Royally big mistake: Queen's representative quits after offensive comments about Pakistani community

[Maira La]

As soon as i saw this ugly di*k head, i knew he must be Indian.

Honesty should never be penalised with a ban.

 

[Imtiaz_Sarwar]

Making controversial remarks about another race, country or ethnic community is not a wise thing to do. Especially when you have a position of responsibility like that of a "Darbari" to the royal family in UK. I guess the man did the honorable thing by resigning.

 

[Nilgiri]

Making controversial remarks about another race, country or ethnic community is not a wise thing to do. Especially when you have a position of responsibility like that of a "Darbari" to the royal family in UK. I guess the man did the honorable thing by resigning.

Thats basically it. You have to be extremely politically correct if you are in certain positions.

Does not mean in a certain context he is not completely wrong though as others have pointed out.

 

[Signalian]

It is easier to reach a good post but its harder to maintain it.

 

[Windows 10]

Standing for Mayor of London

Total egghead looking but current Culture Minister

So this stupid lowly guard is getting above his head. He's nothing compared to these 2 above.

There were other too in July 7 bombing.talk about them as well.

 

[ADIL SHERDIL]

Indian and their obsession with Pakistan tell us one thing. Indian dont deserve hate they all need medical help both psychological and psychiatric.

 

[My-Analogous]

...what he said is right..
But facts and truth is not appreciated...most of the time

Look who is saying

 

[litman]

look at the typical face of a "chuksar" saying to his master " sir jee main nay ap ka kutta nahla dia hay ab mari promotion ho jay ge na.?" indians always show their third class mentality no matter where they are. this pic clearly shows how few goras ruled the entire india for 100 years.

 

[Imtiaz_Sarwar]

Thats basically it. You have to be extremely politically correct if you are in certain positions..

Being politically correct is not easy. For ordinary people like us it does not matter but with someone in power in particular posts, it is a make or break thing.

Does not mean in a certain context he is not completely wrong though as others have pointed out.

You can always find faults in others. It is the most easiest thing to do in the world. The most difficult thing in the world is to correct yourself. I will never say we Pakistanis are perfect but neither is the rest of the world. We are all humans. So lets be good humans.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Interesting thread. Mathew 7: 3-5 I think.

 

[Anubis]

OK your definition is quite different from mine. Tell me next time you want to have a kumbayaa with the black neighbourhoods in Detroit and cherish their "cultural integration" first hand. Hopefully you come out in one piece.

If you want to be a total leftist and say integration has nothing to do with income, crime rate and genereal social stability...be my guest. You are welcome to live among the black ghettos for yourself, without any good basic amenities all because you want to prove how integrated you are. You bring up "bobble heads" and "accents" for Indian stereotyping....you want to know how many people stereotype the "integrated" black people you are harping on about? Just because they have a long cultural history due to their population size in many areas and length of time in the US....does not mean they are economically or socially integrated to any large degree compared to communities that have better education and disposable income but with certain "eccentricities". Cultural integration goes both ways....I don't see them practicing their original African tribal religions (all though some of their leaders have attempted to bring it back).



Ive looked at the figures. Indians intermarry with other groups a lot more than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK. The Indian interrmarriage prevalence is increasing over the years....whereas they are stagnant for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis....lets see if the trend continues over the years.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ttp://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_369571.pdf

But in the UK, white people are the least likely to marry outside their group, does that mean they are the least integrated? I know for a fact in Canada, 2nd generation Indians are something like 10 times as likely to marry outside their community compared to an immigrant born in India.....but the numbers are not as high for 2nd generation pakistanis and bangladeshis. Religion plays a role in this I suppose:

http://www.macleans.ca/society/ther...-mixed-unions-and-canada-is-leading-the-pack/



In the US, I couldn't even find any numbers for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis....only Indian Americans. Maybe you have some data?



Im talking when you seperate "South Asians" into Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis....your govt data clearly states Indians do better economically and educationally (actually they are closely related) compared to the other two.

This would definitely have some transfer effect on overall integration, no matter what some others are trying to attempt to say. Money, knowledge and not being in poverty go a long way in integrating into a country effectively.



I know of this problem as well, but I didn't think it was as high as 70%. Hopefully next generation will change for the better.

You mix poverty with racial and cultural integration....As I know first hand from living in a densely African american city and having to have commuted through ghettos regularly they are pretty normal people who just happen to be poor..unless you provoke them they won't do anything to you..that is true for every other group in America...if you go to Jewish neighborhoods here in NY and **** with they will beat you up to...No I wouldn't want to live in ghettos because they are POOR not less integrated...I wouldn't want to live in trailer parks with methhead white people either...I wouldn't want to live in the slums of Mumbai either...tell me do you think poor Indians(lets say Dalits) are less integrated than other Indians(unless of course your definition of Indian culture is only what rich Indians do)...Jews would fulfill all your integration criteria in pre WW2 Germany too(educated, successful, intermarried with Germans&participated in the political system) ...yet we saw that Germans did not expect them to be fully "integrate" and massacred them...the Holocaust is evidence that your definition of 'integration' doesn't work.

 

[HAIDER]

Gora chala gaee, slavery khatam nahi hoyi. Wonder why Brits love to visit India.

 

[Nilgiri]

You mix poverty with racial and cultural integration....As I know first hand from living in a densely African american city and having to have commuted through ghettos regularly they are pretty normal people who just happen to be poor..unless you provoke them they won't do anything to you..that is true for every other group in America...if you go to Jewish neighborhoods here in NY and **** with they will beat you up to...No I wouldn't want to live in ghettos because they are POOR not less integrated...I wouldn't want to live in trailer parks with methhead white people either...I wouldn't want to live in the slums of Mumbai either...tell me do you think poor Indians(lets say Dalits) are less integrated than other Indians(unless of course your definition of Indian culture is only what rich Indians do)...Jews would fulfill all your integration criteria in pre WW2 Germany too(educated, successful, intermarried with Germans&participated in the political system) ...yet we saw that Germans did not expect them to be fully "integrate" and massacred them...the Holocaust is evidence that your definition of 'integration' doesn't work.

A lot of the time poverty, income and education is a sign of integration overall...for relatively newer migrants in a country's history.

Yes certain other factors help cultural integration of communities that have been around in a country since their inception in modern guise and before....or just for a really long time. But I am talking about relatively recent arrivals only who dont have that sort of presence in history to form over time in the sense of cultural imprint on a country's fabric. In this case we only depend on social integration and cultural integration is ongoing (curry as Britains de facto national food, bollywood etc). So in this case I think we can only depend on metrics that serve as a standard for social progress. I mean just look at the tools the OECD and EU discuss to integrate ethnic minorities better into their mainfold:

http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/15516956.pdf

- Employment
- Education
- Housing
- Health

All things I am talking about and summarised in the paragraph:

The social and economic status of migrants and ethnic minorities is a major indicator of their overall integration into society, and of the degree of equality and cohesion in a given society. Socioeconomic integration can be measured by migrants’ equal and proportional participation and representation in employment, education, health and housing. Indicators which measure socio-economic positions according to their vertical distribution, i.e. income, qualification, job seniority, access to health care, quality of housing etc, place a stronger emphasis on equality, whereas indicators of horizontal distribution, e.g. labour market segmentation, proportion of migrants in particular schools or residential areas, highlight the factor of diversity.47 The usefulness of indicators for social and economic policymaking increases if they manage to capture the situation of different groups of migrants by differentiating data according to gender, race/ethnicity, nationality and religion.

Yes I would say the Dalits, many muslims, even many middle and upper class Hindus are less integrated into Indian society than the average mainstream....for all sorts of reasons. India is a very large and complicated country....but yes I would still use many of the same metrics to rate how integrated a community is within the larger society....because these are quite basic things (income, job security, housing, education, health etc). Cultural things you speak of come secondary always to me in the hierarchy of integration. I would rate a community having good socio-economic conditions as generally better integrated and stable than one that doesn't but has some notion of "cultural" influence to the country. To me socio-economics is always the bedrock that has to be stable....which culture can then be built upon. When you take it away or it isn't there to begin with, whats the use of having cultural footprint as your sole flag to wave as integration? That's exactly what you can ask the "poor" communities of the US and other countries. You think they can enjoy their jazz and soul and hip hop when they are desperately seeking their next meal on a hungry stomach? I have talked to a number of Black community leaders even here in Canada, I know what I am talking about....and I know how the community is seeking to overhaul its socio-economics over time. That is the only definite way to ensure strong robust integration at a fundamental level with the rest of the country.....so people simply have a basic dignity to start with.

And yes the German experience with the Jews goes to show integration even socio-economically and largely culturally too is not 100% foolproof when baser human emotions and environments are created. The KKK did not only target black people either too, they went after catholics very strongly too. Closer to home in TN, there was a huge reverse discrimination backlash against my community (Brahmins) for many years now....we have been shown the door in higher education access, access to govt jobs, participation in political process leading to many leaving the state and even country....and even some getting quite destitute by staying and trying to persevere. Never do I talk in absolutes about what socio-economic integration does, it can be reversed, the ease of which depends on the foundation's strength....but it is the foundation for a community nonetheless from which other types of integration build upon especially in todays modern day globalised world.

 

[somebozo]

look at the typical face of a "chuksar" saying to his master " sir jee main nay ap ka kutta nahla dia hay ab mari promotion ho jay ge na.?" indians always show their third class mentality no matter where they are. this pic clearly shows how few goras ruled the entire india for 100 years.

Indians will be automatically submissive when they see white skin..and that is the reason why Lebanese Syrian and Palestinian managers love them..

 

[Hamza913]

Well Indians are certainly doing a lot better than some.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...by-ethnicity-tax-years-19941995-to-20122013uk

http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml


So Indians in UK on average earn more than 50% of their Pakistani counterparts and are half as likely to be "low income".

But hey if you want to believe you are just as "integrated" as us...you are free to believe so....it will just confirm the education metrics of the UK ethnicities which one can find easily too

Posting one or two pictures and examples of "integrated" Pakistanis does not prove anything regarding the community as a whole.

Making more cash does not equal more integrated you f*ckhead.