This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
No more immigrants.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 dannyh  wherever I lay my hat....... 06 Aug 15 1.25pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Catfish at 06 Aug 2015 12.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 11.29am
Daily Mail provides a crash course in the dark arts of demonising migrants. Here are some of the basics: 1. Do not refer to migrants as people. It is of the first importance that these people not be seen as human. Instead, use words like ‘figures’, ‘numbers’, ‘influx’ – or indeed, ‘migrant’, which simply means a person who moves from one place to another. 2. Use numbers instead of words where possible. Words can be slippery. To avoid breaking step 1, use numbers like 18,000, as in today’s story. This helps creates the idea of migration as a pest control problem, or a force of nature, rather than a man-made crisis that involves human lives. 3. Use the language of crime. Discuss migrants as you would criminals. Some examples from today’s story are ‘sneak’, ‘evade’, ‘targeting’ and ‘caught’. These are bad people doing a bad thing. They deserve to be punished. (Add a scary picture of dark-skinned people if you can.) 4. Do not quote people who care about migrants. Pick your sources with care. Organisations which worry about the safety of migrants should not be quoted if possible (as they are not in today’s story). This might cause readers to see another side of the story, learn about its context and the causes of migration, hear ideas for solutions, and even empathise with the migrants themselves. Instead, seek quotes from police, tough-guy politicians, truck drivers, British tourists, and so on. 5. Do not speak to migrants. This may be the most important step. Under no circumstances should you interview the people trying to reach Britain. Asking about their experiences and motivations, or just about their family or their favourite food, could risk readers seeing them as human, and should be avoided at all costs. This includes the cost of good stories or honest journalism. There are other steps, and not all of these are kept all the time. Reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean has broken through the usual filters as a regrettable anomaly. Generally though, some adherence to the above will ensure you write about migrants correctly. Adam Barnett From [Link] Not wrong!
1. Always use images of state repression - eg: razor wire. Misrepresent government action, eg: refer to dogs rather than sniffer dogs. 2. Wring hands over "desperate" "fractured" people. Never allow that somne may be calulating chancers. 3. Lead with children wherever possible. Emotive images of children, even though they are a tiny proportion, help create an impreession of overall helplessness. 4. Selective use of statistics, eg: 1% of those arrested found to be immigration offenders as opposed to 27% of arrests in London are of foreign nationals. 5. Anyone who says they are a refugee must be one rather than have any other motive. The motives of those coming must not be questioned. 6. Assume commonality between current asylum claimants and those fleeing Czarist / Nazi oppression. Imply that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. 7. Migrants are actually lovely peopole who are hard working and dynamic 8. Migrants are never detained they are imprisoned. Detention centres are actually concentration camps by any other name and are run by sadists. 9. Take control of the use of language. Attack any negative description of migrants and try and make it unacceptable, eg: illegal immigrant. 10. Never interview those who actually deal with migrants as they tend to know what they are talking about. I've called Wolfie Smith out on his selective media quoting habits before, Didnt get an answer then, You wont get one now.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Aug 15 1.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Aug 2015 12.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 12.18pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Aug 2015 12.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 12.04pm
Of course we need immigration controls. First thing is to prevent causing situations worldwide that cause massive population displacement- the source of the problem. The fact is that the whole mess is a debacle, compounded by restrictions and cuts to border services. An inability to get the message across that the UK is not the land of milk and honey. Not helped by the Express, Mail et al saying it is. You heard it here first folks Nick says "WE NEED IMMIGRATION CONTROLS"! Why do we need controls Nick? What problems are the controls to address?
It is you that is being facile. If you can bring yourself to admit that immigration causes some problems then a discussion can be had about how to address those problems. If there are no problems caused by immigration, then why have controls? Pot calling the kettle a PC incorrect shade through convection.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 06 Aug 15 1.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote reborn at 06 Aug 2015 12.34pm
Quote fed up eagle at 06 Aug 2015 11.26am
Quote reborn at 06 Aug 2015 7.12am
Quote fed up eagle at 05 Aug 2015 10.13pm
Quote reborn at 05 Aug 2015 10.05pm
Quote fed up eagle at 03 Aug 2015 11.05pm
Right, it's time to pull up the draw bridge, batten down the hatches. NO MORE IMMIGRANTS, PERIOD. And the ones that are here that aren't supposed to be need to be deported with immediate effect, end of. No more bleeding heart cr@P.
That is of absolutely no surprise whatsoever. I shall continue to feel sorry for you. Anyone so full of anger and hatred must be very troubled.
What I have hatred for is thieves and troublemakers who are on their way here right now, and when your children can't get on the housing ladder because all the properties have been taken by people who have never paid into the system, or if your son/daughter can't get a job because the population has swelled to ridiculous levels and all the unskilled labour jobs have gone then maybe you'll feel some emotion about it, but please. your pitty is neither wanted nor needed, but thanks for the thought son. Actually Adolf, Anger is an emotion, Hatred is a choice. How you process Anger will determine quite how troubled and miserable you are. Rest assured your desire or permission for me to feel sorry for you is NOT required, I shall do it freely all the same.
Edited by reborn (06 Aug 2015 12.59pm) And I shall freely not give a t055 Just a quick one, if hatred is a choice then so is love as there's a fine line between the two. Edited by fed up eagle (06 Aug 2015 1.45pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 06 Aug 15 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 06 Aug 2015 1.25pm
Quote Catfish at 06 Aug 2015 12.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 11.29am
Daily Mail provides a crash course in the dark arts of demonising migrants. Here are some of the basics: 1. Do not refer to migrants as people. It is of the first importance that these people not be seen as human. Instead, use words like ‘figures’, ‘numbers’, ‘influx’ – or indeed, ‘migrant’, which simply means a person who moves from one place to another. 2. Use numbers instead of words where possible. Words can be slippery. To avoid breaking step 1, use numbers like 18,000, as in today’s story. This helps creates the idea of migration as a pest control problem, or a force of nature, rather than a man-made crisis that involves human lives. 3. Use the language of crime. Discuss migrants as you would criminals. Some examples from today’s story are ‘sneak’, ‘evade’, ‘targeting’ and ‘caught’. These are bad people doing a bad thing. They deserve to be punished. (Add a scary picture of dark-skinned people if you can.) 4. Do not quote people who care about migrants. Pick your sources with care. Organisations which worry about the safety of migrants should not be quoted if possible (as they are not in today’s story). This might cause readers to see another side of the story, learn about its context and the causes of migration, hear ideas for solutions, and even empathise with the migrants themselves. Instead, seek quotes from police, tough-guy politicians, truck drivers, British tourists, and so on. 5. Do not speak to migrants. This may be the most important step. Under no circumstances should you interview the people trying to reach Britain. Asking about their experiences and motivations, or just about their family or their favourite food, could risk readers seeing them as human, and should be avoided at all costs. This includes the cost of good stories or honest journalism. There are other steps, and not all of these are kept all the time. Reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean has broken through the usual filters as a regrettable anomaly. Generally though, some adherence to the above will ensure you write about migrants correctly. Adam Barnett From [Link] Not wrong!
1. Always use images of state repression - eg: razor wire. Misrepresent government action, eg: refer to dogs rather than sniffer dogs. 2. Wring hands over "desperate" "fractured" people. Never allow that somne may be calulating chancers. 3. Lead with children wherever possible. Emotive images of children, even though they are a tiny proportion, help create an impreession of overall helplessness. 4. Selective use of statistics, eg: 1% of those arrested found to be immigration offenders as opposed to 27% of arrests in London are of foreign nationals. 5. Anyone who says they are a refugee must be one rather than have any other motive. The motives of those coming must not be questioned. 6. Assume commonality between current asylum claimants and those fleeing Czarist / Nazi oppression. Imply that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. 7. Migrants are actually lovely peopole who are hard working and dynamic 8. Migrants are never detained they are imprisoned. Detention centres are actually concentration camps by any other name and are run by sadists. 9. Take control of the use of language. Attack any negative description of migrants and try and make it unacceptable, eg: illegal immigrant. 10. Never interview those who actually deal with migrants as they tend to know what they are talking about. I've called Wolfie Smith out on his selective media quoting habits before, Didnt get an answer then, You wont get one now.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 06 Aug 15 1.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 06 Aug 2015 1.25pm
Quote Catfish at 06 Aug 2015 12.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 11.29am
Daily Mail provides a crash course in the dark arts of demonising migrants. Here are some of the basics: 1. Do not refer to migrants as people. It is of the first importance that these people not be seen as human. Instead, use words like ‘figures’, ‘numbers’, ‘influx’ – or indeed, ‘migrant’, which simply means a person who moves from one place to another. 2. Use numbers instead of words where possible. Words can be slippery. To avoid breaking step 1, use numbers like 18,000, as in today’s story. This helps creates the idea of migration as a pest control problem, or a force of nature, rather than a man-made crisis that involves human lives. 3. Use the language of crime. Discuss migrants as you would criminals. Some examples from today’s story are ‘sneak’, ‘evade’, ‘targeting’ and ‘caught’. These are bad people doing a bad thing. They deserve to be punished. (Add a scary picture of dark-skinned people if you can.) 4. Do not quote people who care about migrants. Pick your sources with care. Organisations which worry about the safety of migrants should not be quoted if possible (as they are not in today’s story). This might cause readers to see another side of the story, learn about its context and the causes of migration, hear ideas for solutions, and even empathise with the migrants themselves. Instead, seek quotes from police, tough-guy politicians, truck drivers, British tourists, and so on. 5. Do not speak to migrants. This may be the most important step. Under no circumstances should you interview the people trying to reach Britain. Asking about their experiences and motivations, or just about their family or their favourite food, could risk readers seeing them as human, and should be avoided at all costs. This includes the cost of good stories or honest journalism. There are other steps, and not all of these are kept all the time. Reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean has broken through the usual filters as a regrettable anomaly. Generally though, some adherence to the above will ensure you write about migrants correctly. Adam Barnett From [Link] Not wrong!
1. Always use images of state repression - eg: razor wire. Misrepresent government action, eg: refer to dogs rather than sniffer dogs. 2. Wring hands over "desperate" "fractured" people. Never allow that somne may be calulating chancers. 3. Lead with children wherever possible. Emotive images of children, even though they are a tiny proportion, help create an impreession of overall helplessness. 4. Selective use of statistics, eg: 1% of those arrested found to be immigration offenders as opposed to 27% of arrests in London are of foreign nationals. 5. Anyone who says they are a refugee must be one rather than have any other motive. The motives of those coming must not be questioned. 6. Assume commonality between current asylum claimants and those fleeing Czarist / Nazi oppression. Imply that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. 7. Migrants are actually lovely peopole who are hard working and dynamic 8. Migrants are never detained they are imprisoned. Detention centres are actually concentration camps by any other name and are run by sadists. 9. Take control of the use of language. Attack any negative description of migrants and try and make it unacceptable, eg: illegal immigrant. 10. Never interview those who actually deal with migrants as they tend to know what they are talking about. I've called Wolfie Smith out on his selective media quoting habits before, Didnt get an answer then, You wont get one now.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Aug 15 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 06 Aug 2015 1.25pm
Quote Catfish at 06 Aug 2015 12.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 11.29am
Daily Mail provides a crash course in the dark arts of demonising migrants. Here are some of the basics: 1. Do not refer to migrants as people. It is of the first importance that these people not be seen as human. Instead, use words like ‘figures’, ‘numbers’, ‘influx’ – or indeed, ‘migrant’, which simply means a person who moves from one place to another. 2. Use numbers instead of words where possible. Words can be slippery. To avoid breaking step 1, use numbers like 18,000, as in today’s story. This helps creates the idea of migration as a pest control problem, or a force of nature, rather than a man-made crisis that involves human lives. 3. Use the language of crime. Discuss migrants as you would criminals. Some examples from today’s story are ‘sneak’, ‘evade’, ‘targeting’ and ‘caught’. These are bad people doing a bad thing. They deserve to be punished. (Add a scary picture of dark-skinned people if you can.) 4. Do not quote people who care about migrants. Pick your sources with care. Organisations which worry about the safety of migrants should not be quoted if possible (as they are not in today’s story). This might cause readers to see another side of the story, learn about its context and the causes of migration, hear ideas for solutions, and even empathise with the migrants themselves. Instead, seek quotes from police, tough-guy politicians, truck drivers, British tourists, and so on. 5. Do not speak to migrants. This may be the most important step. Under no circumstances should you interview the people trying to reach Britain. Asking about their experiences and motivations, or just about their family or their favourite food, could risk readers seeing them as human, and should be avoided at all costs. This includes the cost of good stories or honest journalism. There are other steps, and not all of these are kept all the time. Reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean has broken through the usual filters as a regrettable anomaly. Generally though, some adherence to the above will ensure you write about migrants correctly. Adam Barnett From [Link] Not wrong!
1. Always use images of state repression - eg: razor wire. Misrepresent government action, eg: refer to dogs rather than sniffer dogs. 2. Wring hands over "desperate" "fractured" people. Never allow that somne may be calulating chancers. 3. Lead with children wherever possible. Emotive images of children, even though they are a tiny proportion, help create an impreession of overall helplessness. 4. Selective use of statistics, eg: 1% of those arrested found to be immigration offenders as opposed to 27% of arrests in London are of foreign nationals. 5. Anyone who says they are a refugee must be one rather than have any other motive. The motives of those coming must not be questioned. 6. Assume commonality between current asylum claimants and those fleeing Czarist / Nazi oppression. Imply that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. 7. Migrants are actually lovely peopole who are hard working and dynamic 8. Migrants are never detained they are imprisoned. Detention centres are actually concentration camps by any other name and are run by sadists. 9. Take control of the use of language. Attack any negative description of migrants and try and make it unacceptable, eg: illegal immigrant. 10. Never interview those who actually deal with migrants as they tend to know what they are talking about. I've called Wolfie Smith out on his selective media quoting habits before, Didnt get an answer then, You wont get one now. Oh yes, because most of the mainstream media tend to publish anti government stories don't they. Why should I argue for the other side on a forum? EDIT: Why do papers lie blatantly on the front pages, but only have correct them in a tucked away corner? It's this sort of BS that is obfuscating the real facts and setting false narratives.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | johnfirewall 06 Aug 15 7.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 06 Aug 2015 12.04pm
Of course we need immigration controls. First thing is to prevent causing situations worldwide that cause massive population displacement Like other countries being p1ss poor? I'm sure Jamie will find a tenuous link wherewith we sponsored Ceausescu, or that someone else will claim that only 3 Romanians have ever come here but the fact is that's got fcuk all to do with us and is the last thing we're going to adopt a sense of guilt and start accepting migrants over. To be fair you're one of few to have shifted away from the 'all in' approach, and the idea of helping those we've fcuked over is a reasonable one. I'd even make that one of the foremost criteria were we to formulate a priority system, just in front of how dangerous the country of origin is. The problem is that certain places are dangerous for certain people, and that is fcuk all fault of ours either. We'd love to improve the situation in the numerous vile countries where homosexuals are persecuted for example, but instead we do the honourable thing in offering them refuge here. Unfortunately this is also open to abuse and reportedly is proliferated in the Calais camps as a tactic to secure asylum in the UK which still leaves me wondering why not stay in France or head to Spain which is arguably more LGBT-friendly. Then there's the idea that no one can prove where they came from because they fled without papers which lends itself to a lax policy rather than any system of priority and we're reduced to the options of all or nothing. That also leads me back (stop me if this has already been answered) to the question why not France? A larger country should accept more. Plenty of talk of all our empty properties which presumably is only valid because they're owned by hedge fund managers, but there must be a sh1tload of empty chateaus. Edited by johnfirewall (06 Aug 2015 7.33pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Aug 15 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
I'd focus on why its economically feasible for an EU working migrant to travel to work in the UK, rather than someone in the UK that's out of work. The Government (this and the last) have essentially colluded with British Companies to allow access to a cheap labour force from within the EU (notably those countries which the exchange rate made working in the UK more lucrative than settling in the UK). Consequently wages were kept artificially low, especially for low and non-skilled labour jobs, which made them more 'competative', and allowed them greater profitability, by reducing their wage bills. If you want to blame someone, its Labour and the Conservatives, who systematically sold this countries working class down the river, for the benefit of the upper working classes, shareholders and middle classes. Pointing the finger at migrant workers isn't the solution, the solution is tying UK wages to inflation and the real cost of living, and investing in relocating the long term unemployed into areas of demand for employment.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Aug 15 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yes I know it's Owen Jones, (cue character assassination of author rather than address points) but he shows how few people we take in comparison to others.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 07 Aug 15 4.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 07 Aug 2015 4.06pm
Yes I know it's Owen Jones, (cue character assassination of author rather than address points) but he shows how few people we take in comparison to others.
We'd like net migration to go down, but it climbs relentlessly.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 07 Aug 15 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
He doesn't even answer his own question. Again, migrants are not in Calais as an EU programme to spread them amongst member states. Italy and Greece are moaning a lot this week because migrants are ending up there off of the boats. We're moaning because they're ending up here, after travelling through all these countries. You can't argue for us taking more to meet a quota and ignore the likes of Spain but that's the only argument anyone has left once you've dismissed the economic benefits and that it's the right thing to do.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 07 Aug 15 4.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 07 Aug 2015 4.06pm
Yes I know it's Owen Jones, (cue character assassination of author rather than address points) but he shows how few people we take in comparison to others. Who? Thought he was that Yank conspiracy guy. Sounds like a proper lefty mug with no valid points though. Edited by johnfirewall (07 Aug 2015 4.24pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.