Why the moral panic?

Whitewavemark2

Lathyrus3

They integrated the tribes, mostly Southern tribes, who accepted and changed to embrace Roman culture.

The tribes that resisted either fled westwards or waged war and were wiped out as far as possible, with a number enslaved if useful.

Romans acted ruthlessly to those who opposed them and benignly to those who accepted conquest with little or no resistance. As a tactic of conquest it was very effective. Often it enabled them to take lands with a minimum of force.

The lesson was Do not resist

🙄. It doesn’t sound as though you have read much of Mary Beard.

I am just reading a non fiction book about this period of Roman occupation, you are quite correct.

Is anybody else finding this thread surreal? There’s about 3 at least sub threads going on so never quite sure what’s going on

Primrose53

Oreo

GrannyGravy13

Wyllow3 why commit a crime, of any sort when you are waiting to find out whether or not you can stay legally in that country?

Yes it’s pretty unbelievable behaviour isn’t it? Waiting to hear if you can live here but casually raping and assaulting or stealing must mean they either don’t care or are just vile individuals.

I was reminded tonight of the horrific murder of young Mum Rhiannon Skye Whyte. She was stabbed 23 times with a screwdriver by a Sudanese refugee who was staying at the hotel where she worked. Her sister was on TV tonight saying how they all missed her especially her young son. She was said to be very kind and would help anybody.

You would think that if you found refuge in another country you would do everything you possibly could to prove you were a respectable and decent person. Not murder a young Mum who was just leaving her workplace.

Yes you would think that Primrose but no worries, we should all be round the campfire together singing Kumbaya together!

Lathyrus3

They integrated the tribes, mostly Southern tribes, who accepted and changed to embrace Roman culture.

The tribes that resisted either fled westwards or waged war and were wiped out as far as possible, with a number enslaved if useful.

Romans acted ruthlessly to those who opposed them and benignly to those who accepted conquest with little or no resistance. As a tactic of conquest it was very effective. Often it enabled them to take lands with a minimum of force.

The lesson was Do not resist

🙄. It doesn’t sound as though you have read much of Mary Beard.

I watched a documentary on youtube about that murder.

Lathyrus3

MaizieD

Interesting analysis, Lathyrus. Is this 1,000 year period your specialist subject?

Yup.

One of them.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Oreo

GrannyGravy13

Wyllow3 why commit a crime, of any sort when you are waiting to find out whether or not you can stay legally in that country?

Yes it’s pretty unbelievable behaviour isn’t it? Waiting to hear if you can live here but casually raping and assaulting or stealing must mean they either don’t care or are just vile individuals.

I was reminded tonight of the horrific murder of young Mum Rhiannon Skye Whyte. She was stabbed 23 times with a screwdriver by a Sudanese refugee who was staying at the hotel where she worked. Her sister was on TV tonight saying how they all missed her especially her young son. She was said to be very kind and would help anybody.

You would think that if you found refuge in another country you would do everything you possibly could to prove you were a respectable and decent person. Not murder a young Mum who was just leaving her workplace.

You misrepresented what happened in your first post Lathyrus. It was far too broad and inaccurate a statement. It was more akin to a benevolent dictatorship. British men became Roman soldiers, the vast majority of soldiers in the UK when the invasion first happened were from northern Europe, not from Italy. It benefitted the still tribal UK in so many ways. Different ways of looking at history.

They integrated the tribes, mostly Southern tribes, who accepted and changed to embrace Roman culture.

The tribes that resisted either fled westwards or waged war and were wiped out as far as possible, with a number enslaved if useful.

Romans acted ruthlessly to those who opposed them and benignly to those who accepted conquest with little or no resistance. As a tactic of conquest it was very effective. Often it enabled them to take lands with a minimum of force.

The lesson was Do not resist

Lathyrus3

Hmm.

Romans destroyed the indigenous civilisations of Britain and imposed their own social rule, with themselves as the privileged. Boudicca revolt was finally sparked by their entitled rape and murder within her tribe.

Anglo Saxons to some extent entered an abandoned land. They established themselves as the chief heir archly and enthralled the remain indigenous people.

Vikings raided for many years before settling mainly in the North. They were held there by fierce fighting in a country riven by war.

Normans, like Romans before them, completely destroyed the social structures of both Anglo Saxon and Viking civilisation. They took possession of all land and people and enslaved them in serfdom.

I don’t find your examples encouraging 🙄

Hmm. You have misrepresented the Romans - they didn’t destroy the indigenous populations of Britain. They did heavily impose their own social, political, and military rule over them. Importantly, the Romans integrated local tribal elites, transforming existing societies into a blended Roman/British culture. They also brought huge benefits, as this Monty Python sketch reminds us.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

Lathyrus3 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

DaisyAnneReturns

Lathyrus3

Hmm.

Romans destroyed the indigenous civilisations of Britain and imposed their own social rule, with themselves as the privileged. Boudicca revolt was finally sparked by their entitled rape and murder within her tribe.

Anglo Saxons to some extent entered an abandoned land. They established themselves as the chief heir archly and enthralled the remain indigenous people.

Vikings raided for many years before settling mainly in the North. They were held there by fierce fighting in a country riven by war.

Normans, like Romans before them, completely destroyed the social structures of both Anglo Saxon and Viking civilisation. They took possession of all land and people and enslaved them in serfdom.

I don’t find your examples encouraging 🙄

If you only look at the world from extreme negativity you won't be able to find much "encouraging".

These are really bad examples to use if you want to convince people that immigration is benign or even advantageous.

All of these were characterised by violence and the oppression (and enslavery) of the existing inhabitants.

The Harrying of the North was one of the worst massacres in history.
British tribes who resisted the Roman were all but wiped out
Vikings were only prevented from taking the whole country by the establishment of the Danelaw after fierce fighting.

Why anybody thought to bring this 1000 years of bloodshed, war and oppression into the equation as a positive, beats me🤔

And the police seek to enforce the law regarding any crime committed in high streets whether committed by asylum seekers or the indigenous population.

Tolerance does not increase or decrease crime by asylum seekers or the indigenous population. As DAR asks why do rich
and powerful people commit crime- not because the UK is "tolerant".

Monica I m not doing a quote thing as it was a long post to repeat but I agree with you totally I always imagine my grandsons and how I d give the world if they were living in a poor environment with no future or no jobs or in a war zone or in a refugee camp or a barren land I d give the world to give them a chance for a better life

Why is it that when Britain (and other European countries) took every damn country we could sail to, treating the native inhabitants like shxt we were heroes !!!
Double standards just a bit

That’s what tolerance gets you.

Our high streets are becoming wastelands full of crime and iffy goods.

GrannyGravy13

Wyllow3 why commit a crime, of any sort when you are waiting to find out whether or not you can stay legally in that country?

Yes it’s pretty unbelievable behaviour isn’t it? Waiting to hear if you can live here but casually raping and assaulting or stealing must mean they either don’t care or are just vile individuals.

GrannyGravy13

Tuliptree I am well aware that crime happens 🤦‍♀️

I am also aware of local (to me) illegal workers as I explained upthread ⬆️

Are you alleging that the BBC has othered asylum seekers by revealing in their documentaries the extent of their illegal working practices and those who employ them?

I think most on here will be aware of all the crime and money laundering outfits that have infiltrated every city, town and even villages, but some have wishy washy over liberal views on Turkish barbershops, vape and nail bars mainly as they don’t live near them.If you live near the South Downs, Cotswolds or New Forest those money laundering outfits just won’t bother you.
For the rest of us… we see what’s happening.In some places you get running battles between the mainly Iraqi Kurds who run them and their competitors.Google it if you can’t believe it.
They’re all money laundering outfits not ‘hardworking people’.

Tuliptree who is judging an entire group of people on the actions of a few?

I am not, I asked a valid question regarding why some asylum seekers commit crimes whilst awaiting their case to be processed.

Lathyrus3

Hmm.

Romans destroyed the indigenous civilisations of Britain and imposed their own social rule, with themselves as the privileged. Boudicca revolt was finally sparked by their entitled rape and murder within her tribe.

Anglo Saxons to some extent entered an abandoned land. They established themselves as the chief heir archly and enthralled the remain indigenous people.

Vikings raided for many years before settling mainly in the North. They were held there by fierce fighting in a country riven by war.

Normans, like Romans before them, completely destroyed the social structures of both Anglo Saxon and Viking civilisation. They took possession of all land and people and enslaved them in serfdom.

I don’t find your examples encouraging 🙄

If you only look at the world from extreme negativity you won't be able to find much "encouraging".

GrannyGravy13

Wyllow3 why commit a crime, of any sort when you are waiting to find out whether or not you can stay legally in that country?

We could just as easily ask, 'Why do rich and powerful people commit crimes when they seemingly have everything to lose?' The answer is the same: some people commit crimes, most don't. That applies whether someone is wealthy, poor, awaiting an immigration decision, or anything else. A sensible discussion relies on evidence and crime statistics, not on judging entire groups by the actions of a few.

MaizieD

Interesting analysis, Lathyrus. Is this 1,000 year period your specialist subject?

Yup.

One of them.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no immigration or people are actually illegal unless 1) they’ve not registered for Asylum soon as they set foot here, or 2) those who are visa overstayers.

Visa overstayers are by far and away the hugest group of “illegal immigrants”

Happylady2025

I dont have an issue with legal immigration. I do have a massive problem with the ones arriving by boat with no documents, no way to id themselves, being housed in our communities and being allowed to walk freely amongst us, then claiming benefits and being housed. If they were truly in fear of their lives they would have settled in the first safe country they arrived in, not left their wives and children behind and not travelled thousands of miles to get to Britain.

Well said.
Legal immigration yes.
Illegal no.

Actually I think viewing crimes 'as a whole' tends to result in inadequate information, there are particular facets to specific crimes, it is important for example to discuss the specific crimes (and resaons for those crimes) that occurred within the Catholic Church, it is important to discuss knife crime in relation to young black men, it is important to discuss the specifics of grooming gangs, etc etc.