The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
[URL]http://www.veritasparty.co.uk/[/URL]
Well I thought i'd at least check out his 101 lies section, interesting.
Well I thought i'd at least check out his 101 lies section, interesting.
Page:
Really, but surely that makes your evidence, well, wrong. So come on Light, what dodgy evidence do you have to challenge theese facts? You're in denial, boy. Wheres the dismantling of my evidence? It looks to me as if i've dismantled you're claims. It seems to me you're belief in the stats the goverment brings out is hypocritical to your views on the war with Iraq! It seems i'm right and your wrong, and it seems you're not better than me, chump.
~sigh~
Which is why I keep saying there needs to be an open and honest debate about it, using all of the evidence. Rather than allowing an apocalyptically stupid racist to appoint himself as the investigating magistrate, and then dismissing any evidence in favour of immigration as "rubbish".
But hey; carry on proving your racism kevin. It gives me a laugh of a morning.
Which is why I keep saying there needs to be an open and honest debate about it, using all of the evidence. Rather than allowing an apocalyptically stupid racist to appoint himself as the investigating magistrate, and then dismissing any evidence in favour of immigration as "rubbish".
But hey; carry on proving your racism kevin. It gives me a laugh of a morning.
I bet you're just waiting for someone to quote all that.
[URL]http://www.stablesound.co.uk/mp3/veritas.mp3[/URL]
This is damn catchy!
[URL]http://www.stablesound.co.uk/mp3/veritas.mp3[/URL]
This is damn catchy!
And thats you're evidence is it, wow. It's funny how a load of those statistics are challenged by not only Veritas, but other partys as well. I didn't really want to do this as the post is rather large, but as this challenges the main stats in the link you so kindly provided, it basically allows you to compare. I would also be nice if you could answer or challenge those views below, enjoy.
The government fiddled figures on asylum by issuing work permits to people who would otherwise have claimed asylum
Government figures released on Thursday have shown a sharp fall in the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK. There were around 5,000 asylum claims for each of the first three months of the year compared to last October's peak of just under 9,000. However, there are concerns whether this reduction is due to the increase in work permits and other visas given to people who would have otherwise claimed asylum.
Your claim about migration watch being ukips sidekick...
Government lies about the 'MigrationWatch' organisation
The government has repeatedly claimed publicly that MigrationWatch exaggerate the figures. But MigrationWatch recently obliged the Home Office, under the governments freedom of information rules, to release their information on MigrationWatch. Here is the text of an email from one Home Office official to another sent on 29 July 2003:
"I have made this point many times before but can we please stop saying that MigrationWatch migration forecasts are wrong. I have pointed out before that MigrationWatch assumptions are often below government actuary department's high migration scenario".
Government claims that 'migrants add to economic growth'
However, they also add to population. The Prime Minister recently claimed that growth would be nearly 0.5% per year less if there was no net immigration. The correct figure is 0.4% and immigrants add 0.25% to the population every year. So the 'economic growth' benefit is only 0.15% per head per year - a trivial amount compared to the extra congestion involved
The government claims that migrants account for 15% of economic growth
But trend growth is 2.75% per year. 0.4 is 15% of 2.75 so this is the same claim as above - it takes no account of the extra population.
The government claim that 'immigration is needed to boost our economy'
Major studies in Canada and the United States have concluded that the benefit of immigration to the economy as a whole is positive but very small. The impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head is a small fraction of 1%. In Britain, congestion costs probably wipe that out since we are 12 times as crowded as the United States. It follows that the case for large scale immigration is a matter for decision on political and social grounds. The economic case isneutral
The government says that 'London would collapse without foreign workers'
Jobs done by foreigners in London are being done by British people in the many parts of the country where there are few, if any, immigrants. Londoners are, in effect, being squeezed out of London by the arrival of 200,000 foreigners a year.
The government says we need foreigners to do the jobs that British people are unwilling to do
No. The underlying issue is pay rates for the unskilled. At present, the difference between unskilled pay and benefits is so narrow that, for some, it is hardly worth working. That partly explains why we have 1.5 million unemployed and a further 2.2 million whom the Government wishes to move from welfare to work. The Government points out that there are about ½ million vacancies but they do not say that there are seven times that number of British people who would like to work.
The government says that "Britain has a declining population and work force"
The Facts: The British population is officially projected to grow by 6.1 million by 2031 of which 5.2 million (84%) will be due to the assumed continuing high level of immigration. The population of working age will also increase, partly because women will be working longer. With a fertility rate of 1.73, Britain is in a much better position than countries like Italy and Spain whose fertility rate is about 1.2.
The government says that migrants are necessary to 'help pay for our pensions'
The Facts: Immigrants themselves grow older. To maintain the present population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants a year up to 2050. That would double the population to 120 million and leave us with the same problem.
The government claimed that in 2001 the total number of successful asylum applicants was as high as 51%
The Facts: This includes those granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) - a category now abolished by the Home Secretary because it had been awarded too liberally. Over the seven years 1997 – 2003, just over 22% of asylum applicants were granted asylum and a further 15% were granted ELR (now renamed Humanitarian Protection). Source: Home Office statistical bulletin 09/02 Table 1.1
The government and the Refugee Council claim that 'Britain takes only 2% of the world's refugees'
The Facts: The figures include refugees in Asia and Africa and also confused a stock with a flow. The correct comparison is the number of asylum seekers coming to Britain compared to the number coming to Europe in a particular year. UNHCR figures for 2002 show that approximately 23% of asylum seekers arriving in Europe (and 29% of those coming to the EU) came to Britain.
The government claims that: 'Those who oppose large scale immigration seek to establish 'fortress Britain''
The Facts: Absurd. In 2002 there were 89 million international arrivals in Britain. Of these 62 million were British nationals returning home. 14 million were nationals of the European Economic Area and 12.6 million were from outside Europe. Not exactly a fortress. The issue is not how many come to Britain but how many come to settle here, often illegally
Blair 'secretly let in Roumanian migrants"
(Filed: 04/04/2004) Revealed: "Blair made deal with Roumanian PM to let in migrants", by David Bamber, Colin Brown and Michael Leidig in Bucharest: Tony Blair personally authorised the relaxation of immigration controls for Romanians in a deal with their prime minister, Adrian Nastase, The Telegraph can reveal. The pact, which was finalised at the EU summit in Rome last October, entailed the lifting of visa requirements this spring as a reward for a decrease in the number of asylum applicants from Romania. This helped the government to meet a key pledge made by Mr Blair.
'Culture of deceit' on Immigration
Immigration 'culture of deceit':
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has accused the government of a "systematic culture of deceit" over immigration. Ministers had allowed the system to "get out of control" and they were now using "back door methods" to try to put it right, he told GMTV. Mr Davis was responding to a Sunday Times report claiming ministers had approved a fast-tracking system to remove a backlog of applications.
The government fiddled figures on asylum by issuing work permits to people who would otherwise have claimed asylum
Government figures released on Thursday have shown a sharp fall in the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK. There were around 5,000 asylum claims for each of the first three months of the year compared to last October's peak of just under 9,000. However, there are concerns whether this reduction is due to the increase in work permits and other visas given to people who would have otherwise claimed asylum.
Your claim about migration watch being ukips sidekick...
Government lies about the 'MigrationWatch' organisation
The government has repeatedly claimed publicly that MigrationWatch exaggerate the figures. But MigrationWatch recently obliged the Home Office, under the governments freedom of information rules, to release their information on MigrationWatch. Here is the text of an email from one Home Office official to another sent on 29 July 2003:
"I have made this point many times before but can we please stop saying that MigrationWatch migration forecasts are wrong. I have pointed out before that MigrationWatch assumptions are often below government actuary department's high migration scenario".
Government claims that 'migrants add to economic growth'
However, they also add to population. The Prime Minister recently claimed that growth would be nearly 0.5% per year less if there was no net immigration. The correct figure is 0.4% and immigrants add 0.25% to the population every year. So the 'economic growth' benefit is only 0.15% per head per year - a trivial amount compared to the extra congestion involved
The government claims that migrants account for 15% of economic growth
But trend growth is 2.75% per year. 0.4 is 15% of 2.75 so this is the same claim as above - it takes no account of the extra population.
The government claim that 'immigration is needed to boost our economy'
Major studies in Canada and the United States have concluded that the benefit of immigration to the economy as a whole is positive but very small. The impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head is a small fraction of 1%. In Britain, congestion costs probably wipe that out since we are 12 times as crowded as the United States. It follows that the case for large scale immigration is a matter for decision on political and social grounds. The economic case isneutral
The government says that 'London would collapse without foreign workers'
Jobs done by foreigners in London are being done by British people in the many parts of the country where there are few, if any, immigrants. Londoners are, in effect, being squeezed out of London by the arrival of 200,000 foreigners a year.
The government says we need foreigners to do the jobs that British people are unwilling to do
No. The underlying issue is pay rates for the unskilled. At present, the difference between unskilled pay and benefits is so narrow that, for some, it is hardly worth working. That partly explains why we have 1.5 million unemployed and a further 2.2 million whom the Government wishes to move from welfare to work. The Government points out that there are about ½ million vacancies but they do not say that there are seven times that number of British people who would like to work.
The government says that "Britain has a declining population and work force"
The Facts: The British population is officially projected to grow by 6.1 million by 2031 of which 5.2 million (84%) will be due to the assumed continuing high level of immigration. The population of working age will also increase, partly because women will be working longer. With a fertility rate of 1.73, Britain is in a much better position than countries like Italy and Spain whose fertility rate is about 1.2.
The government says that migrants are necessary to 'help pay for our pensions'
The Facts: Immigrants themselves grow older. To maintain the present population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants a year up to 2050. That would double the population to 120 million and leave us with the same problem.
The government claimed that in 2001 the total number of successful asylum applicants was as high as 51%
The Facts: This includes those granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) - a category now abolished by the Home Secretary because it had been awarded too liberally. Over the seven years 1997 – 2003, just over 22% of asylum applicants were granted asylum and a further 15% were granted ELR (now renamed Humanitarian Protection). Source: Home Office statistical bulletin 09/02 Table 1.1
The government and the Refugee Council claim that 'Britain takes only 2% of the world's refugees'
The Facts: The figures include refugees in Asia and Africa and also confused a stock with a flow. The correct comparison is the number of asylum seekers coming to Britain compared to the number coming to Europe in a particular year. UNHCR figures for 2002 show that approximately 23% of asylum seekers arriving in Europe (and 29% of those coming to the EU) came to Britain.
The government claims that: 'Those who oppose large scale immigration seek to establish 'fortress Britain''
The Facts: Absurd. In 2002 there were 89 million international arrivals in Britain. Of these 62 million were British nationals returning home. 14 million were nationals of the European Economic Area and 12.6 million were from outside Europe. Not exactly a fortress. The issue is not how many come to Britain but how many come to settle here, often illegally
Blair 'secretly let in Roumanian migrants"
(Filed: 04/04/2004) Revealed: "Blair made deal with Roumanian PM to let in migrants", by David Bamber, Colin Brown and Michael Leidig in Bucharest: Tony Blair personally authorised the relaxation of immigration controls for Romanians in a deal with their prime minister, Adrian Nastase, The Telegraph can reveal. The pact, which was finalised at the EU summit in Rome last October, entailed the lifting of visa requirements this spring as a reward for a decrease in the number of asylum applicants from Romania. This helped the government to meet a key pledge made by Mr Blair.
'Culture of deceit' on Immigration
Immigration 'culture of deceit':
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has accused the government of a "systematic culture of deceit" over immigration. Ministers had allowed the system to "get out of control" and they were now using "back door methods" to try to put it right, he told GMTV. Mr Davis was responding to a Sunday Times report claiming ministers had approved a fast-tracking system to remove a backlog of applications.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the Stone Age Porn link was from Ananova, there is the small matter of the 2 links I posted way back on 2nd Feb in the "what do you think" thread. Y'know; these ones...
[URL]http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1036777054262[/URL]
[URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf[/URL]
The ones you clearly haven't read? Jesus, if you were any more stupid you'd be in a plant pot.
Oh, and now you're saying Veritas aren't anti immigration? Mwahahahahahaaaa! I didn't think you could say anything more ridiculous after claiming they, The Sun, and The NOTW are arbiters of the truth. I stand corrected.
Now dance again for me; I grow bored this morning and could do with eviscerating a racist for my amusement.
[URL]http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1036777054262[/URL]
[URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf[/URL]
The ones you clearly haven't read? Jesus, if you were any more stupid you'd be in a plant pot.
Oh, and now you're saying Veritas aren't anti immigration? Mwahahahahahaaaa! I didn't think you could say anything more ridiculous after claiming they, The Sun, and The NOTW are arbiters of the truth. I stand corrected.
Now dance again for me; I grow bored this morning and could do with eviscerating a racist for my amusement.
Since when have they said that there anti-immigration? I think it's more of a case of them knowing the present system is open to abuses. And just because it's Veritas, does not mean that you should ignore the points they put forward. It's not like they said there's no need for immigration is it? You do know it's not just the Veritas party asking this question about the way they worked out the profits migrants bring don't you? You say you don't take the Gardian as the total truth, but your more than willing to provide a link which accounts for your views on immigration from the Gaurdian?
kevstar wrote:
> Well if thats the case you will use the facts above to see how
> rubbish it is.
That cut n paste from veritas you mean?
> But you're willing to get the views you have from the most
> pro-immigration papre of the lot, the Gaurdian!
As opposed to getting them from the anti-immigration Veritas? This is why I'm saying that all views need to be debated properly in an open debate. Fallacies from both pro and anti need to be answered and dealt with. The difference between you and I (apart from the enormous gulf in intellect) is that I don't claim that ythe Guardian is the undisputed truth.
> Well if thats the case you will use the facts above to see how
> rubbish it is.
That cut n paste from veritas you mean?
> But you're willing to get the views you have from the most
> pro-immigration papre of the lot, the Gaurdian!
As opposed to getting them from the anti-immigration Veritas? This is why I'm saying that all views need to be debated properly in an open debate. Fallacies from both pro and anti need to be answered and dealt with. The difference between you and I (apart from the enormous gulf in intellect) is that I don't claim that ythe Guardian is the undisputed truth.
Light wrote:
> Well, as one of those benefits is 2.5 billion profit, and as you keep
> whining that it's "rubbish", I'd say you are denying the
> benefits of immigration. Wouldn't you?
The relevant Home Office paper was which stated this was heavily qualified, describing the results as 'conditioned on the period in which they are calculated and the country's position in the business cycle'. In fact, the year chosen in the study was one in which the public sector accounts were in surplus, so everyone was contributing 5% more than they took out; to correct for this, deduct £1.3bn. Furthermore, Corporation Tax from shareholders resident abroad was wrongly attributed to migrants; deduct a further £0.8bn. The study also overlooked the key point that, since the early 1990s, migrants have added to our population, so it ignored the cost of new facilities required and the costs of special education etc. The government's claim is bogus
>
> It's not a "lawyer trick" my dear boy. It's what we in the
> thinking world call "Using facts and information to come to an
> informed conclusion".
Well if thats the case you will use the facts above to see how rubbish it is.
>
> Oh, and at which point have I said I'm pro-immigration? I've been
> saying I believe their needs to be an informed debate. Do you even
> understand what that means, or are you so blinded by your racist
> froth that you're incapable of reading basic english any more?
But you're willing to get the views you have from the most pro-immigration papre of the lot, the Gaurdian!
> Well, as one of those benefits is 2.5 billion profit, and as you keep
> whining that it's "rubbish", I'd say you are denying the
> benefits of immigration. Wouldn't you?
The relevant Home Office paper was which stated this was heavily qualified, describing the results as 'conditioned on the period in which they are calculated and the country's position in the business cycle'. In fact, the year chosen in the study was one in which the public sector accounts were in surplus, so everyone was contributing 5% more than they took out; to correct for this, deduct £1.3bn. Furthermore, Corporation Tax from shareholders resident abroad was wrongly attributed to migrants; deduct a further £0.8bn. The study also overlooked the key point that, since the early 1990s, migrants have added to our population, so it ignored the cost of new facilities required and the costs of special education etc. The government's claim is bogus
>
> It's not a "lawyer trick" my dear boy. It's what we in the
> thinking world call "Using facts and information to come to an
> informed conclusion".
Well if thats the case you will use the facts above to see how rubbish it is.
>
> Oh, and at which point have I said I'm pro-immigration? I've been
> saying I believe their needs to be an informed debate. Do you even
> understand what that means, or are you so blinded by your racist
> froth that you're incapable of reading basic english any more?
But you're willing to get the views you have from the most pro-immigration papre of the lot, the Gaurdian!
Well, as one of those benefits is 2.5 billion profit, and as you keep whining that it's "rubbish", I'd say you are denying the benefits of immigration. Wouldn't you?
It's not a "lawyer trick" my dear boy. It's what we in the thinking world call "Using facts and information to come to an informed conclusion".
Oh, and at which point have I said I'm pro-immigration? I've been saying I believe their needs to be an informed debate. Do you even understand what that means, or are you so blinded by your racist froth that you're incapable of reading basic english any more?
It's not a "lawyer trick" my dear boy. It's what we in the thinking world call "Using facts and information to come to an informed conclusion".
Oh, and at which point have I said I'm pro-immigration? I've been saying I believe their needs to be an informed debate. Do you even understand what that means, or are you so blinded by your racist froth that you're incapable of reading basic english any more?
But havn't got any evidence to support your pro immigration view. All you've said is the obvious, that people like doctors and nurses benefit our Country economically which i've never denied. I guess it's just like I agreed that there is a need for migrants. All my anti-immigration statements have been about the system itself, not the people you idiot. If you think about it properly, they is a difference. So you see, when you say i've never mentioned the benefits migrants bring, it's another one of you're Lawyer type lies.
Page: