The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Racism
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Firstly define Racism for me? As I feel we’ve gone racism mad on everything, and have almost started going in the opposite way. From what I’ve read and heard over the past few months we, as a society, are taking things a step too far. In schools blackboards are now no longer allowed to be called blackboards but chalkboards, as otherwise it’s ‘claimed’ it’s racist towards Black people. How exactly does that work then, as quite simply it’s a board and it’s black…what’s racist about that?
On the other side of the board (boom boom – although no pun intended) white boards which are wipe clean and use a pen are allowed to be called white boards…which is in direct contrast to my point above!! I can’t really understand why people find issue with such things as we’re no different to one another and if the colour of an item is described as black or white that is because it is black or white. If the current trend carries on then it’ll surely lead to a banning of certain colours! No more Yellow lines on the road – Offensive to people of Asian decent and the Simpsons, no more white lines in the middle of roads - Offensive to white people, no more green grass – Offensive to the Poddington Peas, no more black suit and tie at funerals – Offensive to people of African decent. It’s utter lunacy. What about people that get sun tans or use sun beds too often (Dale Winton etc)? Is Tan Leather interior for cars going to be banned or made to change its name? Blimey at this rate even saying something transparent is going to be offensive to Jellyfish.
Have you ever seen any Def Jam comedy videos featuring the likes of Chris Rock, Bernie Mack, David Chapelle etc. If so you’ll notice that theres always the odd white person in the crowd that gets spotted and has the Mickey taken for being the only white guy/girl for several blocks. Ever seen a film such as Money Talks, Rush Hour or TV shows such as The Fresh Prince, Goodness Gracious Me (particularly the scene where they go for an English – Hilarious) etc – White and Chinese people are the butt of many a joke. But can you imagine what would happen to the career or someone like Lee Evans or Jack Dee if they made a joke about black people!
Anyone watched the MOBOs in recent years? Well the MOBO’s does exactly what it says on the tin, its an award ceremony to celebrate Music Of Black Origin. Anybody ever heard of the MOWOs (Music Of White Origin)…Nope?…That’s because it doesn’t exist. I personally think there isn’t one, because rather than white people not being proud of the roots of their music, there would be a huge problem from the black community that it shuns them etc.
Sex Discrimination
It’s a case of wanting the best of both worlds which you can’t have in todays day and age. Moving on nicely, but still keeping with the idea of groups/events which segregate people. Not so long back there was a row that erupted over a Mens golfing tour. The issue was that Laura Davis, Britains No. 1 Golfer and for World Number 1, wanted to compete alongside the men. Now again I’ve got no problem with this as why shouldn’t a female be able to complete with men at a sport! However the Mens PGA wasn’t happy with this as they saw it as a mens only tour. Unsurprisingly there was a backlash from women golfers and eventually the Mens PGA backed down and Let Laura play. Not before however they raised the question…so can we let a man, say Tiger Woods, play on the Womans tour. I’ll let you guess the answer but I’ll give you a clue, it begins with an N and ends with an O. Needless to say Laura Davis came last, missed the cut and has decided not to request playing on a mens tour since!!
Across the country there are also several ‘Mens’ clubs and associations, which all forbid the joining of female members. It amazes me that the people that won’t let Females join this club are actually over the age of 10. As last time I checked it was only men under this age that didn’t like a females company.
There’s also always talk of Women earning less money than men for the same job. Personally I’d like to bring to the attention of those people (and I don’t disagree with you) Tony and Cherrie Blair….Shes a Lawyer and earns Circa £200k a year…He (tries to) runs the country and earns circa £110k!!
There’s currently a big debate in many schools and I remember having the debate with a few teachers when I was at school, and that is that boys are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, but girls are allowed to wear skirts. I found the only way to get around this was to either ask if it’s ok to wear a Kilt, or secondly, say you’re having a sexual identity crisis and could you wear a skirt…If they say no, ask them why they’re being homophobic!
Page:
The problem also seems to be (with racism) that it's white people that are offended by it.
If you told a black person that there should be a MOWO awards thingy, they'd probably agree, but you tell a white person, and half of them would go "RACIST!!"
White people seem to be more offended about racism towards black people than black people are.
It's like the whole ni**** thing, black people call each otehr it all the time (in films at least), and some even call white people a ni**** too, (Pulp Fiction for example, John Travolta and Bruce Willis are both referred to as ni****s),but the moment a white person says it, it's automatically racist.
If you told a black person that there should be a MOWO awards thingy, they'd probably agree, but you tell a white person, and half of them would go "RACIST!!"
White people seem to be more offended about racism towards black people than black people are.
It's like the whole ni**** thing, black people call each otehr it all the time (in films at least), and some even call white people a ni**** too, (Pulp Fiction for example, John Travolta and Bruce Willis are both referred to as ni****s),but the moment a white person says it, it's automatically racist.
munn wrote:
> It's like the whole ni**** thing, black people call each otehr it all
> the time (in films at least), and some even call white people a
> ni**** too, (Pulp Fiction for example, John Travolta and Bruce Willis
> are both referred to as ni****s),but the moment a white person says
> it, it's automatically racist.
Good point, so does that mean I'm allowed to listen to TuPac, Ja Rule and Biggie Smalls without being racist?
> It's like the whole ni**** thing, black people call each otehr it all
> the time (in films at least), and some even call white people a
> ni**** too, (Pulp Fiction for example, John Travolta and Bruce Willis
> are both referred to as ni****s),but the moment a white person says
> it, it's automatically racist.
Good point, so does that mean I'm allowed to listen to TuPac, Ja Rule and Biggie Smalls without being racist?
Racism:
Is their much racial tension in where you live? I ask because it is something that I am clearly naive about. Allow me to explain further...
In certain otherwise dull Northern Mill towns, it has been recently reported that vigilante gangs of Asian youths have declared certain areas of the city "No-Go" for white people. This is in response to an increase in racist attacks on Asians. So they are meeting racism with racism which, in my naiveté, seems like an idea on a par with Adolf Hitler’s “Right then lads; lets invade Russia!” brainwave in terms of sheer stupidity.
The whole issue of racism gives me something of a mixed feeling. Not as to whether it is a good or bad thing, for it is beyond the doubt of any reasonable person that is an extraordinarily awful thing. No, what gives me the problem is just how one should apply the criteria to decide just what is racist.
Let us decide on a definition of racism before we proceed further. Racism is the belief that, regardless of whatever evidence to the contrary may exist, people are going to behave in a certain way. I'm quite aware that this is not going to be satisfactory to everyone, but I believe it is broad enough to encompass the ranged arch of racist behaviour.
We are living in a time of "political correctness gone mad" if you believe one point of view, or "building towards a more tolerant and multicultural society" if you believe the other. It should be quite clear that neither of these viewpoints are the whole truth. Whilst the former has all sorts of unsavoury associations with unpleasant bigots ranting away and then justifying themselves by trying to make out that it is us who have the problem, the news from Burnley, Oldham etc, as well as the quite frighteningly blinkered post on this webboard shows that the latter comment is equally as detached from reality.
To me, this begs the following question; are both camps equally as racist? Neither are taking account of the way things actually are, both are ignoring facts that are plainly obvious. The more racist point of view fails to account for the fact that large numbers of people of differing colours and creeds can and do live together in harmony. By the same token, the idealistic point skirts around the reality that an equally large number of people do not.
Racism in both of these forms is equally as destructive. The former generates hatred between man, and the latter allows it to spread unchecked. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the youths in Oldham are racist, but what can one expect after the Stephen Lawrence case, or the Conservative party's difficulty in keeping it's foot out of it's mouth, or the murder in Wales of an Asian man at a hospital? Equally, I found some posts made on this board thoroughly distasteful in their unthinking bigotry, yet when we are spoon fed a constant diet of “Immigrants are responsible for all of our countries ills”, is it surprising that some people feel defensive and afraid of anyone who isn’t visibly WASPish? In my opinion, it's time to stop looking for someone to blame and face up to our collective responsibility to sort the whole mess out and get on with evolving as a race.
Is their much racial tension in where you live? I ask because it is something that I am clearly naive about. Allow me to explain further...
In certain otherwise dull Northern Mill towns, it has been recently reported that vigilante gangs of Asian youths have declared certain areas of the city "No-Go" for white people. This is in response to an increase in racist attacks on Asians. So they are meeting racism with racism which, in my naiveté, seems like an idea on a par with Adolf Hitler’s “Right then lads; lets invade Russia!” brainwave in terms of sheer stupidity.
The whole issue of racism gives me something of a mixed feeling. Not as to whether it is a good or bad thing, for it is beyond the doubt of any reasonable person that is an extraordinarily awful thing. No, what gives me the problem is just how one should apply the criteria to decide just what is racist.
Let us decide on a definition of racism before we proceed further. Racism is the belief that, regardless of whatever evidence to the contrary may exist, people are going to behave in a certain way. I'm quite aware that this is not going to be satisfactory to everyone, but I believe it is broad enough to encompass the ranged arch of racist behaviour.
We are living in a time of "political correctness gone mad" if you believe one point of view, or "building towards a more tolerant and multicultural society" if you believe the other. It should be quite clear that neither of these viewpoints are the whole truth. Whilst the former has all sorts of unsavoury associations with unpleasant bigots ranting away and then justifying themselves by trying to make out that it is us who have the problem, the news from Burnley, Oldham etc, as well as the quite frighteningly blinkered post on this webboard shows that the latter comment is equally as detached from reality.
To me, this begs the following question; are both camps equally as racist? Neither are taking account of the way things actually are, both are ignoring facts that are plainly obvious. The more racist point of view fails to account for the fact that large numbers of people of differing colours and creeds can and do live together in harmony. By the same token, the idealistic point skirts around the reality that an equally large number of people do not.
Racism in both of these forms is equally as destructive. The former generates hatred between man, and the latter allows it to spread unchecked. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the youths in Oldham are racist, but what can one expect after the Stephen Lawrence case, or the Conservative party's difficulty in keeping it's foot out of it's mouth, or the murder in Wales of an Asian man at a hospital? Equally, I found some posts made on this board thoroughly distasteful in their unthinking bigotry, yet when we are spoon fed a constant diet of “Immigrants are responsible for all of our countries ills”, is it surprising that some people feel defensive and afraid of anyone who isn’t visibly WASPish? In my opinion, it's time to stop looking for someone to blame and face up to our collective responsibility to sort the whole mess out and get on with evolving as a race.
An explanation to a song by a band called GFK, the song is called 'Rethinking Basic Anti-Racism'
"We will never be able to erase racism by violence. But we do think it is possible for us to break this inequality. The concept of race isn't natural. Thinkers from the Occident created it a few centuries ago in order to legitimize their actions (ex: slavery, robbery...) against foreign territories. If we really want to stop this pattern, we have to debunk the concept of race and even of gender. Don't say that all races are equal because you then accept their racist terms. We should see ourselves as members of the human group. We have to go back in history and see that these types of hierarchies are merely creations."
"We will never be able to erase racism by violence. But we do think it is possible for us to break this inequality. The concept of race isn't natural. Thinkers from the Occident created it a few centuries ago in order to legitimize their actions (ex: slavery, robbery...) against foreign territories. If we really want to stop this pattern, we have to debunk the concept of race and even of gender. Don't say that all races are equal because you then accept their racist terms. We should see ourselves as members of the human group. We have to go back in history and see that these types of hierarchies are merely creations."
Light wrote
There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the
> youths in Oldham are racist, but what can one expect after the
> Stephen Lawrence case, or the Conservative party's difficulty in
> keeping it's foot out of it's mouth, or the murder in Wales of an
> Asian man at a hospital? Equally, I found some posts made on this
> board thoroughly distasteful in their unthinking bigotry, yet when we
> are spoon fed a constant diet of “Immigrants are responsible for all
> of our countries ills”, is it surprising that some people feel
> defensive and afraid of anyone who isn’t visibly WASPish? In my
> opinion, it's time to stop looking for someone to blame and face up
> to our collective responsibility to sort the whole mess out and get
> on with evolving as a race.
Immigants are not responsible for all our country's ills, but to deny there isn't a problem with them is ignorance. My problem is your calling people racist for having the opinion that theres to many immigrants coming into our country. Tell me, whats wrong with having a limit on the amount to let in. You get people saying we need immigants to help with our ecconomy, to help the country's demmand for workers as theres more elderly people living now. I agree to a point, the fact is if we can't run the country with the people in place we never will.
It would be intersting to see your views, what would you do. Have you read the ukip's pollicy on immigrants? What don't you agree with? The reason for asking theese questions is simple. I cant't see any better pollicy of tackling immigrants from any other party, do you? Or do you go with your ignorance and deny there is a problem?
There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the
> youths in Oldham are racist, but what can one expect after the
> Stephen Lawrence case, or the Conservative party's difficulty in
> keeping it's foot out of it's mouth, or the murder in Wales of an
> Asian man at a hospital? Equally, I found some posts made on this
> board thoroughly distasteful in their unthinking bigotry, yet when we
> are spoon fed a constant diet of “Immigrants are responsible for all
> of our countries ills”, is it surprising that some people feel
> defensive and afraid of anyone who isn’t visibly WASPish? In my
> opinion, it's time to stop looking for someone to blame and face up
> to our collective responsibility to sort the whole mess out and get
> on with evolving as a race.
Immigants are not responsible for all our country's ills, but to deny there isn't a problem with them is ignorance. My problem is your calling people racist for having the opinion that theres to many immigrants coming into our country. Tell me, whats wrong with having a limit on the amount to let in. You get people saying we need immigants to help with our ecconomy, to help the country's demmand for workers as theres more elderly people living now. I agree to a point, the fact is if we can't run the country with the people in place we never will.
It would be intersting to see your views, what would you do. Have you read the ukip's pollicy on immigrants? What don't you agree with? The reason for asking theese questions is simple. I cant't see any better pollicy of tackling immigrants from any other party, do you? Or do you go with your ignorance and deny there is a problem?
kevstar wrote:
>
> Immigants are not responsible for all our country's ills, but to deny
> there isn't a problem with them is ignorance. My problem is your
> calling people racist for having the opinion that theres to many
> immigrants coming into our country. Tell me, whats wrong with having
> a limit on the amount to let in. You get people saying we need
> immigants to help with our ecconomy, to help the country's demmand
> for workers as theres more elderly people living now. I agree to a
> point, the fact is if we can't run the country with the people in
> place we never will.
You speak as if the "people in place" will be there forever. Less people are being born, more are living longer. We have an aging population and an increasing burden on pensions. How are these pensions going to be paid if there are no people working and generating taxes and NI?
You also say If we can't run the country as is now. Well, we can't. We never will? We will if we allow more economic migrants.
Oh, and the whole of my post was making the point that to deny there was a problem with immigration was ignorance. However, the problem stems from left wing refusal to confront the hard truth that immigrants are not sweet angels, but people, and as such are just as likely to be criminally minded as any other average person. The problem also comes from the right wings refusal to accept that immigrants are not a ravening band of rapacious locusts, but people, and as such are just as likely to want to build a decent life for themselves and their family as any other average person.
>
> It would be intersting to see your views, what would you do. Have you
> read the ukip's pollicy on immigrants? What don't you agree with? The
> reason for asking theese questions is simple. I cant't see any better
> pollicy of tackling immigrants from any other party, do you? Or do
> you go with your ignorance and deny there is a problem?
What I don't agree with is that it makes no effort to acknowledge the economic input of immigrants. It implies that an immigrant is simply here to sponge off the state, and that is the reason for the limit.
Me personally? I'd inject a little honesty into the debate, and acknowledge that we need economic migrants. So grant them an economic migrant visa for, lets say, 10 years. If someone has, at the end of that 10 years, contributed to the national economy, then why not keep them in? If someone hasn't, then I'd have no problem with deporting them.
I'm not denying there is a problem. I'm denying that the problem is due to a flood of evil darkies swamping the country.
>
> Immigants are not responsible for all our country's ills, but to deny
> there isn't a problem with them is ignorance. My problem is your
> calling people racist for having the opinion that theres to many
> immigrants coming into our country. Tell me, whats wrong with having
> a limit on the amount to let in. You get people saying we need
> immigants to help with our ecconomy, to help the country's demmand
> for workers as theres more elderly people living now. I agree to a
> point, the fact is if we can't run the country with the people in
> place we never will.
You speak as if the "people in place" will be there forever. Less people are being born, more are living longer. We have an aging population and an increasing burden on pensions. How are these pensions going to be paid if there are no people working and generating taxes and NI?
You also say If we can't run the country as is now. Well, we can't. We never will? We will if we allow more economic migrants.
Oh, and the whole of my post was making the point that to deny there was a problem with immigration was ignorance. However, the problem stems from left wing refusal to confront the hard truth that immigrants are not sweet angels, but people, and as such are just as likely to be criminally minded as any other average person. The problem also comes from the right wings refusal to accept that immigrants are not a ravening band of rapacious locusts, but people, and as such are just as likely to want to build a decent life for themselves and their family as any other average person.
>
> It would be intersting to see your views, what would you do. Have you
> read the ukip's pollicy on immigrants? What don't you agree with? The
> reason for asking theese questions is simple. I cant't see any better
> pollicy of tackling immigrants from any other party, do you? Or do
> you go with your ignorance and deny there is a problem?
What I don't agree with is that it makes no effort to acknowledge the economic input of immigrants. It implies that an immigrant is simply here to sponge off the state, and that is the reason for the limit.
Me personally? I'd inject a little honesty into the debate, and acknowledge that we need economic migrants. So grant them an economic migrant visa for, lets say, 10 years. If someone has, at the end of that 10 years, contributed to the national economy, then why not keep them in? If someone hasn't, then I'd have no problem with deporting them.
I'm not denying there is a problem. I'm denying that the problem is due to a flood of evil darkies swamping the country.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> >
> Immigants are not responsible for all our country's ills, but to
> deny
> there isn't a problem with them is ignorance. My problem is your
> calling people racist for having the opinion that theres to many
> immigrants coming into our country. Tell me, whats wrong with having
> a limit on the amount to let in. You get people saying we need
> immigants to help with our ecconomy, to help the country's demmand
> for workers as theres more elderly people living now. I agree to a
> point, the fact is if we can't run the country with the people in
> place we never will.
>
> You speak as if the "people in place" will be there
> forever. Less people are being born, more are living longer. We have
> an aging population and an increasing burden on pensions. How are
> these pensions going to be paid if there are no people working and
> generating taxes and NI?
>
> You also say If we can't run the country as is now. Well, we can't.
> We never will? We will if we allow more economic migrants.
>
And what when theese immigrants become old themselves? The fact is we do need immigrants, but not as much as we have coming in already.
> Oh, and the whole of my post was making the point that to deny there
> was a problem with immigration was ignorance. However, the problem
> stems from left wing refusal to confront the hard truth that
> immigrants are not sweet angels, but people, and as such are just as
> likely to be criminally minded as any other average person. The
> problem also comes from the right wings refusal to accept that
> immigrants are not a ravening band of rapacious locusts, but people,
> and as such are just as likely to want to build a decent life for
> themselves and their family as any other average person.
>
>
> It would be intersting to see your views, what would you do. Have
> you
> read the ukip's pollicy on immigrants? What don't you agree with?
> The
> reason for asking theese questions is simple. I cant't see any
> better
> pollicy of tackling immigrants from any other party, do you? Or do
> you go with your ignorance and deny there is a problem?
>
> What I don't agree with is that it makes no effort to acknowledge the
> economic input of immigrants. It implies that an immigrant is simply
> here to sponge off the state, and that is the reason for the limit.
> Me personally? I'd inject a little honesty into the debate, and
> acknowledge that we need economic migrants. So grant them an economic
> migrant visa for, lets say, 10 years. If someone has, at the end of
> that 10 years, contributed to the national economy, then why not keep
> them in? If someone hasn't, then I'd have no problem with deporting
> them.
>
Thats wrong light, what they are saying is that migration out of Britain and immigration into Britain should be at the same level. They are saying they will emulate the Australian system which admits immigrants awarded on a points basis based on grounds of skills, value to the community, and contribution to the national economy which will indeed acknoledge the
economic input of immigrants.
> I'm not denying there is a problem. I'm denying that the problem is
> due to a flood of evil darkies swamping the country.
> kevstar wrote:
> >
> Immigants are not responsible for all our country's ills, but to
> deny
> there isn't a problem with them is ignorance. My problem is your
> calling people racist for having the opinion that theres to many
> immigrants coming into our country. Tell me, whats wrong with having
> a limit on the amount to let in. You get people saying we need
> immigants to help with our ecconomy, to help the country's demmand
> for workers as theres more elderly people living now. I agree to a
> point, the fact is if we can't run the country with the people in
> place we never will.
>
> You speak as if the "people in place" will be there
> forever. Less people are being born, more are living longer. We have
> an aging population and an increasing burden on pensions. How are
> these pensions going to be paid if there are no people working and
> generating taxes and NI?
>
> You also say If we can't run the country as is now. Well, we can't.
> We never will? We will if we allow more economic migrants.
>
And what when theese immigrants become old themselves? The fact is we do need immigrants, but not as much as we have coming in already.
> Oh, and the whole of my post was making the point that to deny there
> was a problem with immigration was ignorance. However, the problem
> stems from left wing refusal to confront the hard truth that
> immigrants are not sweet angels, but people, and as such are just as
> likely to be criminally minded as any other average person. The
> problem also comes from the right wings refusal to accept that
> immigrants are not a ravening band of rapacious locusts, but people,
> and as such are just as likely to want to build a decent life for
> themselves and their family as any other average person.
>
>
> It would be intersting to see your views, what would you do. Have
> you
> read the ukip's pollicy on immigrants? What don't you agree with?
> The
> reason for asking theese questions is simple. I cant't see any
> better
> pollicy of tackling immigrants from any other party, do you? Or do
> you go with your ignorance and deny there is a problem?
>
> What I don't agree with is that it makes no effort to acknowledge the
> economic input of immigrants. It implies that an immigrant is simply
> here to sponge off the state, and that is the reason for the limit.
> Me personally? I'd inject a little honesty into the debate, and
> acknowledge that we need economic migrants. So grant them an economic
> migrant visa for, lets say, 10 years. If someone has, at the end of
> that 10 years, contributed to the national economy, then why not keep
> them in? If someone hasn't, then I'd have no problem with deporting
> them.
>
Thats wrong light, what they are saying is that migration out of Britain and immigration into Britain should be at the same level. They are saying they will emulate the Australian system which admits immigrants awarded on a points basis based on grounds of skills, value to the community, and contribution to the national economy which will indeed acknoledge the
economic input of immigrants.
> I'm not denying there is a problem. I'm denying that the problem is
> due to a flood of evil darkies swamping the country.
kevstar wrote:
> And what when theese immigrants become old themselves? The fact is we
> do need immigrants, but not as much as we have coming in already.
When they become old I'd hope that by then they'll be considered citizens and not still regarded as immigrants. After all, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in the UK who ISN'T descended from immigrants.
Anyway, to answer your question, immigration is a constant influx. We currently have a shrinking population; immigration will reverse that.
>
> Thats wrong light, what they are saying is that migration out of
> Britain and immigration into Britain should be at the same level.
> They are saying they will emulate the Australian system which admits
> immigrants awarded on a points basis based on grounds of skills,
> value to the community, and contribution to the national economy
> which will indeed acknoledge the
> economic input of immigrants.
>
Mm, however the Australian system has been shown to be no more or less use than any other in that when a racist government get in, ethnicity plays a big part in deciding whether or not an immigrant is allowed in. And when RKS has made a point of declaring his contempt for Arabs and Arabic culture, then I'm not encouraged. I'd also ask exactly how they decide on this point system, and who decides the values.
All that said, on paper that sounds like a decent system.
> And what when theese immigrants become old themselves? The fact is we
> do need immigrants, but not as much as we have coming in already.
When they become old I'd hope that by then they'll be considered citizens and not still regarded as immigrants. After all, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in the UK who ISN'T descended from immigrants.
Anyway, to answer your question, immigration is a constant influx. We currently have a shrinking population; immigration will reverse that.
>
> Thats wrong light, what they are saying is that migration out of
> Britain and immigration into Britain should be at the same level.
> They are saying they will emulate the Australian system which admits
> immigrants awarded on a points basis based on grounds of skills,
> value to the community, and contribution to the national economy
> which will indeed acknoledge the
> economic input of immigrants.
>
Mm, however the Australian system has been shown to be no more or less use than any other in that when a racist government get in, ethnicity plays a big part in deciding whether or not an immigrant is allowed in. And when RKS has made a point of declaring his contempt for Arabs and Arabic culture, then I'm not encouraged. I'd also ask exactly how they decide on this point system, and who decides the values.
All that said, on paper that sounds like a decent system.
What Sibs said.
It's funny how economic migrants are percieved as a problem, often people think they are here to sponge off our state and that... There are a few things about this I don't quite get. Firstly, what about the people who have lived in Britain for years and are sponging off the state? I'm not talking about genuinely disabled people, or those between jobs etc. I just mean people who make no effort to find work or support themselves because they know they can just pick up a cheque every week. Are these people 'more' entitled to sponge off the state because they are British...?
Also, why is it that we allow corporations to cross borders to take advantage of more favourable economic conditions (ie. manufacturing where there is cheap labour, selling where there is high demand and / or a wealthy market), but when an individual wishes to do so people often look down on them...
Frankly if you're living on a pittance and you could be much better off working in another country for doing the same job (or a more menial job) then it makes sense to try to go to this other country.
Also, why is it that we allow corporations to cross borders to take advantage of more favourable economic conditions (ie. manufacturing where there is cheap labour, selling where there is high demand and / or a wealthy market), but when an individual wishes to do so people often look down on them...
Frankly if you're living on a pittance and you could be much better off working in another country for doing the same job (or a more menial job) then it makes sense to try to go to this other country.
Page: