The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Goatboy wrote:
> That's racist
That's abusive towards racists.
> That's racist
That's abusive towards racists.
That's racist
kevstar wrote:
> Apologies
And I want to write what Strafio said; there's no need to apologise. You had an opinion, you debated it, and you had enough courage to accept that the figures you were basing your opinion on were incorrect. That takes guts and I 100% respect that. The most important thing about debate isn't who's right and who's wrong; it's about developing your own knowledge and amending opinions and preconceptions based on any new knowledge gained. Cheers for the argument; it gave me the opportunity to sort out in my own head the reasons I believe in what I believe.
> Apologies
And I want to write what Strafio said; there's no need to apologise. You had an opinion, you debated it, and you had enough courage to accept that the figures you were basing your opinion on were incorrect. That takes guts and I 100% respect that. The most important thing about debate isn't who's right and who's wrong; it's about developing your own knowledge and amending opinions and preconceptions based on any new knowledge gained. Cheers for the argument; it gave me the opportunity to sort out in my own head the reasons I believe in what I believe.
You don't have to be all apologetic.
There's no law saying that you should get things right or no be allowed to have an opinion if you're not "right". As long as you're always ready to question what you believe then it's healthy.
In your case, your questioning took you away from some propaganda, so good going. Keep at it! ;-)
There's no law saying that you should get things right or no be allowed to have an opinion if you're not "right". As long as you're always ready to question what you believe then it's healthy.
In your case, your questioning took you away from some propaganda, so good going. Keep at it! ;-)
First I need to apologise for my ignorance towards immigration, secondly it seems light you are correct regarding the figures produced by Migrationwatch UK. I feel anger towards them as they made it clear in thier documentation that Britain is overcrowded and that immigration has become out of hand. This is how some of the figures have been made to look scary reading. At current rates the population would grow from 60 million now to 68 million in 2030, they say. Quote from Migration watch, however further investagation reveals....
The population projections used by Migrationwatch UK, the tiny pressure group at the centre of the recent storm, come from the Government Actuary's Department. But the GAD was forced radically to adjust its figures last month when the first results from the 2001 census showed it had over-estimated Britain's population. It was forced to knock a million off the population figures, which is now thought to be only 58.8m. The figures, designed for use by government spending departments, are now a lot less scary. The population is now estimated to rise by just 0.28 per cent a year, reaching a 63.2m by 2026 and peaking at 64m in 2040. The population will then go into decline, it suggests.
Ruth Lea, head of policy at the Insti tute of Directors, says the debate is becoming over-heated and there are central facts that everyone needs to agree on: 'There is no longer any question about it: we have mass immigration. There is no shrinking population. There is no shrinking workforce. Many of us are now becoming highly sceptical that we need more immigration. The polls show that two-thirds of people do not want more immigrants.'
Now I have seen the light, that all the figures do not add up, and can now see how such figures can be turned around to be made to look scary, this was me bieng gullable. I do need to say there needs to be a more accurate way in calculating theese figures. I do however, defend my right to say what I did as the information was there in front of me, so it wasn't like I made it up or anything, I just wasn't aware to the fact that the information given was in reality a source of lies, and can now understand why you got the impression of me bieng racist. This basically made all my points of argument false, and apollogise once again for my ignorance.
The population projections used by Migrationwatch UK, the tiny pressure group at the centre of the recent storm, come from the Government Actuary's Department. But the GAD was forced radically to adjust its figures last month when the first results from the 2001 census showed it had over-estimated Britain's population. It was forced to knock a million off the population figures, which is now thought to be only 58.8m. The figures, designed for use by government spending departments, are now a lot less scary. The population is now estimated to rise by just 0.28 per cent a year, reaching a 63.2m by 2026 and peaking at 64m in 2040. The population will then go into decline, it suggests.
Ruth Lea, head of policy at the Insti tute of Directors, says the debate is becoming over-heated and there are central facts that everyone needs to agree on: 'There is no longer any question about it: we have mass immigration. There is no shrinking population. There is no shrinking workforce. Many of us are now becoming highly sceptical that we need more immigration. The polls show that two-thirds of people do not want more immigrants.'
Now I have seen the light, that all the figures do not add up, and can now see how such figures can be turned around to be made to look scary, this was me bieng gullable. I do need to say there needs to be a more accurate way in calculating theese figures. I do however, defend my right to say what I did as the information was there in front of me, so it wasn't like I made it up or anything, I just wasn't aware to the fact that the information given was in reality a source of lies, and can now understand why you got the impression of me bieng racist. This basically made all my points of argument false, and apollogise once again for my ignorance.
light said
They do indeed. Germany built much of it's economic miracle on the back of immigrant labour. France has a massive Arab and North African-origin population. Spain has a p!ss weak economy. 2 of those 3 countries have good economies and take in immigrants on a large scale. One has a rubbish economy, and is not noted for it's immigrant population. You see what I'm driving at, right?
France has the same amount of people as us , but are a much bigger Country in size so they needn't worry. Germany's economic miracle was due to the new currency the deuschmark. And spains Economy is doing very well at the moment, higher economic growth than Germany at the moment.
light said
Incidentally, we also benefitted from immigration once the Romans had settled England (not a time of war, unless you're going to try and say that we were at war for the full 300 years of occupation), immediately after (the influx of Teutonic and Norse raiders who settled much of the British Isles), throughout the middle ages, throughout the reign of William of Orange (most of East Anglia can claim Dutch descent) and through Victoria's reign (being as how we then owned most of the world). We've benefitted throughout history from immigration whether peacetime or at war
Your talking about a time when there wasn't 60 million people to take care of.
light said
Increase the minimum wage? It's just been increased. And where does one get the money to increase that wage again? One gets it from an improved economy. What is one of the ways to improve an economy? An influx of cheap labour. How does one get that influx? Through immigration.
Then of course we have the kicker; whom do you think will give our society greater value for money from their work? Those people who want to sit back and receive state handouts, or those who are willing to work, no matter where they're from originally
And now it's increased it might just send more people to work, and why should we send someone over to work here just because some lazy person doesn't want to work? And what about the young generation of workers coming through? The people getting made redundant, even people coming out of prison?
light says
Why should there be a limit? If they're helping the country, what possible reason could there be for limitation of numbers? I'm guessing you're going to say "Overcrowding", but you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence for this supposed overcrowding.
There already are border controls. Airlines already do check documents. The channel tunnel is travel between the EU, and you know how easy EU travel is now. Everything you're saying is already being done. All UKIP seem to say is that "we'll make sure it's done properly" whilst offering no practical suggestions as to how they're actually going to achieve this
I have give you reasons for overcrowding already and countered them see above. And what ever checks is bieng done at the moment working so that would need reviewing.
light said
kevstar wrote:
> Yes I do have an answer thanks, every time we have benefited from
> immigration is in time of war. What your looking at is two different
> times, time when in the past the population wasn't as it is now, and
> never has there been a time in our history when Britain has been as
> populated as it is now. Just think we have at least 60 million people
> thats one of the most overcrowded countries in the developed world,
> fact, France, Spain and Germany have several times the inhabitable
> space of over-crowded Britain yet take far fewer immigrants than we
> do. Comparing the population back through history to what it is now,
> what about it? They were less people then, the Country wasn't
> overcrowded as it is now. Does that mean it will work now? Obviously
> not, as you said yourself we cant let everyone in so something must
> be done about it.
They do indeed. Germany built much of it's economic miracle on the back of immigrant labour. France has a massive Arab and North African-origin population. Spain has a p!ss weak economy. 2 of those 3 countries have good economies and take in immigrants on a large scale. One has a rubbish economy, and is not noted for it's immigrant population. You see what I'm driving at, right?
You keep using this word, overcrowded. If that's the case, how come there are properties standing empty up and down the land? Can you please provide some proof of this overcrowding? You're basing your whole argument about putting limits on the number of immigrants on this country being overcrowded, and you've not given a single shred of evidence for it to be true. All you've given is the standard right wing scaremongering based on skewed facts (see below)
Incidentally, we also benefitted from immigration once the Romans had settled England (not a time of war, unless you're going to try and say that we were at war for the full 300 years of occupation), immediately after (the influx of Teutonic and Norse raiders who settled much of the British Isles), throughout the middle ages, throughout the reign of William of Orange (most of East Anglia can claim Dutch descent) and through Victoria's reign (being as how we then owned most of the world). We've benefitted throughout history from immigration whether peacetime or at war.
>
> Force them no, but what needs to be done is to make it harder for
> people to take advantage of our benefit system. Give people the
> incentive to go to work by increasing the minimum wage. Remember, the
> lowest payed jobs are more common than not a lot harder than the
> average payed job so reward them.
Tighten up benefits how exactly? We had a Tory government for 13 years and they made it damn near impossible to get benefits whether you need them or not. The same still holds true. Ever had to sign on before? I have and it was an absolute nightmare. But credit where it's due, it definitely encouraged me to get a job and quickly.
Increase the minimum wage? It's just been increased. And where does one get the money to increase that wage again? One gets it from an improved economy. What is one of the ways to improve an economy? An influx of cheap labour. How does one get that influx? Through immigration.
Then of course we have the kicker; whom do you think will give our society greater value for money from their work? Those people who want to sit back and receive state handouts, or those who are willing to work, no matter where they're from originally?
>
>
> I also beleve they should be border contols, and also airlines, ferry
> companies, the Channel Tunnel should be made resbonsible for ensuring
> passengers have proper documents for UK entry. And also don't
> disagree that by granting economic migrant status to refugee's who
> will work, are helping the country. However I do think they should be
> a limit on them.
Why should there be a limit? If they're helping the country, what possible reason could there be for limitation of numbers? I'm guessing you're going to say "Overcrowding", but you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence for this supposed overcrowding.
There already are border controls. Airlines already do check documents. The channel tunnel is travel between the EU, and you know how easy EU travel is now. Everything you're saying is already being done. All UKIP seem to say is that "we'll make sure it's done properly" whilst offering no practical suggestions as to how they're actually going to achieve this.
light said
Quite how you can claim to be insulted by being accused of having no regard for human life, then in the same breath state that people have to be sent back to die if they don't fit the criteria is beyond me. But let's leave that for a second. Instead, lets look at how you're going to apply these criteria. I've asked it below and you've entirely avoided the question, so I'll ask it again;
Just what exactly is going to be done to investigate immigration claims? How are they going to prove that they could have gotten to another port of call? And what will be done with the immigrants whilst they gather proof? Or are you saying that immigrants should simply be sent back on the say so of an immigration officer who says, without any proof at all, that the immigrant could have gone elsewhere? Do you realise how open to abuse that system would
If they is laws in place that says anyone coming to Britain must have documents stating who where they come from and how they got there eg travel tickets, or they wont be allowed entry and will be deported back. Then if theese people were in genuine need of help then they would certainly not miss the first port of call they come to. And if they have the documents then fine, we will take them in and help them with there needs untill there applications are processed.
light said
The population density is a clever one to use; tell me, where exactly does it say that a country more densely populated than the underpopulated nations of Germany and France is an overcrowded one
I get it, you think the world is underpopulated, just how many people do we take in before you accept we have a problem? Put it this way, we will become one of the first countrys to become overpopulated if things cary on the way they are now.
light said
I also note you've been onto the Migrationwatch webpage judging by your comment on the City of Cambridge population?( Click Here ) Such a shame then that the organisation has been repeatedly decried as being right wing and racist, innit? An advanced internet search shows that the British National Party, as one of the first organisations to provide a hyper link to MigrationWatchUK. But hey, I'm sure that's coincidence. Oh, and it's been described as a racist organisation in the Independent too; Click Here (though I'm afraid you'll have to buy the article to see it in full)
Other comments on Migration Watch UK include BBC online: "The Home Office says that Migration Watch UK's figures should be treated with - considerable caution" Others said "Little more than idle speculation" "Scaremongering" "Whether this is a double-counting of asylum seekers is not clear" "What this does is give the far right ammunition to propagate their own particular views" Plus "Leading article: A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick" from the Independent Newspaper. Almost as if this evidence is nothing more than lies to suit a racist party, innit?
To show you just how the figures are distorted by bigoted types such as UKIP.... Click Here
It's NEVER just as easy as quoting a set of figures and saying "That proves it". Have a read through this; Click Here . It's mainly pro-immigration, but makes one very valuable point in the debate; "One basic problem in assessing the pros and cons of immigration is the inadequacy of available data, compounded by the problem of the comparability of different data sets. "
There needs to be more debate on this, certainly. Greater debate will expose the scaremongering lies of organisations like mediawatch, and will force the blinkered left wing who like to pretend that everyone loves immigrants out of their torpor to actually address the issue as well.
Having read the quotes, they was one thing that struck me, the amount of people bieng turned down for incomplete forms. This I must say is a disgrace, Along with the 10 day ruling to get help. The figures as you say are so missleading it's hard to beleve they actually go by them. Something must be changed in the way they gather the information,I also think they should provide help with the forms automatically.
I must say i'm pretty confused now as it's clear the system proposed, won't work with the figures been branded about. I still however beleve there is a problem with overcrowding, that there should still be a limit on the amount we take in.
light said
Not heard about the MP; who was it? I'm guessing it'll be a Tory, which suits me fine; the Tories and UKIP share the same voter base, and as they both struggle to take votes off each other, the Libdems and Labour benefit. As to the problem of overcrowding, well you still haven't convinced or even gone any way to vaguely persuading me that there is a problem. All you've convinced me of is that you have a problem with people born overseas, judging by your over-reliance on facts from organisations that have been descibed as racist in numerous different quarters.
My mistake,he was a former MP Sir Richard Body and he was Euro-sceptic anyways which proberbly explains it. And ohh as I said i'm not got a problem with people born overseas just with overcrowding, and yeah. my appologies for calling you ignorant I guess I just feel so strong about overcrowding it does wind me up sometimes, especially when people are arguing against it. And finally it seems I was indeed over-reliance on facts from organisations descibed as racist by some quarters. To be honest I had no idea they were linked to ukip.
They do indeed. Germany built much of it's economic miracle on the back of immigrant labour. France has a massive Arab and North African-origin population. Spain has a p!ss weak economy. 2 of those 3 countries have good economies and take in immigrants on a large scale. One has a rubbish economy, and is not noted for it's immigrant population. You see what I'm driving at, right?
France has the same amount of people as us , but are a much bigger Country in size so they needn't worry. Germany's economic miracle was due to the new currency the deuschmark. And spains Economy is doing very well at the moment, higher economic growth than Germany at the moment.
light said
Incidentally, we also benefitted from immigration once the Romans had settled England (not a time of war, unless you're going to try and say that we were at war for the full 300 years of occupation), immediately after (the influx of Teutonic and Norse raiders who settled much of the British Isles), throughout the middle ages, throughout the reign of William of Orange (most of East Anglia can claim Dutch descent) and through Victoria's reign (being as how we then owned most of the world). We've benefitted throughout history from immigration whether peacetime or at war
Your talking about a time when there wasn't 60 million people to take care of.
light said
Increase the minimum wage? It's just been increased. And where does one get the money to increase that wage again? One gets it from an improved economy. What is one of the ways to improve an economy? An influx of cheap labour. How does one get that influx? Through immigration.
Then of course we have the kicker; whom do you think will give our society greater value for money from their work? Those people who want to sit back and receive state handouts, or those who are willing to work, no matter where they're from originally
And now it's increased it might just send more people to work, and why should we send someone over to work here just because some lazy person doesn't want to work? And what about the young generation of workers coming through? The people getting made redundant, even people coming out of prison?
light says
Why should there be a limit? If they're helping the country, what possible reason could there be for limitation of numbers? I'm guessing you're going to say "Overcrowding", but you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence for this supposed overcrowding.
There already are border controls. Airlines already do check documents. The channel tunnel is travel between the EU, and you know how easy EU travel is now. Everything you're saying is already being done. All UKIP seem to say is that "we'll make sure it's done properly" whilst offering no practical suggestions as to how they're actually going to achieve this
I have give you reasons for overcrowding already and countered them see above. And what ever checks is bieng done at the moment working so that would need reviewing.
light said
kevstar wrote:
> Yes I do have an answer thanks, every time we have benefited from
> immigration is in time of war. What your looking at is two different
> times, time when in the past the population wasn't as it is now, and
> never has there been a time in our history when Britain has been as
> populated as it is now. Just think we have at least 60 million people
> thats one of the most overcrowded countries in the developed world,
> fact, France, Spain and Germany have several times the inhabitable
> space of over-crowded Britain yet take far fewer immigrants than we
> do. Comparing the population back through history to what it is now,
> what about it? They were less people then, the Country wasn't
> overcrowded as it is now. Does that mean it will work now? Obviously
> not, as you said yourself we cant let everyone in so something must
> be done about it.
They do indeed. Germany built much of it's economic miracle on the back of immigrant labour. France has a massive Arab and North African-origin population. Spain has a p!ss weak economy. 2 of those 3 countries have good economies and take in immigrants on a large scale. One has a rubbish economy, and is not noted for it's immigrant population. You see what I'm driving at, right?
You keep using this word, overcrowded. If that's the case, how come there are properties standing empty up and down the land? Can you please provide some proof of this overcrowding? You're basing your whole argument about putting limits on the number of immigrants on this country being overcrowded, and you've not given a single shred of evidence for it to be true. All you've given is the standard right wing scaremongering based on skewed facts (see below)
Incidentally, we also benefitted from immigration once the Romans had settled England (not a time of war, unless you're going to try and say that we were at war for the full 300 years of occupation), immediately after (the influx of Teutonic and Norse raiders who settled much of the British Isles), throughout the middle ages, throughout the reign of William of Orange (most of East Anglia can claim Dutch descent) and through Victoria's reign (being as how we then owned most of the world). We've benefitted throughout history from immigration whether peacetime or at war.
>
> Force them no, but what needs to be done is to make it harder for
> people to take advantage of our benefit system. Give people the
> incentive to go to work by increasing the minimum wage. Remember, the
> lowest payed jobs are more common than not a lot harder than the
> average payed job so reward them.
Tighten up benefits how exactly? We had a Tory government for 13 years and they made it damn near impossible to get benefits whether you need them or not. The same still holds true. Ever had to sign on before? I have and it was an absolute nightmare. But credit where it's due, it definitely encouraged me to get a job and quickly.
Increase the minimum wage? It's just been increased. And where does one get the money to increase that wage again? One gets it from an improved economy. What is one of the ways to improve an economy? An influx of cheap labour. How does one get that influx? Through immigration.
Then of course we have the kicker; whom do you think will give our society greater value for money from their work? Those people who want to sit back and receive state handouts, or those who are willing to work, no matter where they're from originally?
>
>
> I also beleve they should be border contols, and also airlines, ferry
> companies, the Channel Tunnel should be made resbonsible for ensuring
> passengers have proper documents for UK entry. And also don't
> disagree that by granting economic migrant status to refugee's who
> will work, are helping the country. However I do think they should be
> a limit on them.
Why should there be a limit? If they're helping the country, what possible reason could there be for limitation of numbers? I'm guessing you're going to say "Overcrowding", but you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence for this supposed overcrowding.
There already are border controls. Airlines already do check documents. The channel tunnel is travel between the EU, and you know how easy EU travel is now. Everything you're saying is already being done. All UKIP seem to say is that "we'll make sure it's done properly" whilst offering no practical suggestions as to how they're actually going to achieve this.
light said
Quite how you can claim to be insulted by being accused of having no regard for human life, then in the same breath state that people have to be sent back to die if they don't fit the criteria is beyond me. But let's leave that for a second. Instead, lets look at how you're going to apply these criteria. I've asked it below and you've entirely avoided the question, so I'll ask it again;
Just what exactly is going to be done to investigate immigration claims? How are they going to prove that they could have gotten to another port of call? And what will be done with the immigrants whilst they gather proof? Or are you saying that immigrants should simply be sent back on the say so of an immigration officer who says, without any proof at all, that the immigrant could have gone elsewhere? Do you realise how open to abuse that system would
If they is laws in place that says anyone coming to Britain must have documents stating who where they come from and how they got there eg travel tickets, or they wont be allowed entry and will be deported back. Then if theese people were in genuine need of help then they would certainly not miss the first port of call they come to. And if they have the documents then fine, we will take them in and help them with there needs untill there applications are processed.
light said
The population density is a clever one to use; tell me, where exactly does it say that a country more densely populated than the underpopulated nations of Germany and France is an overcrowded one
I get it, you think the world is underpopulated, just how many people do we take in before you accept we have a problem? Put it this way, we will become one of the first countrys to become overpopulated if things cary on the way they are now.
light said
I also note you've been onto the Migrationwatch webpage judging by your comment on the City of Cambridge population?( Click Here ) Such a shame then that the organisation has been repeatedly decried as being right wing and racist, innit? An advanced internet search shows that the British National Party, as one of the first organisations to provide a hyper link to MigrationWatchUK. But hey, I'm sure that's coincidence. Oh, and it's been described as a racist organisation in the Independent too; Click Here (though I'm afraid you'll have to buy the article to see it in full)
Other comments on Migration Watch UK include BBC online: "The Home Office says that Migration Watch UK's figures should be treated with - considerable caution" Others said "Little more than idle speculation" "Scaremongering" "Whether this is a double-counting of asylum seekers is not clear" "What this does is give the far right ammunition to propagate their own particular views" Plus "Leading article: A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick" from the Independent Newspaper. Almost as if this evidence is nothing more than lies to suit a racist party, innit?
To show you just how the figures are distorted by bigoted types such as UKIP.... Click Here
It's NEVER just as easy as quoting a set of figures and saying "That proves it". Have a read through this; Click Here . It's mainly pro-immigration, but makes one very valuable point in the debate; "One basic problem in assessing the pros and cons of immigration is the inadequacy of available data, compounded by the problem of the comparability of different data sets. "
There needs to be more debate on this, certainly. Greater debate will expose the scaremongering lies of organisations like mediawatch, and will force the blinkered left wing who like to pretend that everyone loves immigrants out of their torpor to actually address the issue as well.
Having read the quotes, they was one thing that struck me, the amount of people bieng turned down for incomplete forms. This I must say is a disgrace, Along with the 10 day ruling to get help. The figures as you say are so missleading it's hard to beleve they actually go by them. Something must be changed in the way they gather the information,I also think they should provide help with the forms automatically.
I must say i'm pretty confused now as it's clear the system proposed, won't work with the figures been branded about. I still however beleve there is a problem with overcrowding, that there should still be a limit on the amount we take in.
light said
Not heard about the MP; who was it? I'm guessing it'll be a Tory, which suits me fine; the Tories and UKIP share the same voter base, and as they both struggle to take votes off each other, the Libdems and Labour benefit. As to the problem of overcrowding, well you still haven't convinced or even gone any way to vaguely persuading me that there is a problem. All you've convinced me of is that you have a problem with people born overseas, judging by your over-reliance on facts from organisations that have been descibed as racist in numerous different quarters.
My mistake,he was a former MP Sir Richard Body and he was Euro-sceptic anyways which proberbly explains it. And ohh as I said i'm not got a problem with people born overseas just with overcrowding, and yeah. my appologies for calling you ignorant I guess I just feel so strong about overcrowding it does wind me up sometimes, especially when people are arguing against it. And finally it seems I was indeed over-reliance on facts from organisations descibed as racist by some quarters. To be honest I had no idea they were linked to ukip.
The country is so over crowded, that I can't actually move. I mean, I just can't walk outside and buy a mango from my local shop, then go to see a film and enjoy all the delights of this nation, simply because there are so many immigrants. The natives on't actually take up any physical space at all. Which is odd, seeing as 95%+ of them are actually native....
What an odd thing!
What an odd thing!
Flock wrote:
> Firstly the level of quotage going on in this thread is questionable
> as is the length of some peoples posts, i got to page two, looked at
> how long it was and didn't bother reading after that, right now thats
> out of the way.
Fair point, but it's difficult to make the points in ones post without referring back to the other ones.
> Bloody hell it is easy to go on a bit isn't it ?
Heh. See?
> Firstly the level of quotage going on in this thread is questionable
> as is the length of some peoples posts, i got to page two, looked at
> how long it was and didn't bother reading after that, right now thats
> out of the way.
Fair point, but it's difficult to make the points in ones post without referring back to the other ones.
> Bloody hell it is easy to go on a bit isn't it ?
Heh. See?
kevstar wrote:
> Yes I do have an answer thanks, every time we have benefited from
> immigration is in time of war. What your looking at is two different
> times, time when in the past the population wasn't as it is now, and
> never has there been a time in our history when Britain has been as
> populated as it is now. Just think we have at least 60 million people
> thats one of the most overcrowded countries in the developed world,
> fact, France, Spain and Germany have several times the inhabitable
> space of over-crowded Britain yet take far fewer immigrants than we
> do. Comparing the population back through history to what it is now,
> what about it? They were less people then, the Country wasn't
> overcrowded as it is now. Does that mean it will work now? Obviously
> not, as you said yourself we cant let everyone in so something must
> be done about it.
They do indeed. Germany built much of it's economic miracle on the back of immigrant labour. France has a massive Arab and North African-origin population. Spain has a p!ss weak economy. 2 of those 3 countries have good economies and take in immigrants on a large scale. One has a rubbish economy, and is not noted for it's immigrant population. You see what I'm driving at, right?
You keep using this word, overcrowded. If that's the case, how come there are properties standing empty up and down the land? Can you please provide some proof of this overcrowding? You're basing your whole argument about putting limits on the number of immigrants on this country being overcrowded, and you've not given a single shred of evidence for it to be true. All you've given is the standard right wing scaremongering based on skewed facts (see below)
Incidentally, we also benefitted from immigration once the Romans had settled England (not a time of war, unless you're going to try and say that we were at war for the full 300 years of occupation), immediately after (the influx of Teutonic and Norse raiders who settled much of the British Isles), throughout the middle ages, throughout the reign of William of Orange (most of East Anglia can claim Dutch descent) and through Victoria's reign (being as how we then owned most of the world). We've benefitted throughout history from immigration whether peacetime or at war.
>
> Force them no, but what needs to be done is to make it harder for
> people to take advantage of our benefit system. Give people the
> incentive to go to work by increasing the minimum wage. Remember, the
> lowest payed jobs are more common than not a lot harder than the
> average payed job so reward them.
Tighten up benefits how exactly? We had a Tory government for 13 years and they made it damn near impossible to get benefits whether you need them or not. The same still holds true. Ever had to sign on before? I have and it was an absolute nightmare. But credit where it's due, it definitely encouraged me to get a job and quickly.
Increase the minimum wage? It's just been increased. And where does one get the money to increase that wage again? One gets it from an improved economy. What is one of the ways to improve an economy? An influx of cheap labour. How does one get that influx? Through immigration.
Then of course we have the kicker; whom do you think will give our society greater value for money from their work? Those people who want to sit back and receive state handouts, or those who are willing to work, no matter where they're from originally?
>
>
> I also beleve they should be border contols, and also airlines, ferry
> companies, the Channel Tunnel should be made resbonsible for ensuring
> passengers have proper documents for UK entry. And also don't
> disagree that by granting economic migrant status to refugee's who
> will work, are helping the country. However I do think they should be
> a limit on them.
Why should there be a limit? If they're helping the country, what possible reason could there be for limitation of numbers? I'm guessing you're going to say "Overcrowding", but you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence for this supposed overcrowding.
There already are border controls. Airlines already do check documents. The channel tunnel is travel between the EU, and you know how easy EU travel is now. Everything you're saying is already being done. All UKIP seem to say is that "we'll make sure it's done properly" whilst offering no practical suggestions as to how they're actually going to achieve this.
> And to say i'm xenophobic is just silly as were already living in a
> multi cultured society.
Yes, but judging by your comments about overcrowding and the lack of evidence you have to support them, you don't seem overly enamoured of multiculturalism.
>
>
> If we have a system in place where it clearly states the rules and
> laws which we have in place along with the criteria needed to be
> accepted, and if they dont fit that criteria, then they will be
> rejected. Thats not our problem. Yes of course just like anyother
> person I do feel for them. But that doesn't mean they get sent back,
> perhaps send them to the fist port of call in which they crossed.
Quite how you can claim to be insulted by being accused of having no regard for human life, then in the same breath state that people have to be sent back to die if they don't fit the criteria is beyond me. But let's leave that for a second. Instead, lets look at how you're going to apply these criteria. I've asked it below and you've entirely avoided the question, so I'll ask it again;
Just what exactly is going to be done to investigate immigration claims? How are they going to prove that they could have gotten to another port of call? And what will be done with the immigrants whilst they gather proof? Or are you saying that immigrants should simply be sent back on the say so of an immigration officer who says, without any proof at all, that the immigrant could have gone elsewhere? Do you realise how open to abuse that system would be?
There aren't just a few grey areas. This whole policy is one big grey area. UKIP can't provide any specifics, just a general "We'll put a limit on foreigners!" and no explaination of exactly how they'll do it. Worked on in time? Well, they'll have all the time in the world as they're not going to get in government.
>
>
>
>
> And if it's that bad of a pollicy, then why have the conservertives
> copied the same pollicy? Or wearn't you aware? Let me tell you,
> because it makes sense, yes of course theres going to be grey areas,
> but thats something that can be worked on in time.
What, like it suddenly becomes a good policy because the tories are copying it? The tories are fighting for survival and they're losing votes to UKIP. Most UKIP supporter's are simply disillusioned tories; if the tories copy UKIP policies, then they'll win back their votes. It's pure political opportunism and desperation.
> The average population density of England is twice that of Germany,
> four times that of the France, and twelve times that of the United
> States.In 2002 the government allowed another two hundred thousand
> people into the country, plus several thousand asylum seekers, many
> of whom are simply economic migrants living in our country
> illegally.We cannot sustain this increase which compares with a city
> the size of Cambridge coming into Britain every six months, or two
> million people over the next ten years.
Finally, we have some evidence...
I agree that the asylum seekers should be classified as they truly are; economic migrants. That way, companies won't be able to get them working for pennies. Instead they'll have to get jobs whereby they pay taxes. Which will boost our economy.
The population density is a clever one to use; tell me, where exactly does it say that a country more densely populated than the underpopulated nations of Germany and France is an overcrowded one?
I also note you've been onto the Migrationwatch webpage judging by your comment on the City of Cambridge population?( [URL]http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/frameset.asp?menu=isthereaprob&page=isthereaproblem.asp[/URL] ) Such a shame then that the organisation has been repeatedly decried as being right wing and racist, innit? An advanced internet search shows that the British National Party, as one of the first organisations to provide a hyper link to MigrationWatchUK. But hey, I'm sure that's coincidence. Oh, and it's been described as a racist organisation in the Independent too; [URL]http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/yasmin_alibhai_brown/story.jsp?story=357634[/URL] (though I'm afraid you'll have to buy the article to see it in full)
Other comments on Migration Watch UK include BBC online: "The Home Office says that Migration Watch UK's figures should be treated with - considerable caution" Others said "Little more than idle speculation" "Scaremongering" "Whether this is a double-counting of asylum seekers is not clear" "What this does is give the far right ammunition to propagate their own particular views" Plus "Leading article: A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick" from the Independent Newspaper. Almost as if this evidence is nothing more than lies to suit a racist party, innit?
To show you just how the figures are distorted by bigoted types such as UKIP.... [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2468311.stm[/URL]
It's NEVER just as easy as quoting a set of figures and saying "That proves it". Have a read through this; [URL]http://www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/Dr2Pro-immigration.html[/URL] . It's mainly pro-immigration, but makes one very valuable point in the debate; "One basic problem in assessing the pros and cons of immigration is the inadequacy of available data, compounded by the problem of the comparability of different data sets. "
There needs to be more debate on this, certainly. Greater debate will expose the scaremongering lies of organisations like mediawatch, and will force the blinkered left wing who like to pretend that everyone loves immigrants out of their torpor to actually address the issue as well.
> So, our prisons aren't packed? does the amount of dentists around the
> country give any signs? Hospital lists are growing, and have you seen
> the state of the pension companys, yeah because we live longer but
> also because theres more than ever. And to top up your way of
> thinking, on you reckoning we need to get people to starve just to
> realise we have a problem, and you wonder why I called you ignorant.
Firstly, using prison density as an indicator of population is kinda silly. We've got overcrowded prisons? Yup; tell me where exactly that proves that we have an overcrowded country. If we take prison population as an indicator of population then we have a nation made up of mainly black people, none of whom have any education beyond A-Levels. Hospital waiting lists are growing? Yup; thanks to lack of public investment, our whole infrastructure is collapsing. Also, the NHS was designed with the idea that people only lived about 5 to 10 years after retirement. Now people live on average between 10 and 20 years after their retirement. So naturally, the NHS is struggling to cope. The state of our pensions? I fail to see how you can blame immigrants for our aging population, but full marks for trying. What, is the next UKIP policy going to be compulsory euthanasia to help alleviate the supposed overcrowding of the country?
For each and every one of these points that supposedly prove overcrowding, there is another explaination. And yet it suits you and other xenophobes like you to try and blame it all on immigrants whilst pretending there are no alternate reasons for the problems. I do indeed wonder why you call me ignorant, because it's pretty clear I've looked at both sides of the issue before coming to my conclusions, whilst you simply trot out the faked facts to back up your cause whilst remaining blissfully unaware of any that contradict you.
>
>
> That is a good point and to be quite honest I dont have a answer for
> that problem , but i'm sure they'll be some way around it.
What, a way around the fact that one of the principle parts of their immigration policy contradicts itself? So what, should we simply impliment it even though it doesn't actually work? Do you really care if they find some way round it? Or will you ignore that annoying little fact so long as they limit people entering the country?
> Ok so I didn't bother looking it up, and? That doesn't mean I didn't
> think what it mean't.
True enough. Still, calling people stupid for disagreeing with your opinion when you yourself keep getting facts wrong isn't exactly going to bolster your credibility is it?
>
>
> Yeah, I did as it happens, and personally think it's the best thing
> for ukip. If you think about it he's the one reason why the majority
> of the UK has heard of him, by sticking up for what he thinks right,
> even if that gives people the impresion he's racist. I'm not saying
> that this is going to solve every problem regarding overcrowding,
> but a lot of it does make good sence. Oh, and cheers for the correct
> meaning. Oh just heard that theres another MP switched to ukip so
> they must be saying something right.
Well, by slagging off an entire race of people then yes, he does give the impression of being racist. I think that, on balance, he does so because he is in fact a racist. But at least the UKIP will then show some honesty; "A Racist Leader for a Racist Party". It's a lovely slogan, don't you think?
Not heard about the MP; who was it? I'm guessing it'll be a Tory, which suits me fine; the Tories and UKIP share the same voter base, and as they both struggle to take votes off each other, the Libdems and Labour benefit. As to the problem of overcrowding, well you still haven't convinced or even gone any way to vaguely persuading me that there is a problem. All you've convinced me of is that you have a problem with people born overseas, judging by your over-reliance on facts from organisations that have been descibed as racist in numerous different quarters.
> Yes I do have an answer thanks, every time we have benefited from
> immigration is in time of war. What your looking at is two different
> times, time when in the past the population wasn't as it is now, and
> never has there been a time in our history when Britain has been as
> populated as it is now. Just think we have at least 60 million people
> thats one of the most overcrowded countries in the developed world,
> fact, France, Spain and Germany have several times the inhabitable
> space of over-crowded Britain yet take far fewer immigrants than we
> do. Comparing the population back through history to what it is now,
> what about it? They were less people then, the Country wasn't
> overcrowded as it is now. Does that mean it will work now? Obviously
> not, as you said yourself we cant let everyone in so something must
> be done about it.
They do indeed. Germany built much of it's economic miracle on the back of immigrant labour. France has a massive Arab and North African-origin population. Spain has a p!ss weak economy. 2 of those 3 countries have good economies and take in immigrants on a large scale. One has a rubbish economy, and is not noted for it's immigrant population. You see what I'm driving at, right?
You keep using this word, overcrowded. If that's the case, how come there are properties standing empty up and down the land? Can you please provide some proof of this overcrowding? You're basing your whole argument about putting limits on the number of immigrants on this country being overcrowded, and you've not given a single shred of evidence for it to be true. All you've given is the standard right wing scaremongering based on skewed facts (see below)
Incidentally, we also benefitted from immigration once the Romans had settled England (not a time of war, unless you're going to try and say that we were at war for the full 300 years of occupation), immediately after (the influx of Teutonic and Norse raiders who settled much of the British Isles), throughout the middle ages, throughout the reign of William of Orange (most of East Anglia can claim Dutch descent) and through Victoria's reign (being as how we then owned most of the world). We've benefitted throughout history from immigration whether peacetime or at war.
>
> Force them no, but what needs to be done is to make it harder for
> people to take advantage of our benefit system. Give people the
> incentive to go to work by increasing the minimum wage. Remember, the
> lowest payed jobs are more common than not a lot harder than the
> average payed job so reward them.
Tighten up benefits how exactly? We had a Tory government for 13 years and they made it damn near impossible to get benefits whether you need them or not. The same still holds true. Ever had to sign on before? I have and it was an absolute nightmare. But credit where it's due, it definitely encouraged me to get a job and quickly.
Increase the minimum wage? It's just been increased. And where does one get the money to increase that wage again? One gets it from an improved economy. What is one of the ways to improve an economy? An influx of cheap labour. How does one get that influx? Through immigration.
Then of course we have the kicker; whom do you think will give our society greater value for money from their work? Those people who want to sit back and receive state handouts, or those who are willing to work, no matter where they're from originally?
>
>
> I also beleve they should be border contols, and also airlines, ferry
> companies, the Channel Tunnel should be made resbonsible for ensuring
> passengers have proper documents for UK entry. And also don't
> disagree that by granting economic migrant status to refugee's who
> will work, are helping the country. However I do think they should be
> a limit on them.
Why should there be a limit? If they're helping the country, what possible reason could there be for limitation of numbers? I'm guessing you're going to say "Overcrowding", but you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence for this supposed overcrowding.
There already are border controls. Airlines already do check documents. The channel tunnel is travel between the EU, and you know how easy EU travel is now. Everything you're saying is already being done. All UKIP seem to say is that "we'll make sure it's done properly" whilst offering no practical suggestions as to how they're actually going to achieve this.
> And to say i'm xenophobic is just silly as were already living in a
> multi cultured society.
Yes, but judging by your comments about overcrowding and the lack of evidence you have to support them, you don't seem overly enamoured of multiculturalism.
>
>
> If we have a system in place where it clearly states the rules and
> laws which we have in place along with the criteria needed to be
> accepted, and if they dont fit that criteria, then they will be
> rejected. Thats not our problem. Yes of course just like anyother
> person I do feel for them. But that doesn't mean they get sent back,
> perhaps send them to the fist port of call in which they crossed.
Quite how you can claim to be insulted by being accused of having no regard for human life, then in the same breath state that people have to be sent back to die if they don't fit the criteria is beyond me. But let's leave that for a second. Instead, lets look at how you're going to apply these criteria. I've asked it below and you've entirely avoided the question, so I'll ask it again;
Just what exactly is going to be done to investigate immigration claims? How are they going to prove that they could have gotten to another port of call? And what will be done with the immigrants whilst they gather proof? Or are you saying that immigrants should simply be sent back on the say so of an immigration officer who says, without any proof at all, that the immigrant could have gone elsewhere? Do you realise how open to abuse that system would be?
There aren't just a few grey areas. This whole policy is one big grey area. UKIP can't provide any specifics, just a general "We'll put a limit on foreigners!" and no explaination of exactly how they'll do it. Worked on in time? Well, they'll have all the time in the world as they're not going to get in government.
>
>
>
>
> And if it's that bad of a pollicy, then why have the conservertives
> copied the same pollicy? Or wearn't you aware? Let me tell you,
> because it makes sense, yes of course theres going to be grey areas,
> but thats something that can be worked on in time.
What, like it suddenly becomes a good policy because the tories are copying it? The tories are fighting for survival and they're losing votes to UKIP. Most UKIP supporter's are simply disillusioned tories; if the tories copy UKIP policies, then they'll win back their votes. It's pure political opportunism and desperation.
> The average population density of England is twice that of Germany,
> four times that of the France, and twelve times that of the United
> States.In 2002 the government allowed another two hundred thousand
> people into the country, plus several thousand asylum seekers, many
> of whom are simply economic migrants living in our country
> illegally.We cannot sustain this increase which compares with a city
> the size of Cambridge coming into Britain every six months, or two
> million people over the next ten years.
Finally, we have some evidence...
I agree that the asylum seekers should be classified as they truly are; economic migrants. That way, companies won't be able to get them working for pennies. Instead they'll have to get jobs whereby they pay taxes. Which will boost our economy.
The population density is a clever one to use; tell me, where exactly does it say that a country more densely populated than the underpopulated nations of Germany and France is an overcrowded one?
I also note you've been onto the Migrationwatch webpage judging by your comment on the City of Cambridge population?( [URL]http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/frameset.asp?menu=isthereaprob&page=isthereaproblem.asp[/URL] ) Such a shame then that the organisation has been repeatedly decried as being right wing and racist, innit? An advanced internet search shows that the British National Party, as one of the first organisations to provide a hyper link to MigrationWatchUK. But hey, I'm sure that's coincidence. Oh, and it's been described as a racist organisation in the Independent too; [URL]http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/yasmin_alibhai_brown/story.jsp?story=357634[/URL] (though I'm afraid you'll have to buy the article to see it in full)
Other comments on Migration Watch UK include BBC online: "The Home Office says that Migration Watch UK's figures should be treated with - considerable caution" Others said "Little more than idle speculation" "Scaremongering" "Whether this is a double-counting of asylum seekers is not clear" "What this does is give the far right ammunition to propagate their own particular views" Plus "Leading article: A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick" from the Independent Newspaper. Almost as if this evidence is nothing more than lies to suit a racist party, innit?
To show you just how the figures are distorted by bigoted types such as UKIP.... [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2468311.stm[/URL]
It's NEVER just as easy as quoting a set of figures and saying "That proves it". Have a read through this; [URL]http://www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/Dr2Pro-immigration.html[/URL] . It's mainly pro-immigration, but makes one very valuable point in the debate; "One basic problem in assessing the pros and cons of immigration is the inadequacy of available data, compounded by the problem of the comparability of different data sets. "
There needs to be more debate on this, certainly. Greater debate will expose the scaremongering lies of organisations like mediawatch, and will force the blinkered left wing who like to pretend that everyone loves immigrants out of their torpor to actually address the issue as well.
> So, our prisons aren't packed? does the amount of dentists around the
> country give any signs? Hospital lists are growing, and have you seen
> the state of the pension companys, yeah because we live longer but
> also because theres more than ever. And to top up your way of
> thinking, on you reckoning we need to get people to starve just to
> realise we have a problem, and you wonder why I called you ignorant.
Firstly, using prison density as an indicator of population is kinda silly. We've got overcrowded prisons? Yup; tell me where exactly that proves that we have an overcrowded country. If we take prison population as an indicator of population then we have a nation made up of mainly black people, none of whom have any education beyond A-Levels. Hospital waiting lists are growing? Yup; thanks to lack of public investment, our whole infrastructure is collapsing. Also, the NHS was designed with the idea that people only lived about 5 to 10 years after retirement. Now people live on average between 10 and 20 years after their retirement. So naturally, the NHS is struggling to cope. The state of our pensions? I fail to see how you can blame immigrants for our aging population, but full marks for trying. What, is the next UKIP policy going to be compulsory euthanasia to help alleviate the supposed overcrowding of the country?
For each and every one of these points that supposedly prove overcrowding, there is another explaination. And yet it suits you and other xenophobes like you to try and blame it all on immigrants whilst pretending there are no alternate reasons for the problems. I do indeed wonder why you call me ignorant, because it's pretty clear I've looked at both sides of the issue before coming to my conclusions, whilst you simply trot out the faked facts to back up your cause whilst remaining blissfully unaware of any that contradict you.
>
>
> That is a good point and to be quite honest I dont have a answer for
> that problem , but i'm sure they'll be some way around it.
What, a way around the fact that one of the principle parts of their immigration policy contradicts itself? So what, should we simply impliment it even though it doesn't actually work? Do you really care if they find some way round it? Or will you ignore that annoying little fact so long as they limit people entering the country?
> Ok so I didn't bother looking it up, and? That doesn't mean I didn't
> think what it mean't.
True enough. Still, calling people stupid for disagreeing with your opinion when you yourself keep getting facts wrong isn't exactly going to bolster your credibility is it?
>
>
> Yeah, I did as it happens, and personally think it's the best thing
> for ukip. If you think about it he's the one reason why the majority
> of the UK has heard of him, by sticking up for what he thinks right,
> even if that gives people the impresion he's racist. I'm not saying
> that this is going to solve every problem regarding overcrowding,
> but a lot of it does make good sence. Oh, and cheers for the correct
> meaning. Oh just heard that theres another MP switched to ukip so
> they must be saying something right.
Well, by slagging off an entire race of people then yes, he does give the impression of being racist. I think that, on balance, he does so because he is in fact a racist. But at least the UKIP will then show some honesty; "A Racist Leader for a Racist Party". It's a lovely slogan, don't you think?
Not heard about the MP; who was it? I'm guessing it'll be a Tory, which suits me fine; the Tories and UKIP share the same voter base, and as they both struggle to take votes off each other, the Libdems and Labour benefit. As to the problem of overcrowding, well you still haven't convinced or even gone any way to vaguely persuading me that there is a problem. All you've convinced me of is that you have a problem with people born overseas, judging by your over-reliance on facts from organisations that have been descibed as racist in numerous different quarters.
Firstly the level of quotage going on in this thread is questionable as is the length of some peoples posts, i got to page two, looked at how long it was and didn't bother reading after that, right now thats out of the way.
Special treatment for ethnic minorities or supposedly oppressed groups is the fault of the " Think of the children " brigade, you know who i mean, those who make everything into a bigger issue than it is i could very easily go on the attack against the media who started this whole bloody thing and have now decided they dont like the monster they created.
As for women joining in mens games or jobs, let them but there is no reason for them to get preferential treatment, as for men joining the women, it wont be allowed simply because we are phsyically superior and they can't compete, the weak can choose to join the strong but it's not fair for the strong to join the weak.
Every case is different and should be treated as such but the sooner it's realised that we're not the same, the sooner we can move past this PC crap, all it would take is a little common sense.
These Gay/Black/Womens marches that go on contradict their own aim, theyre asking to be accepted into society by segregating themselves into their own group.
Bloody hell it is easy to go on a bit isn't it ?
Special treatment for ethnic minorities or supposedly oppressed groups is the fault of the " Think of the children " brigade, you know who i mean, those who make everything into a bigger issue than it is i could very easily go on the attack against the media who started this whole bloody thing and have now decided they dont like the monster they created.
As for women joining in mens games or jobs, let them but there is no reason for them to get preferential treatment, as for men joining the women, it wont be allowed simply because we are phsyically superior and they can't compete, the weak can choose to join the strong but it's not fair for the strong to join the weak.
Every case is different and should be treated as such but the sooner it's realised that we're not the same, the sooner we can move past this PC crap, all it would take is a little common sense.
These Gay/Black/Womens marches that go on contradict their own aim, theyre asking to be accepted into society by segregating themselves into their own group.
Bloody hell it is easy to go on a bit isn't it ?
Page: