Loading ...UCL Tory ’sorry’ for Enoch Powell article
A UCL Union Conservative Society member has said he would like to “apologise sincerely”, after writing an anonymous article in its publication The Caerulean, which appears to defend Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.
The article states that it will “attempt to put for-ward (sic) an argument which says that the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech “showed a level of foresightedness which should be recognised.”
The author also states that “I do not agree with the majority of Powell’s comments and views. His belief in funding re-emigration of immigrants and his desire to almost bring a halt to immigration are intolerant and short sighted. Britain is all the better for the levels of immigration it has been exposed to.”
However, he then goes on to quote at length from Powell’s speech, a passage which reads “They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children un-able to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated.”
The article claims that “we as a country are experiencing the negative effects that Powell prophesised. The NHS is suffering from long waiting lists and teachers within schools are struggling to teach classes due to the large number of first languages spoken within classrooms.”
Rambling and contradictory in places, the article – given a Latin title which quotes from the same passage of Virgil’s Aeneid as Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ – refers to Powell’s views as “less polite”. It also draws a clear parallel between Powell and the Cumaean Sibyl, the prophet from the Aeneid.
The author subsequently writes “Whilst unlike France, we have not reached our “Rivers of blood” moment, if more attention is not paid however to the issue of immigration who is to say it will not happen soon?”
UCL student Ben Mechen called the article “confused, pretentious and ultimately offensive and shocking”. At the time of going to press, it was still online.
Via The Caerulean’s editor, Tom Parkinson, London Student spoke to the article’s author. He would not give his name, but apologised unreservedly, saying “I had no intention of causing any upset and I am very sorry if I have. I wrote that article for Tom, the editor, in a rush. The poor quality of the article is testament to the lack of thought and time I put in to the article.
“I do not agree with what I wrote and in no way do I endorse any sentiments expressed in the article, and neither did Tom, and he made this clear. Foolishly and naively I thought it would merely provoke some debate. In hindsight I wish I had not written it as I realise how much it could offend or set a dangerous precedent.”
Parkinson said “The publication contains a clear caveat expressing that the views of each article are not representative of my own, or any affiliated body. I of course read the article prior to its publication but I don’t consider it my job to stifle any opinion or debate on any matter. However, I want to make crystal clear that I don’t personally agree with any sentiment expressed in the article.’
But UCLU Conservative Society President Kieran Weisberg, stood by the piece, saying “I’m not the type to distance myself, particularly as the publication is printed with my authority. Slight controversy usually exists in student articles as many students develop their opinions throughout their time at university. The article did not present itself as one of risk. I have spoken to the editor and after further research into the article I cannot see any factual errors, indeed, I feel it is entirely moderate.”
This summer Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan caused controversy by naming Powell as a political hero, but did not cite Powell’s controversial views on immigration. In 2007, Conservative Party candidate Nigel Hastilow had to stand down after he wrote in a newspaper that Mr Powell was “right” on immigration.
Why does everybody apologise for admitting that Enoch had a point. Most politicans now readily accept that immigration has been at too great a level for too long. How on earth could it considered controversial to claim that Powell’s speech was foresighted. It absolutely was. It seems like most people approach this issue in a hysterical frame of mind. Powell’s estimates on immigration numbers were correct (and actually understated) – therefore its ludicrous to take offence at somebody saying that he showed foresight. 74% of the British public at the time supported Powell according to a Gallup poll and it can be shown that he attracted 3 million votes to the Conservative party in the 1970 election. He was indeed foresighted, foresight was an aspect of his stunning intellect – the sort of intellect that enabled him to become a professor at 24. I wish people would stop tarnishing this man’s memory.