Charles Moore, in his customary Saturday op-ed piece in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph, "addresses the nation" with his opinion on the Warsi speech.
Of course, if politicians had not decided to play "fast and loose" with the make-up of our nation's society then all the racial tensions we have would not exist. Of course, Cameron does have a few suggestions on how to deal with this problem:
"Over Christmas, David Cameron reflected on the confusion within government about how to deal with the phenomenon which Lady Warsi says does not exist, Islamic extremism, widely known as Islamism. He has always had a straightforward approach: the extremists are, as he puts it, poisoning young minds. Government has to stop them. This involves innumerable aspects – border control, terrorism laws, education policy, policing. Some of it is about law, some about who gets public money, some about attitudes. But what became clear to the Prime Minister in his brief Chequers-assisted repose, was that the Government's response is a mess, and must change."
Needless to say the one aspect he does not include - and one that he could not implement - involves putting those who so obviously do not like our nation and do not wish to integrate on a plane: destination anywhere.
For some time now I have been of the opinion that Charles Moore is but a mouthpiece for Cameron, which is illustrated by this piece of "journalistic insight":
"The fight continues, also, in the current review of Prevent, the set of government programmes which seeks to tackle the social causes of Islamist radicalisation. Prevent has too often used partners and advisers who are themselves extremist. Such people exploit the status government has conferred on them to argue that there would be no trouble if only public policy addressed the "grievances" which Islamists feel – foreign policy, police surveillance, mixed bathing, whatever. The worst fault of Lady Warsi's speech was that it helped nurture Muslim grievance instead of prompting Muslim self-examination. This refusal to confront bad ideas means, for example, that the public authorities have shied away from having a look at what is preached at university Islamic societies."
Were we still a self-governing nation - which we most definitely are not, something Cameron is intent on preserving; which begs the question how he can believe he "governs" our nation - we would not face the potential problem of having to address Islamic "grievances" about such matters as 'mixed bathing'. One also wonders how long it will be before such a case is raised in a court of law and then "progressed" to the ECHR, whose ruling we would be bound to accept.
It would appear that public authorities may just have realised something which has obviously escaped the notice of our politicians - that when you open a can of worms, invariably you get more than you bargained for!