He was correct to warn of the consequences of mixing different creeds, cultures, ethnicities etc. It is now deemed politically incorrect to acknowledge he was correct.

What his motives were, I don't know.

It is of note that it is the current Multicultural Labour Party that is imploding around racial hatred issues. Which is sad. It is better to acknowledge a problem than pretend it doesn't exist.

Dung, the radicalisation of Moslems has not been caused by UK issues, but has been allowed to be cultivated in the UK , for fear of accusations of Political Incorrectness. The liberal culture of the UK and Europe makes it very difficult to stop an individual travelling to Syria, if they have not broken any Laws, no matter which of the many sides they choose to fight for.

I was first aware of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech following the Broadwater Farm riot and murder in 1985, when I was at University, which closely followed the Miner's strike. The National Front did quite well out of that.

Across Europe there is now a backlash of nationalism. In the UK, UKIP is attracting support from the disaffected of the left and right. The media, establishment, and established parties are keen to draw attention to the more extreme characters of UKIP, but have actually caused/created the conditions for UKIP to flourish. The majority white anglo saxons are being discriminated against, to avoid upsetting the minorities. It is only through the quirks of the UK electoral system that UKIP did not return a dozen (?) MP's.

I am now in favour of Brexit. Those who are pro-Europe, have never done anything to address its many failings, and no-one is being invited to vote for a radically revised Europe. A vote to stay in, will be represented as a vote of approval.

I have also noticed that the majority of devotees to climate science are pro European policies and grant funding. Attempts to blame the Syrian refugee crisis on Global Warming, for no technical or scientific reason, have not helped leaders within Europe, especially those facing elections.

I have no affiliation with any political party

stewgreen
Almost a logical progression from Pro/Anti EU theme. Powell had strong views on that too, a Little Englander you could say.

I imagine Powell might oppose the extension of the British Empire to already populated places.

Stewgreen. Don't you think that a highly educated and politically astute man like EP should have been able to predict the impact his "Rivers of Blood" speech would have on those you categorize as "bad people"? Isn't he therefore just as culpable?

History judges him a pariah, and his extreme prophecies have, thankfully, notproven to be correct. So what's to discuss?

Dung, yes accepted. It has been made Politically Incorrect to be proud to be British. To express National pride, equates to Nationalism and equals fascism etc etc.

I was irritated about 15 years ago, when asked to describe my race/ethnicity etc. I could be British, and Welsh/Irish/Scottish, but I couldn't be British - English. I am actually 1/4 Irish, and my parents had childhoods living in Wales and Scotland. Watching the 5/6 Nations Rugby, I support England, but have a lot of good vibes about Ireland Scotland and Wales, and a lot of good memories of France and Italy.

I have lived and worked abroad, in non-English speaking, non Christian countries. I have worked with people who have fought in civil wars, in recent history.

The UK is amongst the most open and welcoming countries to those of different race, creed, religion, but it is not perfect. I do not get on with 100% of white anglo saxons, and no one is forcing me to. Brits abroad have always been guilty of living in 'ghettos', and living a 'British' lifestyle. Those from overseas should be welcome to do the same here, whether they are 1st or 7th generation, but it does require different cultures to respect each other, and observe the Law of the Land.

It would be sad if Scotland became Independent, and not necessarily a good idea, but if that is what Scotland wants, then so be it. If Scotland then wants the English out of Scotland, then how are the English supposed to respond?

If Enoch Powell's message was controlled immigration, then he was right. I don't believe he was saying NO immigration. Maybe I'm wrong. Europe is advocating unrestricted immigration to wealthy European countries because the poorer ones can't afford it. The Germans have now had enough, and Angele Merkel knows it. Nobody wants to admit Powell was right, because that would be politically incorrect.

'Little Englander' has had several meanings across time and the writer did not indicate which he meant.
Some meanings might be be regarded as pejorative in their day but not now.

Dung. History concerns the past. In the time between when EP gave his speech and the present is the past, and therefore is history. In that time period 1) he has been judged a pariah, and 2) his prophecies have not come to pass. What is to come is not yet history. If you, however, can foretell the future and can show that these historical facts will change, then this discussion has a future. If not, then why bother?

Are you implying that EP should have made his speech even in the full expectation that it would cause race hatred? If so, then you and I are so very very far apart on the political fence.

Please don't mangle my words to suit your political agenda, and you have no way of knowing how politically astute I might be.

Dung. What part of RIVERS of Blood do you not understand?

Dung, radicalisation has been part of the anti-USA/Israel backlash. The Moslem freedom fighters trying to throw the USSR out of Afghanistan were US backed and equipped. One of the Rambo films even glorified it.

Saddam Hussein was a friend of the West, whilst he was at war with Iran. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Hussein knew that attacks on Israel (Scud missiles) provoking an Israeli reprisal, was his best chance of destroying any Arab/Moslem alliance with the USA.

Osama BL was well funded by Arab oil money and was able to cultivate and support reactionary clerics around the world. This still goes on. Disaffected youths are easy to whip up into a frenzy of hatred, and with the blessing of 'God', can be persuaded to do all sorts of things if it is for the greater good/God.

The UK is a safe place to radicalise footsoldiers, to fight enemies not necessarily connected with the UK.

In legal disputes (civil) between Jews in the UK, both sides can opt for Jewish Law and settlement. Islam operates a similar process. My presume something similar operates for Hindus and Sikhs.

The Christian Mormons believe in more than one wife. This has raised 'issues' in the USA. How do you know it does not contjnue in the USA and UK. Do you remember Joyce McKinney? Wikipedia does!

Sharia Law is a logical extension to the original 'Eye for an Eye' school of Jewish Justice adopted by Moslems and Christians. In the UK killing people for witchcraft or belonging to the wrong Christian faith, was made illegal a few hundred years ago, but is practised (allegedly) in Northern Ireland.

UK Law was exported all over the Empire, and some Commonwealth countries still look to the UK Courts as the highest authority.

Sharia Law is abhorrent, but only a few hundred years out of date by UK standards.