High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 15 of 24 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Hrolf The Ganger 24 Feb 16 4.51pm
Originally posted by crystal balls If any country is invaded by force of arms they, of course, have the right to fight against the invader. I'm not sure that is relevant to immigrants, though, is it? Many differing peoples have been coming peacefully to the UK for thousands of years, some settle here, some don't. Britain is an amalgam of many different peoples, and always has been. The people who make up the British came here over thousands of years and in thousands. 10 million have come here in 50 years. Which part of this don't you understand?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

24 Feb 16 4.51pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by crystal balls

If any country is invaded by force of arms they, of course, have the right to fight against the invader. I'm not sure that is relevant to immigrants, though, is it?

Many differing peoples have been coming peacefully to the UK for thousands of years, some settle here, some don't. Britain is an amalgam of many different peoples, and always has been.

The people who make up the British came here over thousands of years and in thousands.
10 million have come here in 50 years. Which part of this don't you understand?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 4.54pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger In the last 50 years the population has gone up by about 10 million. That is around one sixth of the total. About half of that has been in the last 10 years. That sets alarm bells ringing for me. This is not a manageable trend. Definitely, and it should be a concern. The danger of EU migration is, to me is greater because its non-permanent and temporary. Most expect to go home eventually - So its mainly an economic prospect. Other periods of migration have been long term which has promoted increasing integration, which may well have been undermined by the EU temporary migration - An its affect a number of the British communities. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Feb 16 4.54pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

In the last 50 years the population has gone up by about 10 million. That is around one sixth of the total. About half of that has been in the last 10 years.
That sets alarm bells ringing for me. This is not a manageable trend.

Definitely, and it should be a concern. The danger of EU migration is, to me is greater because its non-permanent and temporary. Most expect to go home eventually - So its mainly an economic prospect. Other periods of migration have been long term which has promoted increasing integration, which may well have been undermined by the EU temporary migration - An its affect a number of the British communities.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 4.54pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Not good examples. Only the ruling classes of Normans came to Britain with a few soldiers to back them up. There was certainly no large scale occupation. Romans essentially came and went and the term Viking is rather quaint. Certainly Danes came here in reasonable numbers and the Normans were essentially Norseman but a much larger proportion of the population were Angles, Saxons and Jutes with remaining majority probably being here since the post ice age migration. In short, the population of Britain has remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years if not thousands of years. Until the last 50 years, migration has had only a tiny impact on the gene pool. The idea put around by some that Britain's population has always been in transition is just wildly inaccurate propaganda and the science proves that. Well your user name would suggest you were there, perhaps! Yes Viking is a bit of a "catch-all" term, but Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Danes, Norsemen etc. all arrived in numbers that were sufficient to take over large swathes of the country, and the Celtic populations(who themselves originated from central Europe and arrived much earlier) were often pushed to the "fringes". I don't see any point in having a historical discussion, but it is clear that both before and after the invaders who settled, Britain has had many, many peoples from all over the Europe and further afield who have settled and intermingled with those who were here already. It has often taken generations for the newcomers to be accepted, usually until the next wave arrives, so they can unite and pick on the next newcomers! Edited by crystal balls (24 Feb 2016 4.55pm) I used to be immortal
Alert a moderator to this post

crystal balls

The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 4.54pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Not good examples.

Only the ruling classes of Normans came to Britain with a few soldiers to back them up. There was certainly no large scale occupation. Romans essentially came and went and the term Viking is rather quaint. Certainly Danes came here in reasonable numbers and the Normans were essentially Norseman but a much larger proportion of the population were Angles, Saxons and Jutes with remaining majority probably being here since the post ice age migration.

In short, the population of Britain has remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years if not thousands of years. Until the last 50 years, migration has had only a tiny impact on the gene pool.
The idea put around by some that Britain's population has always been in transition is just wildly inaccurate propaganda and the science proves that.

Well your user name would suggest you were there, perhaps!

Yes Viking is a bit of a "catch-all" term, but Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Danes, Norsemen etc. all arrived in numbers that were sufficient to take over large swathes of the country, and the Celtic populations(who themselves originated from central Europe and arrived much earlier) were often pushed to the "fringes".

I don't see any point in having a historical discussion, but it is clear that both before and after the invaders who settled, Britain has had many, many peoples from all over the Europe and further afield who have settled and intermingled with those who were here already. It has often taken generations for the newcomers to be accepted, usually until the next wave arrives, so they can unite and pick on the next newcomers!

Edited by crystal balls (24 Feb 2016 4.55pm)

I used to be immortal

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 4.58pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The people who make up the British came here over thousands of years and in thousands. 10 million have come here in 50 years. Which part of this don't you understand? That's fairly viable though, given the progress of industrial need during the last half of the 20th century - Especially with the demise of empire. The migration of the 50, 60s, 70s and 80s, were driven largely by boom periods and high levels of employment and fed back into society. The problem with EU migration is that unemployment remained high in areas of the UK, and it was used to undermine wage demands that would otherwise have led to an incentivisation of workers to relocate and to undercut the wage demands of those already employed. Post 2007 Recession, the pressure has just increased with stagnant wages, and rising costs and prices. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Feb 16 4.58pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The people who make up the British came here over thousands of years and in thousands.
10 million have come here in 50 years. Which part of this don't you understand?

That's fairly viable though, given the progress of industrial need during the last half of the 20th century - Especially with the demise of empire. The migration of the 50, 60s, 70s and 80s, were driven largely by boom periods and high levels of employment and fed back into society.

The problem with EU migration is that unemployment remained high in areas of the UK, and it was used to undermine wage demands that would otherwise have led to an incentivisation of workers to relocate and to undercut the wage demands of those already employed. Post 2007 Recession, the pressure has just increased with stagnant wages, and rising costs and prices.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 24 Feb 16 5.00pm
Originally posted by crystal balls There are tower blocks and crumbling estates the world over, and all over the UK. Bad planning and construction. But equally there are well planned and well built apartment blocks as well! People have always flocked to successful cities, whether from within the country or without. It's not just migrants from abroad who choose to live in London, but people from all over the UK as well. But London saw a loss of over 2m people between the end of the war until fairly recently, I'm sure we all know friends who have moved away in the last 25-30 years, for lifestyle reasons. The need for three and four bedroom family homes is now becoming much less than in past times, as we are tending to live in smaller groups, so one and two bedrooms are more appropriate for the future. Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, there are large parts of Croydon and Sutton, as well as many other areas, that could definitely use upgrading! Are you having a laugh? Chicken and egg. So what you're saying is (based on your 3 bedrooms) there's less and less people having or wanting 2 children. The planners and decision makers are deciding strategy based on this with less 3/4 bedroom houses because they're 'tending to live in smaller groups.' Really? How many times have people heard couples say they'd like more children and/or a bigger house but cannot afford to here/there, or at all? What next? Because we like to have our daughters have a separate bedroom to our sons, we have to accept that people are tending to live in smaller groups so it's either share rooms through teenage years or stop at 1. That's whilst other cultures don't give it a thought and have 2,3,4,5 children. Great. People in 30 years time are going to really thank us for making this choice when there's people still old enough to tell them stories of when there was enough room to make decisions you wanted and weren't restricted to. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 24 Feb 16 5.00pm

Originally posted by crystal balls

There are tower blocks and crumbling estates the world over, and all over the UK. Bad planning and construction. But equally there are well planned and well built apartment blocks as well!

People have always flocked to successful cities, whether from within the country or without. It's not just migrants from abroad who choose to live in London, but people from all over the UK as well. But London saw a loss of over 2m people between the end of the war until fairly recently, I'm sure we all know friends who have moved away in the last 25-30 years, for lifestyle reasons.

The need for three and four bedroom family homes is now becoming much less than in past times, as we are tending to live in smaller groups, so one and two bedrooms are more appropriate for the future.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, there are large parts of Croydon and Sutton, as well as many other areas, that could definitely use upgrading!

Are you having a laugh? Chicken and egg.

So what you're saying is (based on your 3 bedrooms) there's less and less people having or wanting 2 children. The planners and decision makers are deciding strategy based on this with less 3/4 bedroom houses because they're 'tending to live in smaller groups.' Really?

How many times have people heard couples say they'd like more children and/or a bigger house but cannot afford to here/there, or at all?

What next? Because we like to have our daughters have a separate bedroom to our sons, we have to accept that people are tending to live in smaller groups so it's either share rooms through teenage years or stop at 1. That's whilst other cultures don't give it a thought and have 2,3,4,5 children. Great. People in 30 years time are going to really thank us for making this choice when there's people still old enough to tell them stories of when there was enough room to make decisions you wanted and weren't restricted to.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 5.01pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt So we should embrace invasion rather than fight it? WW2 just a waste of time, was it? Can we stop using the analogy of an invasion, its pure hyperbole. Given the influence of Germany over the European nations, it might well have been a waste of time. No ones fighting anyone. There are are cockmunching nobs who think they're 'fighting' or 'resisting', whether its for Islam, British Culture or England. They're still all cockmunching nobends that no one outside the idiot fringes want. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Feb 16 5.01pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

So we should embrace invasion rather than fight it? WW2 just a waste of time, was it?

Can we stop using the analogy of an invasion, its pure hyperbole. Given the influence of Germany over the European nations, it might well have been a waste of time.

No ones fighting anyone. There are are cockmunching nobs who think they're 'fighting' or 'resisting', whether its for Islam, British Culture or England. They're still all cockmunching nobends that no one outside the idiot fringes want.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 24 Feb 16 5.02pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Its probably worth noting as well that all of these peoples have more or less a shared genetic basis. Danes, Jutes, Nordics, Angles, Saxons and Franks largely stem from the same genetic basis. Britain's population has a number of diverse cultural and genetic influences. Primarily Anglo-Saxon (Germanics), Celtic (Welsh, Irish, Scotish and Cornish). Danes and Jutes in some areas of England and the North (Suffolk, Norfolk, Scotland and Ireland. Culturally and ethnically, the Germanic and Nordics are quite close (especially Jutes and Danes). The Normans seem largely to have been a mix of Germanic and Nordics, along with Franks. Certainly the invasion of 1066 was primarily the ruling classes and their troops, but over time there was a fair amount of migration, especially following the establishment of the Franks into what would become France. Yep. And they were all probably outnumbered by people who had been here a lot longer in a very small population. That population took a couple of thousand years to grow from around 3 million to 50 million. We have just added 10 million in 50 tears and climbing. If that is not a drastic unprecedented change in British society then I don't know what would be. I doub't things would have changed more if the Nazis had won WW2. How's that for emotive?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

24 Feb 16 5.02pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Its probably worth noting as well that all of these peoples have more or less a shared genetic basis. Danes, Jutes, Nordics, Angles, Saxons and Franks largely stem from the same genetic basis.

Britain's population has a number of diverse cultural and genetic influences. Primarily Anglo-Saxon (Germanics), Celtic (Welsh, Irish, Scotish and Cornish). Danes and Jutes in some areas of England and the North (Suffolk, Norfolk, Scotland and Ireland. Culturally and ethnically, the Germanic and Nordics are quite close (especially Jutes and Danes).

The Normans seem largely to have been a mix of Germanic and Nordics, along with Franks. Certainly the invasion of 1066 was primarily the ruling classes and their troops, but over time there was a fair amount of migration, especially following the establishment of the Franks into what would become France.

Yep. And they were all probably outnumbered by people who had been here a lot longer in a very small population. That population took a couple of thousand years to grow from around 3 million to 50 million.
We have just added 10 million in 50 tears and climbing.

If that is not a drastic unprecedented change in British society then I don't know what would be.

I doub't things would have changed more if the Nazis had won WW2.

How's that for emotive?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 5.06pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Are you having a laugh? Chicken and egg. So what you're saying is (based on your 3 bedrooms) there's less and less people having or wanting 2 children. The planners and decision makers are deciding strategy based on this with less 3/4 bedroom houses because they're 'tending to live in smaller groups.' Really? How many times have people heard couples say they'd like more children and/or a bigger house but cannot afford to here/there, or at all? What next? Because we like to have our daughters have a separate bedroom to our sons, we have to accept that people are tending to live in smaller groups so it's either share rooms through teenage years or stop at 1. That's whilst other cultures don't give it a thought and have 2,3,4,5 children. Great. People in 30 years time are going to really thank us for making this choice when there's people still old enough to tell them stories of when there was enough room to make decisions you wanted and weren't restricted to. No he has a good point, you tend to see it in rental and property prices. The difference between 3 and four bedroomed and more properties tends more to be based on the location, than on the additional room - Where as two and three bedroomed properties generally dominate the market. The most common cause of 'larger sibling families' is through second marriages of couples, rather than people wanting to have four or five kids - Difference is that in many of these cases, there is a big age disparity among children. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Feb 16 5.06pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Are you having a laugh? Chicken and egg.

How many times have people heard couples say they'd like more children and/or a bigger house but cannot afford to here/there, or at all?

No he has a good point, you tend to see it in rental and property prices. The difference between 3 and four bedroomed and more properties tends more to be based on the location, than on the additional room - Where as two and three bedroomed properties generally dominate the market.

The most common cause of 'larger sibling families' is through second marriages of couples, rather than people wanting to have four or five kids - Difference is that in many of these cases, there is a big age disparity among children.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 24 Feb 16 5.06pm
Originally posted by crystal balls Well your user name would suggest you were there, perhaps! Yes Viking is a bit of a "catch-all" term, but Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Danes, Norsemen etc. all arrived in numbers that were sufficient to take over large swathes of the country, and the Celtic populations(who themselves originated from central Europe and arrived much earlier) were often pushed to the "fringes". I don't see any point in having a historical discussion, but it is clear that both before and after the invaders who settled, Britain has had many, many peoples from all over the Europe and further afield who have settled and intermingled with those who were here already. It has often taken generations for the newcomers to be accepted, usually until the next wave arrives, so they can unite and pick on the next newcomers! The BBC were in a community hall type place in Manchester at the weekend where Polish and British people were asked about the EU and mainly immigration. A few said most come to work, only very very came to claim and they were not wanted or respected. A couple of POLES said immigration was getting out of control. Yes, 2 Polish people here for 5 years or maybe a few more said it was out of control. Not the 'many generations' it has perhaps taken for some to get over their racial prejudice of black and asian people but 5 years or maybe a few more, and they're not British and talking about immigrants from their own country. We need migration, but we don't need uncontrolled. If they thinks it's out of control now, wait a few more years when more countries join the EU and we've already had our one and only referendum and voted in. Edited by Rudi Hedman (24 Feb 2016 5.26pm) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 24 Feb 16 5.06pm

Originally posted by crystal balls

Well your user name would suggest you were there, perhaps!

I don't see any point in having a historical discussion, but it is clear that both before and after the invaders who settled, Britain has had many, many peoples from all over the Europe and further afield who have settled and intermingled with those who were here already. It has often taken generations for the newcomers to be accepted, usually until the next wave arrives, so they can unite and pick on the next newcomers!

The BBC were in a community hall type place in Manchester at the weekend where Polish and British people were asked about the EU and mainly immigration. A few said most come to work, only very very came to claim and they were not wanted or respected.

A couple of POLES said immigration was getting out of control. Yes, 2 Polish people here for 5 years or maybe a few more said it was out of control. Not the 'many generations' it has perhaps taken for some to get over their racial prejudice of black and asian people but 5 years or maybe a few more, and they're not British and talking about immigrants from their own country.

We need migration, but we don't need uncontrolled. If they thinks it's out of control now, wait a few more years when more countries join the EU and we've already had our one and only referendum and voted in.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (24 Feb 2016 5.26pm)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 5.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Yep. And they were all probably outnumbered by people who had been here a lot longer in a very small population. That population took a couple of thousand years to grow from around 3 million to 50 million. We have just added 10 million in 50 tears and climbing. If that is not a drastic unprecedented change in British society then I don't know what would be. I doub't things would have changed more if the Nazis had won WW2. How's that for emotive? Well I'd imagine that there would have been a lot migration from Eastern Europe and the Caribbean. Plus housing in Golders Green would probably be cheaper, and no one would want a Spurs season ticket. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Feb 16 5.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

If that is not a drastic unprecedented change in British society then I don't know what would be.

I doub't things would have changed more if the Nazis had won WW2.

How's that for emotive?

Well I'd imagine that there would have been a lot migration from Eastern Europe and the Caribbean. Plus housing in Golders Green would probably be cheaper, and no one would want a Spurs season ticket.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 24 Feb 16 5.09pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Yep. And they were all probably outnumbered by people who had been here a lot longer in a very small population. That population took a couple of thousand years to grow from around 3 million to 50 million. We have just added 10 million in 50 tears and climbing. If that is not a drastic unprecedented change in British society then I don't know what would be. I doub't things would have changed more if the Nazis had won WW2. How's that for emotive? Between 2001-2011 the average annual net migration was 190,000. The ten million you refer to is attributable to plenty of other factors not associated with immigration also. Old age, etc. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 24 Feb 16 5.09pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

If that is not a drastic unprecedented change in British society then I don't know what would be.

I doub't things would have changed more if the Nazis had won WW2.

How's that for emotive?

Between 2001-2011 the average annual net migration was 190,000. The ten million you refer to is attributable to plenty of other factors not associated with immigration also. Old age, etc.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 5.09pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The people who make up the British came here over thousands of years and in thousands. 10 million have come here in 50 years. Which part of this don't you understand? The population has increased by 10m over the last 50 years, but quite a lot of this was caused by an increase in the birthrate between the early 60s and the mid 70s. The number of immigrants is little more than half of that figure, though most of this has occurred since 2004, admittedly. [Link] And not all of these stay indefinitely. Of 1.1m Poles who have arrived in the UK some 300,000 have returned. I used to be immortal
Alert a moderator to this post

crystal balls

The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 5.09pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The people who make up the British came here over thousands of years and in thousands.
10 million have come here in 50 years. Which part of this don't you understand?

The population has increased by 10m over the last 50 years, but quite a lot of this was caused by an increase in the birthrate between the early 60s and the mid 70s. The number of immigrants is little more than half of that figure, though most of this has occurred since 2004, admittedly.

[Link]

And not all of these stay indefinitely. Of 1.1m Poles who have arrived in the UK some 300,000 have returned.

I used to be immortal

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 15 of 24 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors