An oath on British Values?

Jalima, my former MIL, a devout Catholic, said that cremation was forbidden by the Catholic Church.

The last thing you need to see in a crem is someone nailed to a cross and bleeding - give us a break.

The Catholic Church has just changed it's mind but you have to have your ashes stored in the church and pay for the storage.

You can always trust the Church to cash in where it can.

Luckygirl the crosses in question were not crucifixes. Just simple wooden crosses.

Well, I don't think they need to be specific, just something similar to what I posted above which is the Australian one and encompasses what we expect from a country like ours:

Democracy, liberty and respect for the law

Ana your MIL is a bit out of date:
The Church dropped its prohibition of cremation in 1963. It now permits cremation only if that choice is not a reflection of doubt or disbelief about Catholic teachings about death, resurrection, and rebirth to eternal life. (Early Pagan cremations were seen as a denial of Christ's resurrection.)

a Catholic may be cremated, so long as the reason for doing so is not contrary to the Catholic faith—though the church does prefer a traditional burial (Code of Canon Law, 1176, Section 3). The remains are to be entombed or interred in a cemetery or columbarium, and are not to be scattered or rest in a person’s house or be split between several people or be fused into jewellery.

Luckygirl the cross was just a completely plain one at the crematorium I went to last week.

Jalima, yes she probably was out of date, I just took her word for it at the time (it was over 40 years ago).

Mind you, some RC cemeteries are full of pictures of the beloved deceased and some graves look like small houses (not in this country as far as I know).

My Godfather was RC, he died in 1985, was cremated and his ashes scattered . We attend a requiem Mass for him. His son, also RC died three years ago, cremation and requiem Mass for him too.

@ Ana

What would you like me to call them? The family I know doesn't mind calling itself black. It's a fact that there are very very few people with black skin in the town where I live. It's a small town and I know most of them.

'Black people' perhaps? I really can't understand why you think it's fine to call a group of people 'blacks'.

Obviously I'm the one out of step here as no one else objected.

@ Washerwoman

I don't remember the thread and the search facility on here is so rubbish that I don't suppose I'd find it, so I'll address what I think you're asking.

Firstly, I come from Merseyside, my daughter lives in Manchester and my son in Leeds, so I don't think Northerners are xenophobic, bigoted yokels.

I live in Essex. The whole county voted Leave in the referendum and parts of the county are some of the most racist places I've ever known, despite the fact that there is historically a very low level of immigration. Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle are all in the North and all voted Remain, so I really don't think it's a North/South issue.

I posted a few weeks ago that I can understand why people in small enclaves of towns such as Rotherham or Bradford feel that their area has been taken over by immigrants and that the culture has changed. One MP (can't remember who) wrote that she knocked on the door of an elderly lady during the election, who said that she was concerned about immigration. She said that she was lonely, because she didn't feel that she had anything in common with her (mainly Asian) neighbours and she couldn't even go into the local shop for a chat, because the owners were Asian and often spoke a foreign language to each other. I really do sympathise with that and I don't know what the solution is. Immigrants will always tend to drift to certain areas of low cost housing, while the original inhabitants will move out, if they can afford it. I used to live in East London and it's very noticeable that's what happened with various communities over the years. It's all changing again, as some areas are becoming more fashionable and gentrified.

I've also posted in the past that I think that the North has been neglected by consecutive governments. I left Merseyside, because I couldn't find work. It's now known that the Thatcher government had wanted Merseyside to fade away and then Heseltine stepped in and something was done to improve it a bit. I think there's a desperate need to redistribute wealth and jobs in the country. The situation with housing in the South East is ridiculous and can't be sustained. When the industrial heartlands of the North were quite deliberately wound down, there should have been plans to regenerate them, but no government has ever been good at long-term planning. The EU was providing funding, which is why I believe that the people who would benefit most have shot themselves in the foot.

I think we forget that immigrants aren't all the same and, somehow or other, we conflate many different issues. There is the cultural problem when enclaves get 'taken over'. There is also the myth that 'immigrants take our jobs' - they don't, but when times are tough, it probably seems like that. The government could legislate to stamp down on practices such as gang masters and agencies recruiting at local rates. It could also support unions in enforcing the minimum wage.

The problems with schools and healthcare places could be solved if the government invested the income which immigrants generate. Immigration is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention form the real causes of shortages. In the case of schools, the shortages of places in schools which people want are caused by funding cuts and policies which don't allow schools to have surplus places. Local authorities now have no control and can't plan for future growth.

Sorry about the mini essay. I think the idea of an oath is naive and silly. It wouldn't even affect the British-born 'immigrants' and I can't see anybody really taking it seriously. I know people have to swear an oath when they become Australian citizens. To them it's just a formality when signing the papers.

PS. And, yes, I do think some people are racist and the danger is that this report will legitimise their 'Enoch Powell mentality'. I've already seen the reaction on some other sites :-(.

@Ana

You seem to have become PC all of a sudden. Sorry, but they identify as blacks and are proud of their Nigerian heritage.

Just checked because I wasn't sure if I was remembering correctly, but the term "whites" is commonly used, non-offensively as far as I can tell, on Twitter to mean white people so it seems reasonable for "blacks" to be used too.

OK, I accept that it's just me and my query was not justified.

I don't think I've suddenly come over all PC dahpnedill, but certain words or phrases do concern me sometimes.

I wouldn't use Twitter as a reference point as to what was acceptable - I agree with*Ana*- in fact I wouldn't use whites or blacks - I think I always say white people or black people - maybe on Twitter it's just to save characters?

I agree with you, Ana, "blacks" and "whites" sounds wrong, just as calling people with disabilities "the disabled" does. Mind you, terminology changes all the time - Sir Philip Craven, the President of the International Paralympic Committee, said on Desert Island Discs that he loathed the word disabilities and would describe himself as having an impairment.

I missed the 'black' post. Daphne ,just read it, I do find it offensive to refer to people by the colour of their skin. i speak from experience in the sixties

Daphne, just read your post on the Nigerians, why did you not call the people Nigerian?

I think the use of 'blacks' does sound derogatory and rather dehumanising. I would think the same if it was the term 'whites' being used by a group of non whites too. If there are not many black families in the locality it would be easy to identify them as the Nigerian family or Mr & Mrs Ogbonna or whatever their name happens to be. Once we strart reducing people to their skin colour or referring to them by generic names:immigrants/refugees/blacks/asians/whites/Poles/homeless/gays etc it is easier to forget that we are talking about human beings with feelings and emotions just like ours!

The reason I didn't refer to them as the Nigerian family is that they aren't Nigerian. They're British. I'm not going to call them by their names on a public forum. I don't even know the background of some of the other choir members.

However, I apologise if I've caused offence.

I have just looked up the ethnicity of the people living in the electoral ward. There are 15,504 residents (2011 census). Out of those, 96.7% identify as white. 0.5% identify as black ie approximately 75 people - I know 9 of them, have been in their houses, eaten with them and tutored their children over a number of years. I have discussed cultural differences with them. To have so many in a church choir means a distinct cultural group is over-represented, which was the point I was making. I was also trying to point out in a discussion about immigrants and the decline of Christianity that immigrants and those from immigrant backgrounds are more likely to be Christian than the so-called 'indigenous' population.

The strange thing is that I have never for one minute considered that the people I know have feelings and emotions different from 'ours'. I don't even consider them not 'us'. I don't think that multiculturalism is about assimilating and turning a blind eye, but recognising and respecting diversity.

I was not suggesting anything about you personally daphne as I do not know you and would not presume anything about individuals I have never met.
The point I was making was that particular use of language to describe people can have the impact of dehumanising groups. I feel that 'blacks' 'whites' etc fall into that category.
I am sure I have been unintentionally racist/offensive on occasions as we can all be careless/thoughtless sometimes. Most people try hard to be respectful, kind and caring to individuals. Those who automatically dislike/ are wary of a person/ group of people purely because of a difference in colour/creed etc are behaving in a racist way. That does not sound like you!

The Uk does not have a written constitution and until this has been decided on there will be nothing fixed to swear an oath on.
From a continental eye view of things I think the Uk laps everything up belonging to other cultures. Christmas markets, advent candles French/Indian/japanese eating culture, croissants for breakfast, shooting rockets on New Years Eve Instead of Auld Langs Ayne ( hope I've got the spelling right)
The list goes on. The only thing left which is really British is the sense of humour and the NHS. Perhaps you need the one to cope with the other.
Britsh Values for the refugees. What they need is proper support and there are only 333,000 of them in a country with 65 million inhabitants not even one percent of the population

Good post Margaret

It is difficult, though, to keep up with how people like to term themselves.
At one time 'coloured people' was the norm, then became really offensive and the term 'black' was preferred.
Now I hear Diane Abbott refer to 'people of colour' which is presumably the correct term.

No wonder some people, particularly 'the elderly' (which in fact is another non-homogenous group) get confused.