security issue there?

Henry VIII was not a Brexiter btw, he claimed to be King of France.

Given some Brexiteers think Britain should still run Europe, it's not too far off the mark.

Of course they would. All sorts of things akin to jam or cream first. Who do you support in the Rugby. All the usual human things.

Ah yes, they’ll bring all those major issues.

As well as whether women are considered second-class citizens, whether you are a proponent of FGM, whether you feel that women should be stoned to death for adultery, whether gay people should be killed, whether Jewish people are your equals... and whether you feel entitled to murder twelve journalists in cold blood for having had the audacity to publish a cartoon.

Oh, right. We’re in “all Muslims are terrorists territory” again, are we?

Always amuses me when people wheel out that Stephen Fry quote, given how quick he is to whine when it's something affecting him.

It's possible to be right and a hypocrite ....

@CassianAndor

I think they should all have published them, and spread the risk around. Terrorism should not be pandered to it - it was cowardly not to print them, akin to admitting that the murderers had a point, those journalists deserved it, they had it coming. For every newspaper and magazine to have printed the cartoon would have sent a strong message - that no religion or individual is above criticism or satire.

And people would also have seen for themselves that it was not a racist cartoon - they would have seen exactly why those people were murdered, that it was something trivial and mundane. And even if it had been racist or nasty - would those people at Charlie Hebdo deserve to die because of it? People say ‘it was offensive, it was racist’ as though it’s a get-out clause for the murderers, as though they were justified - no, you have no right to murder, no matter how offended you are!

“People say ‘it was offensive, it was racist’ as though it’s a get-out clause for the murderers, as though they were justified - no, you have no right to murder, no matter how offended you are!“

Of course you don’t. But if you wouldn’t have published the cartoons before the attack then you also shouldn’t have published them after it. Terrorism should not make us change our behaviour.