Should the BBC be doing this?

My reference to my BIL was to refute your fatuous suggestion of “racism” as I said, where you are born is irrelevant.
BIL also studied in the U.K., taught in a U.K. university and went abroad in his mid-late thirties.
It is the expat attitude I have noted.
Can we leave it there though and get back to the point?
I still dispute any connection between Powell and Farage though, who would have been a mere political pip squeak and wet behind the ears in the early-mid Nineties.

Well, UKIP was formed in 1993
Enoch Powell would have been about 81 then and died about 5 years later after being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 1992.

He may have been approached by a fledging UKIP party but he refused to join them although he endorsed some candidates in elections.

However, being anti-European Union does not mean a person is racist.

I think "sad to say" That the river of blood speech has already started. The polite society choose to look the other way. Brush it all under the carpet. In London Manchester and other large cities the fighting between young people of different nations goes on every night. There are many, many no go areas. This is En gland "The land of hope and glory.

This has always happened though - the boys from the town 'up the road' coming on a Saturday night spoiling for a fight, the boys from one end of town fighting if there is no-one from another town to unite them; it has been thus for many years across the country and not just in England.

I remember the speech and the discussions within my family about it. I understand the hesitation some feel about giving the dreadful content further publicity but, we need to learn from our history.
As someone said earlier, the immigrants Powell refers to were from places that had been part of the British Empire. It's my belief the country would benefit from current debates about the way the Empire grew, it's legacy and ongoing impact on our way of life.
Despite stresses and tensions, we do live in a less overtly racist country than was the case 50 years ago.
ladyjayne10 are you suggesting that Powell was right when you say 'the rivers of blood' already exist given fights between 'young people of different nations' every night.
They don't in my town, where we have many people of different nations. As Jalima1108 said, young men (in particular) have always liked a scrap. In my early teens it was mods n rockers, or boys from our school marching up to confront boys at the school a mile away.
I'd say yes, play the speech or at least discuss it as we're doing. I bet my adult children will be astounded that an MP could say things like that in my lifetime.

The racism and xenophobia he details are still here, 50 years later. - and is this not what Powell foresaw? Was he right?^

But it's more of an undercurrent now (or was) Jalima. He was foreseeing escalation, not diminution.

He was making the speech in opposition to the proposed Race Relations Act. Thank goodness he had few allies in parliament.

As to 'rivers of blood' happening now, it's not so long ago that where I live the lads from one village would go off to beat up (if they could) the lads from the next village on a weekend night. All white British boys...

Well, if some of the remarks on Gransnet are anything to go by, the proposal to air this speech in full does appear to give rein to some pretty unpleasant sentiments.

Interesting that jura was accused of having a "chip on her shoulder" because she objected to the implication that, not being born in the UK (even though she has lived here for many, many years), she was not really qualified to comment meaningfully on this issue. "Chips on the shoulder" often come into play when those of a different colour or country of origin take issue with the way they are spoken to, or about.

I have read the whole speech and think it is vile and disgusting. As far as possible I think censorship should be avoided but, the more I think about it, what exactly is the purpose of broadcasting such an unpleasant, divisive speech in its entirety? This sort of coverage is generally reserved for speeches that are inspiring, uplifting and uniting - not ones that reinforce, and almost justify, hatred and division. Some say the point is to show how awful his views were and how far we have come since then (though I'm not sure we've come as far as many people think we have). I don't find that a particularly convincing argument.

There is no doubt in my mind that the speech is racist and Powell knew the sort of impact it would have. Powell quoted the "decent fellow Englishman" who told him that all he wanted was for his three children to settle in another country because "the black man will have the whip hand over the white man". And yet most of these people (including my husband) were invited to come to the UK to fill all the jobs that people in Britain preferred not to do.

Ladyjane says that the rivers of blood have already started, that it's all being brushed under the carpet. This appears to give credence to what Powell said. She goes on to talk about the violence occurring in London (where I live) and other cities and says that there are "no go areas". I think that that is an exaggeration and I also take issue with the implication that cities' multi-ethnic populations are the root cause of violence.

A few miles up the road from where we live is a quite expensive and almost exclusively white town. It is quite a pleasant, leafy area with a good selection of shops on the high street and, on the surface, seems rather nice. It's the sort of place that some Londoners, uncomfortable with its multi-cultural population, aspire to move to. And yet it too has its drunken fights and violence in the evenings, as does Colchester, even further out of London and another town with a predominantly white population.

Many people on here have been very vocal in denouncing anti-semitism and yet seem perfectly comfortable with coverage being given to Powell's speech, even going so far as to suggest that his views were, and continue to be, misunderstood.

It’s a fine line between giving the oxygen of publicity to views we may abhor and basing an opinion only on the “edited” soundbites which are all the average person may know.
I still think full knowledge is the best foundation for opinion and we should not shy away from reading (or in this case hearing ) the full story, not the bowdlerised version.
Apologies if you thought the “chip on the shoulder” comment was a reflection on my opinion of where someone was born having anything to do with their eligibility to comment. It was not meant that way and I am sorry it came out like that.

Excellent post, Eloethan

I also think that full knowledge is the best basis for opinion. I think the proposed airing and dissecting of the speech could be fascinating.

ladyjane has a point. I'll just mention Rotherham, Oxford, Telford with respect to that. There are serious cultural clashes going on as we speak and they have been brushed under the carpet.

I think it was clashes of cultural expectations that Powell was referring to as possible future problems. He speaks of the earlier, smaller waves of immigrants from the British Empire and Commonwealth as having integrated well. He makes the point that slow, small waves of immigration are acceptable because then in the natural course of things, people will integrate fairly easily. The numerical intensity of an immigration wave makes a difference, he says: "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."

Whether one thinks Powell was the worst kind of racist bigot himself, statements like the one I quoted are not the ones that show him to be.

If a largish group of, say, British people decide to go and live all together in a foreign country there is less likelihood that they will integrate well with the culture they are entering simply because there will be less need for them to do so. For instance, I have heard there are ex-pat enclaves in Spain where many of the Brits there haven't bothered to learn to speak Spanish.

I think trying to learn the language of the country one finds oneself in is simply polite. It's also useful for helping you to manage whatever life throws at you in your new environment. Our government certainly should help immigrants learn English if they haven't already.

"an alien element"- charming.

Whats striking me as I read on here bits of the speech is how archaic it sounds after only 50 years, who now would say "decent fellow Englishman" or "an alien element" sounds very pompous to me.

He speaks of the earlier, smaller waves of immigrants from the British Empire and Commonwealth as having integrated well.

Well, that's a classic trope, isn't it? We don't like foreigners in general but in this particular case you're OK... we're not really talking about you, it's the other ones we're worried about.

Don't forget, he had a classics education and one of the key elements of that is the art of making utterly persuasive speeches.

Well, that's a classic trope, isn't it? We don't like foreigners in general but in this particular case you're OK... we're not really talking about you, it's the other ones we're worried about.

This seems to be based on the assumed premise that Powell didn't like foreigners. Could you provide some evidence for that? Quotations from his speeches or writings.

People seem to get upset by the word "alien". All it means in this context is non-natives. My brother had "resident alien" stamped on his British passport for twenty-five years until he decided to become a US citizen.

There is nothing intrinsically negative about that use of "alien".

Oh blimey, Baggs. when politician makes a speech they don'y have to believe what they are saying. It's rhetoric. It's put in deliberately to wind people up or to, as in this case, reassure a group that it's not them who is being referred to.

It's interesting to see how effective his rhetorical skills are 50 years later. They've got lots of you nodding your heads and saying 'Well, he has got a point...' Which is exactly what he was aiming for...

Being concerned about the number of foreigners/aliens from quite different cultures coming to live in one's country is not intrinsically racist.

^Oh blimey, Baggs. when politician makes a speech they don'y have to believe what they are saying. It's rhetoric. It's put in deliberately to wind people up or to, as in this case, reassure a group that it's not them who is being referred to.

It's interesting to see how effective his rhetorical skills are 50 years later. They've got lots of you nodding your heads and saying 'Well, he has got a point...' Which is exactly what he was aiming for...^

Apart from cynicism (I thought I was cynical about politicians till I read that), what is wrong with any of this? Of course he was aiming to make a point! Aiming to make a point doesn't automatically invalidate the point.

First two paras should be italicised.

It's about time people stopped bandying the word racist about and accept that within everyone of us there is the instinct to rail against the 'different' it is a protectionist instinct and is expressed to greater or lesser degrees by different people. If we were still living the 'pack' existence we would be relying on those who displayed this instinct to protect us and our offspring. Don't imagine it is just white Brits who show these traits, it is global, and don't forget that the vast majority of residents of the U.K. are here as economic migrants.

Aiming to make a point doesn't automatically invalidate the point.

You were asking me to justify my critique of a portion of the speech by giving evidence from his other writings. I pointed out to you that he was a classically trained orator who didn't actually have to believe what he was saying. Also that his rhetorical skills were working on many of you. Nothing to do with whether or not his 'point' was valid.

And in the particular instance that I quoted I have heard similar things being said in all sorts of situations for so many years that it now just sounds to me like a pathetic attempt to whitewash racism ...

Thank you for your gracious aoplogy MawBroon- none was required at all, but thank you. I did have to laugh this morning as we were discussing another issue with 2 neighbours, who have never lived abroad. One of them said 'yeah but i'ts different for you- you are not really Swiss- as you have lived abroad so long and got British nationality too'. All very friendly and sincerely said. So I am probably an alien ;) ?

Great posts Eloethan and Maizie. Strange to say how well the West Indian community has settled in and integrated (loved the Queen Mum and her OAP West Indian neighbour in 'The Queen and I' - who was much more of a Royalist than the QM- fabulous). They were of course INVITED- begged even, to come and help us recover after the war. And no, they didn't all and always feel welcome. And now, their children, OAPs and having lived all their life in UK- are finding that because their parents didn't register them properly- they are now considered illegal and threatened with repatriation- to a home they don't know. This is appalling in the extreme.

My OH was 2 when his parents came to UK to run away from Apartheid, and to be able to stay together- as they were classed into different mixed racial groups (even though they are all white, and you would never know) and it would have been illegal and a crime to do so. His father's father was British born and bred- and that gave them the right to come. He had however married a Cape Malay (of Indonesian slave origin).

When OH went to get paper to get married, aged 24- he was told 'but you are not British- but South African' - as his parents had not registered him officially with Somerset House. It was very fast to get naturalisation- but it was a massive shock. Had he not found out then- he could be in a position where he is now asked to leave, to go back to SA- where he has only visited twice in his life, both times int he last 10 years.

Good point, joelsnan.

I found this tweet interesting too. Tom Slater: "The same people who say Britain never reckons with its past are now saying we cannot air Powell's speech. They don't even trust the public to learn about Britain's history without wanting to repeat it."

@TomSlater debating Dan Hodges on BBC Radio 2 yesterday

You can listen here

So I am probably an alien


I think we all are if we research enough!