I’m a devoted fan of Doctor Who, though my favourite Doctor will always be Tom Baker; I agree with the idea that the new Who wasn’t “gay” per se, it just introduced gay characters as being a normal part of life, both in the present and future. But that’s how it’s becoming in wider society anyway: so the question is, does Who influence society, or society influence Who, or is it a process of mutual reinforcement?

1 – thing is in some parts of society either through population sample or because people haven’t come out yet, the occurrence of homosexuality isn’t that common. I suspect those who see particularly note the homosexuality in Doctor Who are those who don’t know and haven’t known many homosexuals in their personal life. Personally I’ve never known many gay people so it does actually stick out to me although I don’t complain about it. I’ve always enjoyed Doctor Who, probably always will.

I am gay but I don’t watch Doctor Who. I don’t have a TV these days so I miss most things unless I pick them up on iPlayer.

I’m delighted to read that the series has positive scripts and rolls for gay or bisexual men. I wonder if the new series will have a lesbian female assistant for the Doctor, that would be good!

I do feel that positive rolls for LGBT people play an important part for LGBT people of all ages. The Dr Who I remember the best is the one played Tom Baker although I never knew Tom Baker was a gay man in real life.

I grew up in Northern Ireland where positive identities for LGBT people were very rare indeed. So television was an excellent place for such positive identities to appear.

I do remember very well the gay “Our Tune” on Simon Bates radio 1 show. I heard it as it went out and it was remarkable in that the story was about a gay relationship but was read just as if it were a heterosexual relationship. I think that was quite revolutionary to treat a gay relationship as if it were completely normal.

Not being a Doctor Who fan, I can’t comment on it’s representation of homosexuality or indeed the level of references to it. But I think your post gives us a clue about your own views – “the show isn’t promoting homosexuality…..It’s normalizing it”. From what I remember, Doctor Who promotes quite a lot of violence (I remember the dilak’s mission to exterminate)
I can never understand why we promote violence as being normal in children’s media but sex is still a taboo.- In the 19th century, writers such as the brothers Grimm, collected oral folk tales but they were too full of sexual references for the middle-class Victorian tastes (the sleeping beauty was not woken with a kiss) so all references to sex were editted out. We now uniformly promote infantacide, cannibalism and the occult along with quite extreme violence, and that’s just the fairy tales. Computer games have gone to a whole new level of creativity in how we can impose violence upon an opponent, Freddy Kreugor, eat your heart out.
It’s a pity that casual violence is considered suitable for children but an activity associated with close human relationships is not.

steveb – Doctor Who is probably the least violent hero in Science Fiction; it’s very rare that he solves things through physical violence, usually he outwits his opponents; the Daleks, who shout “exterminate, exterminate”, usually come a cropper due the Doctor out-thinking them. In that sense, the programme indicates that being a violent bully doesn’t pay.

Agree with OP; and @4 – Doctor Who (the charactor) hardly ever resorts to violence; indeed the show is notable for it’s criticism of those who do (I can’t remember the episode name but there’s one where the UK gov blow up an alien ship that is flying away – echoes of the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands – and Who gets v cross with them for it).

Looking forward to tonights, Moffat is a class storyteller!

I’ll never forget that immortal line from Tallulah, when she assumes the Doctor doesn’t fancy Martha because he’s “…into musical theatre.”

5 & 6
I’ll have to take your word that Doctor Who contains little violence because I don’t watch it, but my post made reference to children’s media generally with regard to sex and violence.
Doctor Who may not contain high levels of violence but when I visit my grandson, who is a Doctor Who fan, all I hear when he is playing with his friends is “exterminate”
Perhaps you could reply to the main thrust of my post (which isn’t OT) why is it okay to promote violence in children’s media but not sex and sexuality (as in Dorctor Who)?

@8

You said:

Doctor Who promotes quite a lot of violence

It actually doesn’t. Yeah, the Daleks (they of the “exterminate” catchphrase) are nasty villains, but that’s the point – they are cold, heartless, souless beings – it doesn’t stop them being fun to impersonate, while also knowing they are the “baddies” (like kids playing English & Nazis (well I used to anyway…)). You’re giving your grandson too little credit I think.

As for:

Perhaps you could reply to the main thrust of my post (which isn’t OT) why is it okay to promote violence in children’s media but not sex and sexuality (as in Dorctor Who)?

I’ve no answer really, I don’t think it’s ok at all to promote violence in children’s media but violence has been promoted in media in general since time began (Greek myths are full of it, the Old Testament has a pathological genocidal maniac in charge of human destiny…) so it’s worth futher investigation.

8 – perhaps because children are exposed to violence in real life (play-fighting at school etc) but not sexual activity?

“there’s nothing weird about fancying, shagging or marrying someone who happens to have the same genitals as you.”

No sorry, must disagree there, the thought of two or more people sharing the same set of genitals does lead my mind into a wayward spin.

9
You seem to take Doctor Who quite seriously, but when I refer to ‘Doctor Who’ I am referring to the programme rather than the individual character.
So if you take it seriously (I assume you’re not a child) then young children will take it seriously.
‘English and nazis’ is a game I’ve never heard of, what did you do to the nazis when you were ‘theEnglish’?
But my question is (still not answered), why is it ok to represent/promote violence in children’s media yet not sex or sexuality. Quoting the bible does not answer that question it just reinforces my view that violence is ok but sexuality is taboo for no rational reason.

10
Children also role-play and it’ usually involves the notion of couples eg mother/father, which is thought of as normal. They also live in the real world where being gay is normal for those who are gay. As the general media makes many reference to homosexuality and being gay is not illegal, there is no rational reason to censure this out of children’s media.

@12

Ah come on now, not that seriously… just pointing out an inconsistancy in your view

And loads of kids at my old school played war games. Y’know – pointing fingers, “bang bang you’re dead”, etc. No-one actually died… or even got hurt. These days it’s probably yanks’n'terrorists.

Maybe society fears sex more than violence? After all we see images of destruction on television every time the news is on, it’s unsurprising that kids computer games and shows are violent.

sexuality is taboo for no rational reason.

Yup.

14
There’s no inconsistency in my views, other than my opinion that the views expressed in the op about sex, and sexuality, in children’s media, are inconsistent.
I have never suggested that violence should be taken out of children’s media, you are right, it happens, but wouldn’t you also want your child to accept that being gay is part of the real world? We use children’s literature/media to introduce children to all sorts of social relationships and ideas, eg. bullying doesn’t pay.

I’m a big, big fan of Doctor Who – in fact I’m on a train heading towards my monthly Local Group meeting right now, and I was at another last week – and while the bigots might be very vociferous on the Internet the local groups are generally very ‘gay friendly’. In fact a lot of us bought this months Gay Times for the Doctor Who feature despite being straight.

The show’s very first director – Warris Hussein – is gay (and Indian), John Nathan-Turner, who produced the show in the 80′s was gay and the show has always had a huge gay following.

I have always enjoyed Dr Who but the self-righteous Political Correctness of it has always been a minor irritant – and with Russel T it became laughable at times. Thank God he’s gone and taken the awful Torchwood (Dr Who x Buffy with swears!) with him!
Not just the gay stuff but the blatant “anti-racism” such as making out that Elizabethan London was as multi-cultural as it is today when we all know that Good Queen Bess banned “blackamoors” from settling in England.

We live in a golden age of tolerant attitudes towards homosexuality which unfortunately will inevitably be challenged in coming decades.

Islamic and african attitudes towards homosexually will prevail in mid century as an inevitable result of mass immigration and variances in birth rates.

A prediction – i would expect that gay Britons will need to flee to north america to avoid persecution from the african/islamic majority.

#Why rub his sexuality in impressionable kids faces?#

#Why does he have to stick his big gay oar in?#

Never mind Dr Who…quality writing like this just demands a proper outlet…I’m guessing a Carry On revival can’t be too far away with material of this quality.

@15

Oh I agree with you. I just think you should watch Doctor Who before casting judgement

@18

Remind me, what was the culture/race/nationality of the homophobic Soho bomber David Copeland..?

@20
So? Do you think referring to one nut job works as effective rebuttal? You can do better than that.

Do you think attitudes to homosexuality will be more tolerant in a predominately african/islamic Britain?

‘A prediction – i would expect that gay Britons will need to flee to north america to avoid persecution from the african/islamic majority.’

I’m sure the Christian Right will welcome them with open arms.

@21

You’re making a couple of weird assumptions here

1) that “in coming decades” Britain will be “predominately african/islamic” (whatever that means – Africa is a huge continent y’know with lots of different cultures, and there are more different types of Islam than there are Catholic paedos). You give no source for this assumption therefore it’s filed under “scaremongering”.

aaand 2) that if this weird fantasy of yours comes to play then all the scary brown-faced different-god-worshiping people will be homophobic.

My point – as you ignored – was that there are already homegrown homophobes in this country. You make it sound as though immigration increases homophobia which simply is not the case.

Anyway. This is supposed to be a thread about Doctor Who ffs I’m out.

@22
Another lame response. N America is not the Christian Right and the Christian Right is not N America. They are only one facet of America that the european leftists love to hate. I am not aware that Christian Americans execute homosexuals – correct me if i am wrong?

Would anyone like to make a meaningful response to my post rather than these weak diversionary comments?

Dave N’s bigoted bile in a thread about Doctor Who shows perhaps that these people will go just about anywhere t spread their message of fear and loathing and as if on call, wayward shoehorns his pet peeve of immigration into the thread, just so he can expound his views again.

For Godsake wayward, fuck off, dropping your bigotry into a Doctor Who thread just because you can is very fucking tedious. And once and for all there will not be a African/Islamic Britain, you weak-chinned coward, frightened of imaginary racist shadows.

Excuse my French but this is getting beyond a joke.

wayward, you’re a vile troll, you duck the points made t you and perpetuate racist myths.

You are ignoring the fact that the US suffers from an is dominated by a Christian Right movement that has a serious problem with not only homosexuals but also other hot button issues like abortion and sex outside of marriage etc.

Take your racist shit elsewhere you bigot.

@26
Vile troll and racist bigot? – I think i have hit a nerve and your responses have stooped to childish name calling. In the light of the evidence I have drawn a perfectly valid conclusion.

You are denying the facts – homosexuals are persecuted in Africa and the Islamic world and if you import these cultures into the UK you don’t need to be Einstein to work out the inevitable consequences. Sorry if you don’t like to hear it but i think you should face up to it rather than just get angry.

27
Although your posts are OT, you deserve a reply to your last post. – You assume that large numbers of people from another culture are likely to change our (partial) liberal culture, so how do you account for the Japanese embracing a predominantly western lifestyle when they restrict immigration and make great efforts to maintain their own culture?
Whether it is a good or bad thing, liberalism and western ideas, practices and habits, are slowly moving across the globe, there is little doubt that the ‘global village’ is becoming a reality. Quantitiy is not the only factor, or else how would the British have imposed their own culture on India during the Raj?

@24 wayward

Hmmnn.. on the evidence, I’m not sure it is worth humouring you… but, hey someone needs to try and show you what a fantasist you are, sooooo…

“homosexuals are persecuted in Africa and the Islamic world ” – yes they are, and shame on them. Nobody is saying it’s perfect here, but it’s still better than in most of the USA, especially the fly over States.

@21 you state “Do you think attitudes to homosexuality will be more tolerant in a predominately african/islamic Britain?”. The obvious answer of course, and the one you are waiting for, is probably not.

However..where does this “predominantly africa//islamic” Britain you talk about come from? You’ve mentioned this before, but other than in the most fevered imaginings of UKIP or BNP campaign literature, where is your evidence?

@28
Thank you for your comment – by OT do you mean Over the Top? Not sure?

In response I would say that the Japanese have not “embraced western lifestyle” from afar it may appear so but this is only superficial – they remain a deeply conservative society.
Also western liberal attitudes perhaps once were spreading around the world but I would argue that this is on the wane. Western cultural influence is declining in many parts of the world. For example – democracy is in decline in south east asia due to the growing influence of China. Thailand is the perfect example where democracy is in grave danger. Also the influence of islam is far more dominant in many parts of the world.

I spent a year in India in 2007 and certainly didn’t find that the British had imposed their culture on the country? you find that more in the Christianised former Portuguese colonies such as Goa and Diu

@29
I thought the inevitable consequences of the variances in birth rates between communities in UK and Europe was common knowledge?

To quote Gaddafi “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

@31: that totally could happen.

For example, say the new Doctor gets into a bit of an emo strop the next time the Sontarans invade. Before he gets over himself and defeats it, they wipe out most of the existing population and institutions of the UK and Europe. The land the gets resettled by people form neighbouring regions.

Or maybe the Master could give some kind of Islamist fringe group supertechnology so they conquer the country.

As long as you are talking about TV science fiction, anything is possible.

@31 wayward

Ah yes.. Gadaffi, we’re all likely to give credence to anything he says of course. You “thinking” something is common knowledge doesn’t mean anything. I “think” instinctively that it’s a load of bollocks, and that the prospects of any country in Europe being overcome by the supposed tsunami of african/islamic/generally coffee coloured immigration, is laughable.

By all means, feel free to present some evidence to back your assertion up (preferably someone a tad more authoritative than Gadaffi or some right wing affiliate of UKIP).

So pointing out that Elizabeth I (very wisely) passed a law which banned “blackamoors” from settling in her realm is deemed to be “bigotted bile” which is spreading “a message of fear and loathing.” There was I just thinking I was pointing out some obvious Dr Who propaganda which twisted history for the sake of Political Correctness. What’s wrong, Daniel? Why are you so afraid of the truth?
You’ll be telling me next that the “Martha” actress got the job because she was a fantastic actress and not just because Russell T decided not only that it was high-time the Doctor had a black assistant but also the fact that she actually cannot act for toffee could therefore be overlooked. Tokenism, I think they call it.

A prediction – i would expect that gay Britons will need to flee to north america to avoid persecution from the african/islamic majority.

I thought you were in Japan wayward? Why are you worrying about what’s going on here? If you really cared about liberalism and equality surely you’d be campaigning for more womens rights in Japan?

But you know, a lot of us get the feeling you only come here to peddle your blatant prejudice, and when someone calls you out on it you start getting all precocious. The comments policy is quite straight-forward: you stick to the topic, and you don’t troll blogs with your prejudices. If you keep trying to hijack threads I’ll simply ban you, as I’ve done with others in the past. You’re welcome to go away to other blogs and scream about Muslims then.

‘Or maybe the Master could give some kind of Islamist fringe group supertechnology so they conquer the country’

Well, he used to have a beard. A literal one, not a metaphorical one. And Roger Delgado (the original Master) once played a Muslim in a play about Algeria. (Crossplot? Something like that: it’s an extra on the Jason King DVD).

Anyway, Britain has as much chance of becoming an Islamic republic as it has of electing ‘Respect’ – which is about as likely as monkeys flying out of my butt.

You know, of all the obscure nutjob sects I expected this post to attract, the dhimifaction brigade were not one of them.

“I have always enjoyed Dr Who but the self-righteous Political Correctness of it has always been a minor irritant – and with Russel T it became laughable at times. Thank God he’s gone and taken the awful Torchwood (Dr Who x Buffy with swears!) with him!”

Ahhh, that’s more like it.

@11 “No sorry, must disagree there, the thought of two or more people sharing the same set of genitals does lead my mind into a wayward spin.”

Aahhh, my siamese twin agenda reveals itself. Curses.

Hmm, I’m not sure I’ve met a single Liberal who has said that the overt agenda of Davies is “nonsense” or non-existent, only that it isn’t an issue and people should grow up and roll with the times. Why exactly is there a tarnishing of liberalism of all things in this article promoting (or normalising as you put it) the visibility of homosexuality in modern culture?

OT- quite liked Matt Davis which was surprising as Party People was utter shite but yeah, got potential. And Amelia is very pretty.

Well, that rocked like a hurricane, didn’t it?

I see that thanks to Steven Moffat, we’ve now got an OMG Scottish Agenda to deal with too, although maybe more of a hot ginger Scottish Agenda in a microskirt. Somehow, I suspect not even the loonies who think we’re about to be invaded by a billion Muslim supervillains will object too strongly to this one.

Amy Pond (grown up) is hot.

That is all.

Oh, and the episode was brilliant. The “we somehow managed to get zeroes everywhere in the world” bit was silliness on the scale of RTD, but I’ll let it pass.

“So pointing out that Elizabeth I (very wisely) passed a law which banned “blackamoors” from settling in her realm is deemed to be “bigotted bile” which is spreading “a message of fear and loathing.” There was I just thinking I was pointing out some obvious Dr Who propaganda which twisted history for the sake of Political Correctness.” – Dave N

The ‘very wisely’ is the giveaway here isn’t it Dave, you racist piece of shit?

Taking the discusion back to non-vermin, yes, I was also pleasantly surprised at Matt Smith. Had great foboding about the man but that was a a good performance in a good episode.

Oi Jonn – stop referring to it as a ‘kids’ show’ – I watch it quite happily and I am a kid no longer.

Loved the episode. Besides its normalization of homosexuality, which I applaud (but I enjoyed QAF as well), I love the fact that it features really independent female characters. I mean, yes, the star of the story is still a man, and the woman is still the sidekick, but small mercies.

Rose was astoundingly mature (and in an interracial relationship! Wahey). Martha was training to become a doctor. Donna rose above her relationships with men (her love for her granddad and her fiancé who screwed her over). Amy Pond is dating/possibly engaged to a guy who is a nurse (hello, adoption of traditional female gender role).

Conservatives like to go on about being ‘the silent majority,’ and you know, maybe they are – but it’s nice to have a show that not only acknowledges, but even celebrates, the existence of people who are ‘unconventional’ in their eyes.

I also love Dr Who – and agree with the post – i.e. I think there is (of course) some self-consciousness in the deployment of gay characters – but think that’s a positive move which reflects society and only is – or feels – self-conscious because gay characters are so often occluded, particularly from children’s shows as opposed to angsty soaps.

Dave N – there is plenty of research on the presence of Africans in 16th and 17th century England – there weren’t many of course but I would have thought the area near the Globe where the Doctor and Martha turned up would have been as likely a place as any to encounter one. I don’t suppose Elizabeth I would have felt the need to pass such a law if there wasn’t a ‘problem’.

I can’t believe Wayward’s started an argument in a Doctor Who thread, of all places. Even away from the actual political threads he can’t resist. I’m not being funny, he’s more trouble than he’s worth, and should be banned.

Regarding the Big Gay Doctor issue, two things come to mind:

1. One gay character calling himself pansexual does not a diverse galaxy make. I liked (loved!) Jack but all his character introduced was the non-camp gay male hero. Not a small thing of course, it’s brilliant for gay men to know that TV no longer thinks of them solely as mincing fairies who like clothes. Let’s do the same for everyone else in the LGBT spectrum before we congratulate one gay hack for causing a revolution.

2. The last few series of Doctor Who were shite, because Russell T. Davies can’t write to save his life, can’t tell when other people can’t write either, and doesn’t know what he’s doing in charge of a really good concept. Whatever ‘Gay Agenda’ RTD may have been pushing, we can’t escape the fact that every episode not handled by Moffat was a great campy mess with shit dialogue, pedestrian cameras, pathetic scares and a total lack of excitement. RTD’s weakness is writing stories so shit and characters so weak that gender orientation becomes a substitute for depth, rather than something taken for granted (as would ideally be).

I think Dr Who is a-sexual, although last night he did invite his new girle companion back to his tardis to cruise the galaxy – which is pretty orthodox hetero stuff.

Lasts nights was written by Moffat, who was also responsible for the poorer episodes of the tenant era, he’s just not a childrens’ writer

@ 13 As the general media makes many reference to homosexuality and being gay is not illegal, there is no rational reason to censure this out of children’s media.

The general media also make lots of references to limb removal by IED, genocide, child murder, torture and famine, so maybe Dr Who shoud have them as plot lines too ? Since when are childrens norms set by the media, rather than their parents ?

Gwyn – I think some of the recent Dr Who episodes have been overblown – too many special effects – but I *did* very much like the dystopian elements of ‘Turn Left’.

Matt Munro @ 47. You’re a madman! Moffat wrote “Are you my mummy”! That shit was bone chilling. I found last night’s monster pretty scary too, though I might be easier to scare than your average 8 year old.

Obviously the powerful male Doctor/weak female companion dynamic is old as the hills (and kind of unpleasant, if we’re honest) but RTD didn’t change that either. I’d like to see a female Doctor and a male companion, but Moffat isn’t exactly a moderniser (cf Coupling) so I’m not going to hold my breath.

48
Have you ever read fairy tales, if not, I think you might be surprised at the violent subject matter, and maybe you should look at computer games aimed at children.
And btw, it’s parents who read fairy tales to children (perhaps your’s didn’t) and it’s parents who purchase computer games for children.
It appears that you have little experience of children’s literature, perhaps you could start with Beatrix Potter, who utilized animals to teach children about life, including social relationships, and she does it in a wonderfully naturalistic way.

Looks like Tories aren’t big Dr Who fans:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/audio/2010/apr/03/chris-grayling-secret-tape

Typical Tories. Haven’t changed at all on gay rights.

@ 50 – That’s my point, he writes for adult viewers of DH, and it’s a kids programme. I have 2 kids, both fans, and they will watch their favourite episodes over and over (and over) again. I know the script to Daleks in Manhattan, backwards, but I’ve noticed they rarely request to re-watch any of the Moffat penned episodes.

I don’t have a problem with a powerfull Doctor (he is supposed to be a time lord FFS) and the “weak female” line doesn’t really wash, they are a long way from the simpering eye candy of the 1970s – although the new one is well fit, I have to admit, especially in that Police uniform.

I digress, I’m actually surprised that it hasn’t occured to the BBC to make the Doctor female, or black, or disabled, or perhaps all three at once ? A disabled lesbian jamaican Dr Who, perhaps with a camped up Peter Kay as her gay assistant would be a laugh ?

Gwyn@46: spot on but looks like he is no longer welcome round these parts.

I don’t like Doctor Who much since Russel T Davies took over. There are just too many boring episodes which end with ridiculous deus ex machina. I find John Barrowman very irritating as well. He’s like the bisexual RTD version of Jar Jar Binks. It is good having more “unconventional” (whatever that means) characters on mainstream TV, but I think it is even more effective if they arrive in a less contrived, more natural way.

I wonder if there will ever be a Dr Who episode where he travels back in time to the 1920′s Frankfurt in Germany.
I can see the story line now, Dr Who exposes the Marxists at the Frankfurt school and their plot to undermine German Society, they flee to America thus preventing the rise of Adolph Hitler saving the entire world from War.

Frankfurt Subversion
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml

Probably not I suppose seeing as they run the BBC Now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj_UEnUkXSw

Actually, I suppose if Dr Who did kick them out, WWII would have still happened, they were not too pleased at being kicked out.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/jewishwar.cfm

56
Or he could go back to circa 1890 and wipe-out the Christian Socialist Party in catholic Austria, where Hitler got his ideas.

56
And even engage in a bonfire party using all the copies of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’

Gwyn – I fully agree with you about last night’s ep. Doctor Who’s always ‘pleasantly chilling’ when it gets scary, which is actually qu. hard to do. I quite like scary stuff, but a lot of it now is just overblown, relentless gore, which doesn’t really do it for me. All about the psychological chillers! That is why so many people find Kubrick’s film of The Shining really scary (me included – I actually found the music more disturbing than some of the visuals!).

As I suspected, Moffatt also wrote ‘Blink’ which I think has to be one of the best scary single episodes I’ve seen. As long as he’s not taking tips from Matt Munro, I’m sure I’ll continue to enjoy his episodes. I don’t blame him too much for not ‘modernising’ heterosexual relationships on-screen as I think it’s something audiences (male and female) are still deeply resistant to, unfortunately.

sorry i thought it was a thread about attitudes to homosexuality and therefore my comment on changes in society and the threat they may pose to existing tolerant attitudes was appropriate. I don’t see any other threat greater than the one I identified in the comment.

Of course I don’t expect you to like my postings but if you had confidence in the strength of your arguments you surely would be able to make short work of them to the amusement of your peers.

I hoped to broaden the terms of reference of the debate whilst keeping the posts measured. However since you wish to remain within your comfortable self supporting and narrow range, I will leave you to it. I think it is pretty weak that anyone posting contrary views is banned.

As for being a “racist shit” etc I expect such ill tempered rantings. I have a Japanese wife and have lived in E Asia most my adult life. My views have been informed by my experiences in asia over many years.

@61 wayward

I think it has more to do with the fact that you keep making assertions and refusing to back them up, as you have done on a number of threads. Although you try your best to sound reasonable, people have to rely on the sub-text of your comments, as you consistently refuse to back them up with any evidence, such as your bigoted fanatasy that we’re all going to be swamped by the african/islamic hordes.

Bigotry and scare-mongering remain unacceptable however measured the tone they are delivered in. Sunny @35 is quite right to warn you off, not because he’s trying to stifle debate, but because you’re being a troll.

I FOUND VERY FEW HOMOSEXUAL REFERENCES IN DR. WHO. ARE YOU SURE YOU DIDNT MEAN TORCHWOOD ? NOW THERE’S A TV SHOW THAT REEKS OF HOMOSEXUAL REFERENCES AND ACTS.

@ 62
Just about to log off but have to respond to your obnoxious posting and not sure what a “troll” is? another silly childish insult.

You refer to my “scaremongering” – so you accept that change in culture to a predominately islamic/african culture in the UK would be a negative development or why else would my reference to this possibility be regarded as “scaremongering”?

Now we have established that we agree this culture change would be negative you should consider this -

- 4 billion desperately poor and hungry people in cruel world
- small wealthy island of c60m naive and fair minded people
- illconceived relaxed policy on immigration and citizenship in small wealthy island

Result – small wealthy island swamped.

Of course we don’t have crystal balls so who knows what the ultimate consequence of your extraordinary experiment in social engineering will be but the first indications are not great.

One last comment – most comments on this website are pathetically naive and unworldly.

@64

“Troll” is well-established internet-speak for someone who willfully hijacks forums and comment threads for their own soapbox purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

You have no evidence whatsoever that Blighty is going to be “swamped” by Islamic or African culture (which, by the by, you’ve still not defined) therefore everyone treats your comments with the contempt they deserve.

Merry Easter.

@64 wayward

If only you’d log-off and not come back. My posting isn’t anything like as obnoxious as either your views, or your consistant failure to come up with any evidence or back up for your odious views. As Mr S. Phil says @65, “troll” is hardly a “novel” term.. and given your views, you really ought to be used to it by now, I’m sure.

As to (what no doubt passes in your own mind) your arguments:

I don’t accept that a change in culture woud be negative, but then of course the “change” you refer to is a straw man which isn’t going to happen. It’s a fantasy, as likely to happen as the ethnically pure WASP England so many on the blimpish right so earnestly crave. Your reference is scaremongering because it’s pandering to the trumped up fear peddled by bigots and racists that immigration poses a “threat”, and will result in Sharia law/enforced burkhas/the requirement to sport dreadlocks (delete as applicable to your nutty fantasy).

The rest of your isn’t worth dinifying with a response.. it’s just risible.

Re: Blanco @ 52

Weird thing about that is that he’s so obsessed with gays. He’s basically only saying that hotels should be standardised compared to home-run B&Bs, but he’s reached for gay people to illustrate his point. It could have been homophobia, or it could have been an observation that homophobia exists.

I’m not willing to jump in and condemn them on such shaky ground, frankly. He’s guilty of being an ignorant, privileged, rich white guy, but not immediately of being a gay-basher. IMO, obviously.

@ 65 and 66

Since you have made responses allow me to do likewise..

my position as i have maintained throughout mirrors the Japanese policy to citizenship and immigration and the policy of many other advanced democracies outside the liberal west.

It follows that you despise the people of Japan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia etc as much as you demise me. It follows that they equally are vile bigots etc etc.

You should reflect on why it is that someone advocating the position of these advanced democracies has been so pilloried and subjected to abuse. I suggest it exposes your position as immoderate and not quite the unique high ground you believe it to be. This is more than a little patronising to the people of east asia. It is evident that in your view only the western liberal elite have the acceptable and moral position.

Go away, you’re not wanted here.

[deleted and banned]

@68 wayward

It’s obviously too much for you to answer the question you have been repeatedly asked, or provide the evidence for your theories. One can only assume this is because there IS no such evidence. We’re still waiting.

Your fixation with how everything would be rosy if only we’d follow the example of the Japanese and S. Koeans, is becoming tiresome. I don’t accept that their experiences are relevant to our situation, not do I think they are are as postive for their own countries as you claim.

I don’t despise the people of the countries you mention, anymore than I despise you. I despise your views, but you are more to be pitied than hated. Altho you try hard to cloak your fairly disturbing views, your inability to come up with evidence for your repeated assertions, and your continual obfuscation, give the lie to your “trollish” tendencies on this and other threads.

That’s why Sunny has threatened to ban you, and others have reacted so negatively to your posts – not becuause we’re the immoderate ones, or becuase we feel we uniquely have the high ground about this or any other position.

You state that I believe “only the western liberal elite have the acceptable and moral position” – not so. (What makes you assume I represent or even particularly approve of the elite you so blithely ascribe me to anyay?!) You have no evidence for it, because it isn’t true. Restricting the discussion to this particular issue for the present, if I thought the E. Asian experience or approach were relevant, or superior, I’d happily say so. It isn’t, and you haven’t convinced anyone else here of your case.

@71 -Galen10
Your post is thoughtful and deserves a response.

However I am not sure what question you are awaiting an answer for? Is it the point that variances in birth rates and mass migration trends will inevitably result in islamic/african culture becoming the dominant culture in the UK? When you take the birth rates (Pakistani and Bangladeshi community birth rate is 3 times that of first nationer birth rate) the maths is elemental but since you want additional supporting evidence..

To quote Tim Savage, division chief at the State Department’s Office of European Analysis ” Europe’s Muslim population is expected to double over the coming decades, while its non-Muslim population is projected to fall by at least 3.5 per cent… by mid-century Muslims might outnumber non-Muslims not only in France, but throughout Western Europe”

No doubt this statistician’s view will be dismissed since it does not fit with your entrenched position or perhaps the US state department have an agenda?

Anyway back to my principal point which I evangelise – I am not surprised that you find my references to the policy of the Japanese and Koreans etc tiresome since this exposes your position as extreme. The liberal elite have been very succesful in convincing the docile masses that mass immigration and multiculturalism is inevitable in modern society but this is a LIE. It is a deliberate policy and very much at odds with the policy of many other advanced democracies.

This is simply a FACT and will be recognised by free thinking and intelligent readers as a valid point which you have failed woefully to rebutt. Free thinking readers will also recognise the nauseating attacks on me for what they are.

I will soon enough stop making posts (brainless posters such as Daniel will be pleased to learn) but not because I have been “warned off” but because it is wearing to be told I am a vile bigot etc by people I suspect are spotty 19 year old students who probably have never even been to Asia. My experiences in east asia over 20 years have informed my views – not a political science text book.

I do wonder why the Japanese do not come in for criticism for adopting these strict immigration and citizenship policies? You demand I answer questions – why don’t you tell me why I am called a vile bigot for advocating these same policies? Explain if you would….

Heads up to the mods – @70 is clearly anti-Semitic (DHG is Jewish) and breaks the house rules, surely?

Er hello, where are the mods? We have anti-semitic abuse in this thread, and homophobic comments across three threads! I know it’s Easter and all, but please actually stick to the comments policy when you put up a number of controversy-inviting threads…

The right really has been infested with a kind of mental illness when it comes to sexuality.

Nothing sends them quite so mad as the fear of the gay.

@72 wayward

Long post..so paragraph at a thime eh?

Paras 1 & 2

The question was about evidenc for your repeated assertion on the “inevitably result in islamic/african culture becoming the dominant culture in the UK”. You hadn’t established that there was any real evidence for this, and still haven’t. You can’t say whether birth rates in immigrant communities will continue at the same rate, the chances are overwhelmingly against them staying. Even if they did however, how long would it take for the non-immigrant majority to become a minority? And does it matter? The answer of course, is that it does matter if you’ve made a value judgement that an ethnically pure (white) Britain is better.

You are right, I don’t find one source a convincing argument, and whilst the fact it’s from the US state Department doesn’t automatically make it suspect, I wouldn’t necessarily see it as authoritative either. The other aspect of course, is that even if the immigrant community does become a larger proportion, who says it will, ipso facto lead to islamic/african cuture becoming dominant? That doesn’t follow. What about non african and non-muslim imigration; what about those who integrate, inter-marry.

You haven’t demonstrated that any of your fevered imaginings have any basis, which leads to the conclusion (not entirely unreasonable given the tenor of your posts), that you are either a troll, or at least a fellow-traveller of the extreme right.

@ 72 wayard (contd.)

Paras 5 & 6

My position is hardly extreme. I’m tired of your Japanese analogy, because it isn’t germane. So what, you’re married to a Japanese woman and have lived in E Asia,big deal. It doesn’t mean that all would be rosy if we had followed their example. as I stated before, the Japanese have their own issues: I doubt if many of the imported workers from Korea and SE Asia there feel their system is that great, or the “untouchables” in the Japanese version of the caste system.

Japanese racism has a long history, and I’m not sure whether their quest for ethinc purity at home by resisting immigration is all that much better than their treatment of the Chinese and others when they tried to contruct their Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere before and during WW2.

I’ve never said mass immigration was inevitable, and I don’t think the “liberal elite” you talk so much about has said it either.

You make continual assertions and vlaue judgements that multiculturalism and mass immigration is a mistake, and that it’s been a bad idea. Again, the sub-text is that you feel some ethnically pure “volksgemeinschaft” would be preferable and desireable. Not to me. Not to many others. It is your manichean “alternative” of either ethnic purity OR african/islamic domination which is the lie. There IS no conspiracy by the liberal leftie elite. Remember, the voices in your head may not actually be real.

74
Agreed Why is the arian person on 56 & 57 still showing on this thread?

I thought he was being ironic. On reading again, maybe not.

I checked the IP address at my place and it was definitely Dan Dare who left the comment at mine. The above is similar in tone and almost the same in content so I think its safe to assume you’ve pushes him over the edge.

I must say I like your method for dealing with racists on the internet. Highly amusing.

Dan Dare’s anti-semitic comment has been deleted and he’s henceforth banned from this site from posting comments.

Censorship! Fascists! You call yourself a liberal Sunny.. blah blah blah.

Good call.

*Studies debate and closes eyes tightly* Not getting involved, not getting involved…

I love Doctor Who and Torchwood for their gay friendliness. I came out as bi in 2006ish, back when I was drooling over Jack and Ianto in Torchwood and squeeing at the fact that they were together and <3.
Then in 2009 I had the fun revelation of "whoa shit, Barrowman's naked on screen and I just want him to put his clothes on", and realised that I didn't fancy either of them any more, or any other men for that matter.
See, Doctor Who has been very educational.

Torchwood has also been extremely hurtful, and I could go on about the reasons I detest RTD, btu I won't, unless someone really wants me to. Suffice to say, I think we're better off with the Moff.

The fact that Matt is absolutely brilliant and I've been excited about seeing his Doctor since he was unveiled, and the fact that Karen's legs are… yeah… *focus*. I'm a happy camper at the moment