Harehills riot was a consequence of failed multiculturalism policy - Yorkshire Post Letters

The Yorkshire Post leader, Online agitators have rushed to judge (July 20), was, in itself, ill-judged.

The notion that Harehills will "forever be defined by its unity and resilience," was risible. As was the trite assertion that Leeds "stands united."

Not for the first time, I regret the passing of the incomparable Bernard Dineen. A Leeds-born, Yorkshire Post journalist of immense stature; an empiricist who invariably substantiated his forthright comments. A resolute and courageous man who did not bow down to his acerbic, politically-correct critics.

He would not have indulged in sophistry, or sought superficially to mitigate the culpability of those rioters by suggesting that there were "issues that may or may not have led to the devastating scene."

On the contrary, he would have been unequivocal in his condemnation. As am I.

I too was born in Leeds, and raised on a Leeds council estate. I lived in Leeds for 60 years. I often worked in Leeds. When I was an area manager, Leeds was part of my territory. I therefore have an intimate knowledge of the city, including Harehills.

Harehills is a multi-cultural melting pot, and melting pots are, by their very nature, inflammatory: it only needs a spark to ignite them. And that is what happened in Harehills: underlying tensions and simmering resentments that were sparked by the ostensibly innocuous practice of children being taken into protective custody by social services.

A confrontation which rapidly escalated into a full-blown riot, in which the police were assailed and a police car and a double-decker bus were set alight. This is anathema to those who believe in the concepts of a civil society and the supremacy of law and order.

An acquaintance, who lives in a rural, North Yorkshire town, recently drove through Harehills and was shocked by its social milieu: "It was like travelling in a foreign land," he observed.

His social milieu is homogeneous, which induces a relaxed atmosphere of social cohesion.

He is not naive. On the contrary, he is a well travelled man who has observed the conflicts that pertain in distant lands, born of tribal and ethnic rivalries, ancient blood feuds and age-old religious conflicts. So have I.

Those simmering tensions and potential conflicts have now been visited upon our country.

Some years ago, I argued, on a BBC Radio Four programme, that uncontrolled, mass immigration would change the nature of our society. The presenter was bemused: "In what way?" she asked.

"Different and incompatible cultures, faiths, customs, practices, attitudes and beliefs," I responded.

But she remained perplexed.

Mass immigration meant inevitably that there would be a failure to integrate let alone assimilate. On the contrary, separation and voluntary segregation into little hives and larger ghettos was acclaimed by the liberal-left establishment as a triumph of ‘multiculturalism’.

Well, we shall now have to deal with the inevitable social consequences of that ill-conceived and irresponsible policy for the foreseeable future. It does not augur well.