This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
legaleagle 15 Mar 15 9.04pm | |
---|---|
Quote TheJudge at 15 Mar 2015 6.35pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Mar 2015 12.46am
Quote TheJudge at 11 Mar 2015 2.03pm
Quote ghosteagle at 11 Mar 2015 1.02pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 11 Mar 2015 10.58am
Quote TheJudge at 10 Mar 2015 9.52pm
i See this thread is rolling on with the usual pro immigration propaganda. There is a large towns worth of people coming here each year net and yet we have a massive housing shortage that the left bang on about. How is this good ? We have various religions and ideologies that have hated each other for hundreds of years now hating each other in Britain as well and preaching the politics of division. Then we have our own right wing idiots hating them all on top of that. How is this good ? No, the only people who are happy are the business man and those who fly the flag of the rainbow nation despite the fact that the human race clearly has not evolved anything like enough to make it work. So tell me why totally uncontrolled mass immigration is good for the average man in Britain again ? I can't remember.
The left keep pushing the economic argument and ignore or play down the effect on our infrastructure. They will only call a halt to immigration when our water supply fails to cope with demand.... or will they? Silly season already? Presumably you still believe the spin. Let me ask you how you think anyone can quantify financial benefit from immigration figures which are not measured properly ? That would be a good trick.
As an example,statistics on Brits living in the EU. There's a lower statistic based on Brits being defined as people born here,and a higher one if Brits are defined as people holding British nationality.But,both stats aren't 100% due to those Brits living in the EU no stats pick up.Does that mean the statistics are not of some use as an indicator? Absolutely not. It applies equally to statistics used to suggest a conclusion of overall pluses or minuses over immigration,so if you want to say the stats you criticise are useless because they are not 100% exact as indicators,it may well be that some of those that have helped shape your thinking are equally invalid (or valid) as a general indicator. So,of course someone can quantify financial benefits based on statistics that may not be exactly perfect and it can usefully indicate the general nature of any financial benefits arising.If you are on a genuine quest to assess the statistical methodology used in the UCL study indicating significant financial benefits with an open mind,I think I posted a link to the report itself back on this thread somewhere or I can PM you one and you can examine their statistical and research methodology directly.If you think any input is too high or low, you can do a rough tweak to the outcome accordingly,and assess whether financial benefits remain generally positive.but be sure to adjust everything relevant not just a particular input or outcome that supports your point of view. As for spin, it is hardly something confined to any one particular point of view. The same applies to "closed minds". IMO our water supply is most likely to fail due to chronic under investment in new mains/pipes etc over the past 100 years plus,just like our sewage system in London.
There is a wonderful irony in this post. Since we are all told tha immigration is "good" for the country. What possible data can be used to confirm this when the data is totally inadequate ? Data is either reliable or it is not. Has anyone stopped to consider just how much of our "bad" news these days is directly related to migrants or the offspring of migrants? It's the old adage that people always blame the foreigner but sometimes the truth is what it is and all the spin in the world can't change that. And the last part of this post about the water system is typical of the pro immigration lobby.
Edited by TheJudge (15 Mar 2015 6.38pm)
You go on to compound that irony by then seeking yourself to rely on "bad news" about immigrants as being a legitimate factor to draw conclusions from. Since when is the UK popular press coverage the basis for legitimate statistical analysis? You believe immigration is responsible for many woes.You are perfectly entitled to that opinion Judge.I don't share it,whether generally or in relation to water provision/sewerage provision.Of course,numbers must be an element in planning.But that does not in itself enable a legitimate conclusion to be drawn that the main problem re for example water or sewerage provision relates to immigrants. And in case you should stereotype me,I am not against immigration controls in principle if fair and non discriminatory re non EU nationals.Indeed, we have had controls in place for many many years.People overlook what a high proportion of overall immigration this accounts for. In relation to the EU,I believe freedom of movement of labour goes along with freedom of movement of goods and services.Further,that overall the benefits of EU membership outweigh the negatives.You can't have your cake and eat it.Don't throw the baby out with the bath water since IMO economically ,despite what the nostalgia dreamers say, we'd be fcuk-ed overall out of the EU. But,as to your proposition that immigration is responsible for our ills ,including crime etc, no I have to completely disagree with you.Its exactly what they said about Jewish immigration 100-120 years ago and about immigrants from Asia and the West Indies 40-60 years ago.Same arguments then as now. The real cause of our problems is elsewhere, and "divide and rule" so people scapegoat groups at the bottom of the pile is as old as the hills.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 16 Mar 15 12.16pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 15 Mar 2015 9.04pm
Quote TheJudge at 15 Mar 2015 6.35pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Mar 2015 12.46am
Quote TheJudge at 11 Mar 2015 2.03pm
Quote ghosteagle at 11 Mar 2015 1.02pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 11 Mar 2015 10.58am
Quote TheJudge at 10 Mar 2015 9.52pm
i See this thread is rolling on with the usual pro immigration propaganda. There is a large towns worth of people coming here each year net and yet we have a massive housing shortage that the left bang on about. How is this good ? We have various religions and ideologies that have hated each other for hundreds of years now hating each other in Britain as well and preaching the politics of division. Then we have our own right wing idiots hating them all on top of that. How is this good ? No, the only people who are happy are the business man and those who fly the flag of the rainbow nation despite the fact that the human race clearly has not evolved anything like enough to make it work. So tell me why totally uncontrolled mass immigration is good for the average man in Britain again ? I can't remember.
The left keep pushing the economic argument and ignore or play down the effect on our infrastructure. They will only call a halt to immigration when our water supply fails to cope with demand.... or will they? Silly season already? Presumably you still believe the spin. Let me ask you how you think anyone can quantify financial benefit from immigration figures which are not measured properly ? That would be a good trick.
As an example,statistics on Brits living in the EU. There's a lower statistic based on Brits being defined as people born here,and a higher one if Brits are defined as people holding British nationality.But,both stats aren't 100% due to those Brits living in the EU no stats pick up.Does that mean the statistics are not of some use as an indicator? Absolutely not. It applies equally to statistics used to suggest a conclusion of overall pluses or minuses over immigration,so if you want to say the stats you criticise are useless because they are not 100% exact as indicators,it may well be that some of those that have helped shape your thinking are equally invalid (or valid) as a general indicator. So,of course someone can quantify financial benefits based on statistics that may not be exactly perfect and it can usefully indicate the general nature of any financial benefits arising.If you are on a genuine quest to assess the statistical methodology used in the UCL study indicating significant financial benefits with an open mind,I think I posted a link to the report itself back on this thread somewhere or I can PM you one and you can examine their statistical and research methodology directly.If you think any input is too high or low, you can do a rough tweak to the outcome accordingly,and assess whether financial benefits remain generally positive.but be sure to adjust everything relevant not just a particular input or outcome that supports your point of view. As for spin, it is hardly something confined to any one particular point of view. The same applies to "closed minds". IMO our water supply is most likely to fail due to chronic under investment in new mains/pipes etc over the past 100 years plus,just like our sewage system in London.
There is a wonderful irony in this post. Since we are all told tha immigration is "good" for the country. What possible data can be used to confirm this when the data is totally inadequate ? Data is either reliable or it is not. Has anyone stopped to consider just how much of our "bad" news these days is directly related to migrants or the offspring of migrants? It's the old adage that people always blame the foreigner but sometimes the truth is what it is and all the spin in the world can't change that. And the last part of this post about the water system is typical of the pro immigration lobby.
Edited by TheJudge (15 Mar 2015 6.38pm)
You go on to compound that irony by then seeking yourself to rely on "bad news" about immigrants as being a legitimate factor to draw conclusions from. Since when is the UK popular press coverage the basis for legitimate statistical analysis? You believe immigration is responsible for many woes.You are perfectly entitled to that opinion Judge.I don't share it,whether generally or in relation to water provision/sewerage provision.Of course,numbers must be an element in planning.But that does not in itself enable a legitimate conclusion to be drawn that the main problem re for example water or sewerage provision relates to immigrants. And in case you should stereotype me,I am not against immigration controls in principle if fair and non discriminatory re non EU nationals.Indeed, we have had controls in place for many many years.People overlook what a high proportion of overall immigration this accounts for. In relation to the EU,I believe freedom of movement of labour goes along with freedom of movement of goods and services.Further,that overall the benefits of EU membership outweigh the negatives.You can't have your cake and eat it.Don't throw the baby out with the bath water since IMO economically ,despite what the nostalgia dreamers say, we'd be fcuk-ed overall out of the EU. But,as to your proposition that immigration is responsible for our ills ,including crime etc, no I have to completely disagree with you.Its exactly what they said about Jewish immigration 100-120 years ago and about immigrants from Asia and the West Indies 40-60 years ago.Same arguments then as now. The real cause of our problems is elsewhere, and "divide and rule" so people scapegoat groups at the bottom of the pile is as old as the hills.
It seems to me that people have never wanted streams of foreigners coming into their neighbourhoods. Some have been born into that world and see it as the norm. Some older people still find it very hard to accept the changes that have taken place.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
reborn 16 Mar 15 12.46pm | |
---|---|
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 16 Mar 15 2.32pm | |
---|---|
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 16 Mar 15 6.22pm | |
---|---|
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 2.32pm
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm) I think that shows your own prejudices as apartheid is not colour driven by definition.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 16 Mar 15 6.48pm | |
---|---|
Quote pefwin at 16 Mar 2015 6.22pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 2.32pm
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm) I think that shows your own prejudices as apartheid is not colour driven by definition.
It isn't an unreasonable point to make.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 16 Mar 15 7.34pm | |
---|---|
Quote pefwin at 16 Mar 2015 6.22pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 2.32pm
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm) I think that shows your own prejudices as apartheid is not colour driven by definition. I'm not sure what prejudice yo think that would be but I understand your concern about such a system. I would point out that if immigration had not been forced on the existing population and in such large numbers, no resentment or issue with the numbers using local services would exist. There is a need for freedom of movement across borders but the numbers and the character of the migrant has to be controlled and assessed. The current system is uncontrolled and designed to suppress wage increases.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 16 Mar 15 8.02pm | |
---|---|
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 2.32pm
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm) I agree that,for example,being averse to an influx of people of differing ethnicity or alternatively a plain averseness to numbers of immigrants with ethnicity not entering a person's thoughts in any way as in your expressed case, does not necessarily make someone a racist since,in the former case, ethnicity is based on a number of things other than race and race may not come into differing ethnicity at all. I also do wonder how many of the people who don't like numbers of immigrants coming to live near them would feel exactly the same if the same numbers of immigrants were arriving but solely from Canada,New Zealand and Australia... Apartheid,literally meaning "apartness" and the policy of "Separate Development" in South Africa, was of course premised on race in South Africa but in terms of the non-white parts of the community also involved seeking to create separate sub-groups,individual homelands for "separate" ethnic/tribal groups. All in all,people living "apart" with separate and differentiated access to things legally. So,not that unreasonable to draw a general parallel between any proposed (if proposed) policies of "separate access" to things within the UK for different groups legally here and a policy of separate access to things in South Africa,allowing for the fact that there it was premised primarily on race as opposed to nationality,for which in part read "tribe/ethnic group".
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 16 Mar 15 8.20pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 8.02pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 2.32pm
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm) I agree that,for example,being averse to an influx of people of differing ethnicity or alternatively a plain averseness to numbers of immigrants with ethnicity not entering a person's thoughts in any way as in your expressed case, does not necessarily make someone a racist since,in the former case, ethnicity is based on a number of things other than race and race may not come into differing ethnicity at all. I also do wonder how many of the people who don't like numbers of immigrants coming to live near them would feel exactly the same if the same numbers of immigrants were arriving but solely from Canada,New Zealand and Australia... Apartheid,literally meaning "apartness" and the policy of "Separate Development" in South Africa, was of course premised on race in South Africa but in terms of the non-white parts of the community also involved seeking to create separate sub-groups,individual homelands for "separate" ethnic/tribal groups. All in all,people living "apart" with separate and differentiated access to things legally. So,not that unreasonable to draw a general parallel between any proposed (if proposed) policies of "separate access" to things within the UK for different groups legally here and a policy of separate access to things in South Africa,allowing for the fact that there it was premised primarily on race as opposed to nationality,for which in part read "tribe/ethnic group".
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 16 Mar 15 8.41pm | |
---|---|
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 12.16pm
.........................................................................................................
It seems to me that people have never wanted streams of foreigners coming into their neighbourhoods. Some have been born into that world and see it as the norm. Some older people still find it very hard to accept the changes that have taken place. ........................................................................................................
1.That many people do not genuinely feel immigration has been/is excessive. 2. That many politicians have not shamelessly chosen and varied their position on issues surrounding "race" and immigration in the past 60 years for cynical political gain,on all parts of the political spectrum. 3.That the popular press over this period has not shamelessly tried to whip up hysteria over such issues,with the popular press having not zero influence in shaping public opinion 4.That there is not a legitimate discussion to be had over population numbers alongside many other issues ,but including overall migration figures in and out, and the benefits economically of, for example EU membership, and benefits of immigrants economically.Provided such discussion in not premised on ethnicity or race.What I object to is the plain aversity to differing ethnicities and the hankering for a "mythic" Britain which in which so much of the debate put forward by those opposing immigration seems to be based. You ask me who/what I blame for our woes? I don't claim to have easy answers.But,for example, fundamental inadequacies in our education system do not seem to me to stem principally from numbers of immigrants.Problems from our water and sewerage system stem from fundamental underinvestment for over a hundred years. If we look at housing shortages,they were very much there between the wars, when there was very little immigration.The problems with house price rises don't basically stem from or start with immigration, and rent levels stem primarily from abolition in 1980 of most rent controls coupled with the drive away from state provision of housing. IMO (and of course not all will agree) and simplistically given I am not writing a 40 page analysis, our problems stem in significant part from increasingly becoming a society of greater income inequality and loss of access for social mobility.The "market" is God with profit to be pocketed often rather than re-invested;though that was our undoing economically from the late 19th century onwards,and the idea of "society" diminished.Blame the less fortunate being the mantra of the day. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 8.47pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 16 Mar 15 8.51pm | |
---|---|
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 8.20pm
Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 8.02pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 2.32pm
Quote reborn at 16 Mar 2015 12.46pm
I read today that UKIP want to bar children of immigrants from State Schools for 5 years? Whilst there is a plausible case for controlling immigration, this smacks of apartheid by another name. Lunacy.
I don't know the sense of such a policy or even if UKIP have even really proposed it but people have to draw a distinction between race issues and immigration issues. Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 2.32pm) I agree that,for example,being averse to an influx of people of differing ethnicity or alternatively a plain averseness to numbers of immigrants with ethnicity not entering a person's thoughts in any way as in your expressed case, does not necessarily make someone a racist since,in the former case, ethnicity is based on a number of things other than race and race may not come into differing ethnicity at all. I also do wonder how many of the people who don't like numbers of immigrants coming to live near them would feel exactly the same if the same numbers of immigrants were arriving but solely from Canada,New Zealand and Australia... Apartheid,literally meaning "apartness" and the policy of "Separate Development" in South Africa, was of course premised on race in South Africa but in terms of the non-white parts of the community also involved seeking to create separate sub-groups,individual homelands for "separate" ethnic/tribal groups. All in all,people living "apart" with separate and differentiated access to things legally. So,not that unreasonable to draw a general parallel between any proposed (if proposed) policies of "separate access" to things within the UK for different groups legally here and a policy of separate access to things in South Africa,allowing for the fact that there it was premised primarily on race as opposed to nationality,for which in part read "tribe/ethnic group".
Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 8.52pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 16 Mar 15 8.55pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 8.41pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 12.16pm
.........................................................................................................
It seems to me that people have never wanted streams of foreigners coming into their neighbourhoods. Some have been born into that world and see it as the norm. Some older people still find it very hard to accept the changes that have taken place. ........................................................................................................
1.That many people do not genuinely feel immigration has been/is excessive. 2. That many politicians have not shamelessly chosen and varied their position on issues surrounding "race" and immigration in the past 60 years for cynical political gain,on all parts of the political spectrum. 3.That the popular press over this period has not shamelessly tried to whip up hysteria over such issues,with the popular press having not zero influence in shaping public opinion 4.That there is not a legitimate discussion to be had over population numbers alongside many other issues ,but including overall migration figures in and out, and the benefits economically of, for example EU membership, and benefits of immigrants economically.Provided such discussion in not premised on ethnicity or race.What I object to is the plain aversity to differing ethnicities and the hankering for a "mythic" Britain which in which so much of the debate put forward by those opposing immigration seems to be based. You ask me who/what I blame for our woes? I don't claim to have easy answers.But,for example, fundamental inadequacies in our education system do not seem to me to stem principally from numbers of immigrants.Problems from our water and sewerage system stem from fundamental underinvestment for over a hundred years. If we look at housing shortages,they were very much there between the wars, when there was very little immigration.The problems with house price rises don't basically stem from or start with immigration, and rent levels stem primarily from abolition in 1980 of most rent controls coupled with the drive away from state provision of housing. IMO (and of course not all will agree) and simplistically given I am not writing a 40 page analysis, our problems stem in significant part from increasingly becoming a society of greater income inequality and loss of access for social mobility.The "market" is God with profit to be pocketed often rather than re-invested;though that was our undoing economically from the late 19th century onwards,and the idea of "society" diminished.Blame the less fortunate being the mantra of the day. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 8.47pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.