Monday, February 07, 2005
"Why I hate Aaronovitch" (Pt. IV, Annexe B)
He is the only ostensibly political columnist who is paid to write about what he's seen on TV or at the cinema. Yeah, okay, I write about what happens to be on TV while I'm sat here, but it's not my job. Why the fuck doesn't he call the game off and write for Heat or something?
OTT O'BEAT
Comments:
<< Home
I've disliked David Aaronavitch for a while, labelling him 'Britain's foremost idiot' etc..
This is because he is a condescending theocrat. But actually his recent column is not so bad, attacking the immigration hoo-ha: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1408007,00.html
"No points system on earth would have let my grandparents into Britain a century or so ago. Forget Einstein and Sir Isaiah Berlin, my lot landed in London thinking they were in New York, they couldn't speak English, were unskilled, illiterate and (in the case of my grandmother) a little bit insane. They almost certainly would have registered a minus at Customs. But they became part of dynamic Britain. Like the Turkish shopkeeper round the corner, whose English is not brilliant, who totalled his van and six months' profit a fortnight ago, and who crawled out of the wreckage to start all over again..
"It's often said, and it's a cliche but nevertheless true, that what makes London so different - has always made it different - from some other parts of the country is the dynamism created by its immigrants. Why should the capital lose out because the rest of Britain is so crabbed and provincial in its attitude towards newcomers?"
On this point: of course we dont want anyone coming here to skive. However, if skiving were the problem, it would be the natives who'd get kicked out.
Immigrants make up a higher proportion of the work-force than the social security bill. My brother once had a job organising work parties for the long-term unemployed. Everyone he ever dealt with was a native white male.
This is because he is a condescending theocrat. But actually his recent column is not so bad, attacking the immigration hoo-ha: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1408007,00.html
"No points system on earth would have let my grandparents into Britain a century or so ago. Forget Einstein and Sir Isaiah Berlin, my lot landed in London thinking they were in New York, they couldn't speak English, were unskilled, illiterate and (in the case of my grandmother) a little bit insane. They almost certainly would have registered a minus at Customs. But they became part of dynamic Britain. Like the Turkish shopkeeper round the corner, whose English is not brilliant, who totalled his van and six months' profit a fortnight ago, and who crawled out of the wreckage to start all over again..
"It's often said, and it's a cliche but nevertheless true, that what makes London so different - has always made it different - from some other parts of the country is the dynamism created by its immigrants. Why should the capital lose out because the rest of Britain is so crabbed and provincial in its attitude towards newcomers?"
On this point: of course we dont want anyone coming here to skive. However, if skiving were the problem, it would be the natives who'd get kicked out.
Immigrants make up a higher proportion of the work-force than the social security bill. My brother once had a job organising work parties for the long-term unemployed. Everyone he ever dealt with was a native white male.
I quite agree with him on quite a few things; but I lose all patience once he starts trying to pass off the most mundane, predictable opinion pieces--often lavishly illustrated by examples from docu-soaps--as sturdy outposts of common sense, bravely facing down the lunacy of right and left. So, I suppose I don't hate him as much as I claim.
Post a Comment
<< Home
