A real threat to our freedom and culture [3]

This post wasn’t planned and yet it’s worth lumping under the heading. There was a comment at my own site on Part 1 of this about deporting the miscreants and the efficacy of firmmess for our society.

This is going to be anecdotal.

Back in the days when the British Passport Office used to work properly, I was living in the middle of Russia and was commissioned by a few families to go to Moscow and get visas for them. They thought I had some special pull, being of the British persuasion.

I got there, even got to speak to the head honcho, he was most friendly and he wanted to know what the hell I was doing living in the middle of western Russia. And so on. The passports would be eight days. No amount of pleading. Eight days.

He even explained. “I know a couple of those and they’ve tried it on before, failed to file documents, tried to sweet talk us. Eight days.”

And of course, how long did it take? Not a day later. Not just on that matter but in general – that was why the Russians were a bit in awe – nothing was negotiable or relative. It was “as stated on the packet”.

In the light of UKBA today – chalk and cheese.

Cut to my early teaching days, teacher training in fact. Scene – a seminar and workshop on “discipline”. Many speakers. Comments or questions invited from the audience. I said, “I never have problems with discipline because I never worry about it.”

Actually, that wasn’t the only thing to it. What it really came down to was the military axiom: “Fair, firm and friendly,” with no part of that left out. The one which is often left out is “friendly”. So those Muslim miscreants would not be deported in anger or with rancour, it would be done cheerfully. “There you go now, thanks for visiting. Your boat’s waiting.”

Anyone can be a martinet, strutting about with a sour face and there’s way too much of that over here. Have you noticed the liberal way is to punish you whenever you don’t agree with their Narrative? The govt never says: “This is how it will be.” It’s always: “This is how it will be and if you fail to comply by this date, these penalties will apply …”

It’s always the big stick. Four observations about people who wield the big stick:

One – they are insecure people, they’re frightened of us.

Two – they don’t like people.

Three – they’re essentially cowards.

Four – they know they’re doing wrong or it will be unpopular or both.

Later in teaching, when it was my turn to teach foundations of discipline to young teachers, I began this way:

The very first principle and one you have to get clear in your head is do you love those children or at a minimum, like them? If you don’t like the people in your charge, then why are you in this game? You are a prison officer and there’ll be constant little rebellions. Are you frightened of them? If so, why?

Two – do you have what it takes to say no, mean no and stick to it over a given timeframe?

We dwelt on that a bit. The number of people who make threats and then either let themselves be talked around or threatened out of it, even blackmailed out of it, is legion. Many of these people, particularly the soft one in the marriage, think it will make the little herbert love her [or him] more by being wishy-washy, by being the good guy who caves in, the kind one. Actually, all it does is shows the little herbert that he can divide and rule and that one parent does not support the other, even undermines the other constantly.

Three, connected to two – never threaten that which you can’t enforce. To young teachers, that was golden advice I’d learned from old style teachers. Choose your threat carefully and make it one which is easily enforceable. And if you have no treats to take away, why do you have no treats in the first place?

Four – your tone has to be fair, firm and friendly. Your initial face is friendly, you welcome them, crack a joke, make it sound a fun place to be. Sooner or later a dispute will come up and you have to give both sides equal time, not play favourites.

Finally, you have to be firm. Never ever say: “I’ll let you off this time but if you ever do it again,” and then you cave in the second time, and the third and the fourth. That’s especially so with your own child to whom you can refuse nothing. That’s the very worst lesson you can give him/her.

Children appreciate clear boundaries, with consequences if they go outside them.

I’d venture to say it’s the same with Muslims in our society. Clear boundaries – you can preach in small meetings, no mega-mosques, you have no say on the law of this land beyond that of any other citizen, you will accede to our laws and not hold your own kangaroo courts, you will fit in and integrate with our society, you will go to our schools. We welcome you on that basis and hope you’ll be happy and productive.

Going back to those young teachers, I stressed to them that there was going to be a test case. Sooner or later they WOULD be challenged on it, be prepared.

Firstly, don’t shout. Shouting means you’ve lost the fight.

Secondly, be firm and let your penalty be fair. Something like, “I’d like you to stop that please, because this is the effect it’s having and this is what I need to get through today. If you don’t, then this will happen.”

When he doesn’t stop, you act immediately.

You are not going to be the most popular person that day. There’ll be a lot of: “I hate her,” “She’s the worst,” “I thought she was nice before this.” You’ll not be the flavour of the day. There might even be brooding for a week.

Can you wear unpopularity for a week?

Eventually, they’ll see you are the boss and more importantly, you still like them. And every single test case over the next two weeks is met the same way. “I’d like you to stop that please, for this reason.”

The trick is that your penalty must be appropriate and doable. If you’re not sure of a good penalty, then shelve it until after break time, seek an old hand during break and talk it through. Go back in afterwards and apply it.

Same principle for the Muslims in Britain. They really did need to be told early in the piece, as they came in from 1997 onwards, that certain behaviours were required. Failure to meet them – goodbye. And UKBA needed to have the spine to actually enforce it. In a friendly way.

The penalties need to be down in official documents given to newcomers, on the second last page, NOT right up front on the first page inside the cover, as the govt do to all of us today. What’s that all about, starting your documents with threats? That’s what the egregious TV licencing people do. And look where it gets them.

No, the opening of the document is friendly, the conditions are laid down, the penalties are at the end. Calm, firm, friendly.

And enforceable.

And yes, that’s the last of this mini-series.