Julian Cole

Here we go again. Intolerance rules. It is surprising what one plane load of Afghans can do. To read some of the papers, or to listen to some politicians, you could have been forgiven for thinking the sky had opened and rained foreigners on to our fair land.

From the Sun's absurd claim that we are the "dustbin of the world" and "a soft touch for every scrounger in the planet", to the Mirror's front page headline: "Hi, Jack! Where's the four-star hotel? Send them home", many of the newspapers indulged themselves in nastiness.

The Mail, ever a barometer of prevailing meanness of spirit, wagered that most of the "victims" of the hijack would still be enjoying life on benefits in this country in five years.

A woman who phoned a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in stooped even lower, demanding the sterilisation of asylum seekers so they could not breed in Britain. At which demented suggestion it was possible to regret that such an operation had not been carried out on the caller's own parents.

And we got little better from our politicians. You might expect Ann Widdecombe, the Shadow Home Secretary, to spout virulent nonsense about Britain being a soft touch and so forth. But Home Secretary Jack Straw is little better, and his tussles with Widdecombe had the appearance of a playground fight for the moral low ground.

It was all monstrous stuff, as is usual when politicians and newspapers are caught in a scrabble to tickle the nation's lowest erogenous zone.

Myths abounded as the story of the Stansted hijack unwound, and with glum glee the rumours were put about that everyone on the plane wanted to apply for asylum. Not true in the end, of course - as 73 have flown home already.

The 13 hijackers themselves have been charged under section one of the Aviation Security Act 1982, and if found guilty will face stiff sentences. That is only to be expected, because hijacking is a terrible crime.

But the image of Britain conjured up by the headlines last week was not a pretty one. What a suspicious, mean-minded lot we are, never happier than when seeing the confirmation of our worst suspicions about foreigners.

Except that, as is so often the case, all this concern about Britain being a soft-touch for asylum seekers is based on a stubborn myth, got up in the suburbs and saloon bars. Britain today is harder than ever for asylum seekers to enter. And one apparent hijacking doesn't diminish our international responsibilities. For Britain signed up to the UN Convention on refugees, and so asylum seekers are entitled to apply to live here - even though their chances of success are slim.

Besides, few people would wish to leave their native land for Britain unless their lives were in danger or too miserable for words. And - besides again - why is it so often assumed that immigrants only take away from British life? Untrue, of course. Arriving peoples bring new cultures that enliven Britain and refresh our economy. But it doesn't do to be thinking positive like that, does it?

THERE'S a low-hanging fruit in the big picture, but let's think outside the box for a helicopter view before taking a sanity check, then go a full nine yards to a level playing field...

Ah, sorry, I seem to have nodded off during the meeting from hell. Almost every word in the paragraph above is pure jargon of the sort favoured by get-ahead types. A report this week suggests that corporate jargon is being used by 65 per cent of office workers. One in five workers feel under pressure to use such mangled expressions, even though they've no idea what they mean.

Well, as I always say, life's a banana. Well, I've never actually said that before, but you never know, it might catch on. A lot of other gibberish has.

17/02//00

If you have any comments you would like to make, contact Julian Cole directly at julian.cole@ycp.co.uk

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.