There is no way I am going to withdraw the 'charge', and I have read that section of your book. There are many differences between what happened in Britain and what happened on the continent (including the fact that Britain was *not* overrun by foreign speaking barbarians 'as soon as the empire collapsed'. Barbarians had overrun the continent by 500 AD, but not Britain. The collapse of the villa economy in Britain, but not France or Spain, etc., etc. But I don't have time to write the book this would require. :-)
Ishmael, you are the one that said that the Roman invasion had no impact on the spoken language. I was asking how you knew that. I was not talking about the later influence of Latin on the development of English.
I am not going to spend a lot more time on this, particularly since you seem to have decided to make this into some sort of battle about human decency which you think you are winning. (What in the world is your comment about Old English supposed to mean? I've been writing about Old English, although our posts may have crossed(. My main point is that Mick does not deal with the 'known facts'. His book would have had to be several times its length to have done that.