|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 26, 2015 17:01:18 GMT
Worth considering. "EU figures on asylum have spectacularly exploded the lies perpetuated by...the right-wing media that Britain is being besieged by “swarms” of refugees. Statistics published yesterday by the EU data agency Eurostat show that Britain received just one in 30 of the total number of the asylum claims made by new applicants in EU countries between April and June.A total of 7,470 people making their first application and their dependents sought refuge in this country — a mere 3.5 per cent of the total of 213,200 registered across the EU.This equates to Britain receiving 115 applicants for every million residents, ranking it 17th in the EU." morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6234-Besieged-Britain-exposed-as-a-lie#.VgbObNR4WK1
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2015 19:48:21 GMT
Worth considering. "EU figures on asylum have spectacularly exploded the lies perpetuated by...the right-wing media that Britain is being besieged by “swarms” of refugees. Statistics published yesterday by the EU data agency Eurostat show that Britain received just one in 30 of the total number of the asylum claims made by new applicants in EU countries between April and June.A total of 7,470 people making their first application and their dependents sought refuge in this country — a mere 3.5 per cent of the total of 213,200 registered across the EU.This equates to Britain receiving 115 applicants for every million residents, ranking it 17th in the EU." morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6234-Besieged-Britain-exposed-as-a-lie#.VgbObNR4WK1The Morning Star. The mouth piece of the Communist Party. A balanced, credible and believable source. We have over 7 million immigrants in the country already.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 26, 2015 20:02:23 GMT
"Welcoming refugees is a humanitarian decision". Of course it is. But there are alternatives like helping them locally.Encouraging them to come to Europe is only going to end in massive problems. Where does the money come from to support them for the 15 years the report implies it will take them to gain a similar employment levels as indigenous populations? If we welcome them here in the numbers you'd like, where do the extra hospitals, schools, housing come from? You are aware that those resources are under considerable stress already don't you?
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 26, 2015 23:13:23 GMT
Worth considering. "EU figures on asylum have spectacularly exploded the lies perpetuated by...the right-wing media that Britain is being besieged by “swarms” of refugees. Statistics published yesterday by the EU data agency Eurostat show that Britain received just one in 30 of the total number of the asylum claims made by new applicants in EU countries between April and June.A total of 7,470 people making their first application and their dependents sought refuge in this country — a mere 3.5 per cent of the total of 213,200 registered across the EU.This equates to Britain receiving 115 applicants for every million residents, ranking it 17th in the EU." morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6234-Besieged-Britain-exposed-as-a-lie#.VgbObNR4WK1We have over 7 million immigrants in the country already. Interesting. What's wrong with immigrants? Immigrants are fine. They come here legally. They're allowed to live and work here. Immigrants work, pay taxes, go to university, and learn to do stuff. Ironically unlike the average UKIP voter who (rather interestingly) has a tendency toward poor educational attainment - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.htmlBut which random 7 million immigrants are you talking about, and from when, precisely? Are you talking about the Celts? The Romans? Coming over here...giving us roads and Latin and civilisation and stuff. The Vikings? Coming over here...giving us an entire Anglo-Saxon cultural reference. The Huguenots? The Welsh? fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/how_many_migrants_come_to_europe_uk_one_million-48273You might mean illegal immigrants; refugees; asylum seekers; pig pokers. Who knows. Each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 27, 2015 0:11:05 GMT
We have over 7 million immigrants in the country already. Interesting. What's wrong with immigrants? Immigrants are fine. They come here legally. They're allowed to live and work here. Immigrants work, pay taxes, go to university, and learn to do stuff. Ironically unlike the average UKIP voter who (rather interestingly) has a tendency toward poor educational attainment - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.htmlBut which random 7 million immigrants are you talking about, and from when, precisely? Are you talking about the Celts? The Romans? Coming over here...giving us roads and Latin and civilisation and stuff. The Vikings? Coming over here...giving us an entire Anglo-Saxon cultural reference. The Huguenots? The Welsh? fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/how_many_migrants_come_to_europe_uk_one_million-48273You might mean illegal immigrants; refugees; asylum seekers; pig pokers. Who knows. Each to their own. I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years?
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 27, 2015 0:31:45 GMT
Interesting. What's wrong with immigrants? Immigrants are fine. They come here legally. They're allowed to live and work here. Immigrants work, pay taxes, go to university, and learn to do stuff. Ironically unlike the average UKIP voter who (rather interestingly) has a tendency toward poor educational attainment - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.htmlBut which random 7 million immigrants are you talking about, and from when, precisely? Are you talking about the Celts? The Romans? Coming over here...giving us roads and Latin and civilisation and stuff. The Vikings? Coming over here...giving us an entire Anglo-Saxon cultural reference. The Huguenots? The Welsh? fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/how_many_migrants_come_to_europe_uk_one_million-48273You might mean illegal immigrants; refugees; asylum seekers; pig pokers. Who knows. Each to their own. I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years? Interesting. You say you need to "preserve" a British culture you've not defined and then admitted in the same paragraph "will evolve" anyway. That's a very funny exemplification of a contradiction. For nearly everything else you said, read this; www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kieran-turner-dave/the-top-10-ukip-arguments_b_4650602.htmlImmigrants who arrived into the UK since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. Immigrants were also 7% less likely to live in social housing. European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 are on average better educated than UK natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable figure is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011). You can fill your boots and more here - www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Sept 27, 2015 0:57:42 GMT
Interesting. What's wrong with immigrants? Immigrants are fine. They come here legally. They're allowed to live and work here. Immigrants work, pay taxes, go to university, and learn to do stuff. Ironically unlike the average UKIP voter who (rather interestingly) has a tendency toward poor educational attainment - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.htmlBut which random 7 million immigrants are you talking about, and from when, precisely? Are you talking about the Celts? The Romans? Coming over here...giving us roads and Latin and civilisation and stuff. The Vikings? Coming over here...giving us an entire Anglo-Saxon cultural reference. The Huguenots? The Welsh? fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/how_many_migrants_come_to_europe_uk_one_million-48273You might mean illegal immigrants; refugees; asylum seekers; pig pokers. Who knows. Each to their own. I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years? Excellent post and sums up the mood of the nation perfectly
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 27, 2015 0:57:54 GMT
I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years? Interesting. You say you need to "preserve" a British culture you've not defined and then admitted in the same paragraph "will evolve" anyway. That's a very funny exemplification of a contradiction. For nearly everything else you said, read this; www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kieran-turner-dave/the-top-10-ukip-arguments_b_4650602.htmlImmigrants who arrived into the UK since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. Immigrants were also 7% less likely to live in social housing. European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 are on average better educated than UK natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable figure is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011). You can fill your boots and more here - www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigrationYou didn't answer my question: how many would you be happy with? Come on stop dodging. I know Huddy won't answer any straight question - will you? Why don't you want to preserve our culture? I accept that it will evolve over time, but not the massive quick change it's being subjected to. Yes I didn't define our culture - because it's not a simple thing to do - and you hadn't asked for - sorry I'm not a mind reader. I have summed our culture up on another thread for Huddy, and can dig it out if you so desire? Why are you obsessed about UKIP? If you want to discuss UKIP start a thread about it. I've had a quick look at that article and it's utter shit. Utter dribble. Is that really the best you can come up with? Subjective nonsense. Just as an example (as it's late and I can't really be bothered given the weakness of that article) - just when has anyone in UKIP - ANYONE - said "3. The entire population of Romania and Bulgaria could be heading to the UK". The rest is just as silly. The rest of your comments about the contribution of immigrants is just a smoke screen. Answer the points I've made. You seem to be quite happy to keep salaries down.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 27, 2015 1:02:33 GMT
I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years? Excellent post and sums up the mood of the nation perfectly But Derrida, Huddy, et al, don't really give a shit about what the rest of the people think - and the effect they want could have on real people here (and overseas). They just want to impose their socialist multicultural nirvana. They really don't think people are capable of understanding what they want.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 27, 2015 6:41:10 GMT
Interesting. You say you need to "preserve" a British culture you've not defined and then admitted in the same paragraph "will evolve" anyway. That's a very funny exemplification of a contradiction. For nearly everything else you said, read this; www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kieran-turner-dave/the-top-10-ukip-arguments_b_4650602.htmlImmigrants who arrived into the UK since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. Immigrants were also 7% less likely to live in social housing. European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 are on average better educated than UK natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable figure is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011). You can fill your boots and more here - www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigrationYou didn't answer my question: how many would you be happy with? Come on stop dodging. I know Huddy won't answer any straight question - will you? Why don't you want to preserve our culture? I accept that it will evolve over time, but not the massive quick change it's being subjected to. Yes I didn't define our culture - because it's not a simple thing to do - and you hadn't asked for - sorry I'm not a mind reader. I have summed our culture up on another thread for Huddy, and can dig it out if you so desire? Why are you obsessed about UKIP? If you want to discuss UKIP start a thread about it. I've had a quick look at that article and it's utter shit. Utter dribble. Is that really the best you can come up with? Subjective nonsense. Just as an example (as it's late and I can't really be bothered given the weakness of that article) - just when has anyone in UKIP - ANYONE - said "3. The entire population of Romania and Bulgaria could be heading to the UK". The rest is just as silly. The rest of your comments about the contribution of immigrants is just a smoke screen. Answer the points I've made. You seem to be quite happy to keep salaries down. For information here is where they said it electionleaflets.org/leaflets/7680/
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 27, 2015 7:18:07 GMT
Interesting. What's wrong with immigrants? Immigrants are fine. They come here legally. They're allowed to live and work here. Immigrants work, pay taxes, go to university, and learn to do stuff. Ironically unlike the average UKIP voter who (rather interestingly) has a tendency toward poor educational attainment - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.htmlBut which random 7 million immigrants are you talking about, and from when, precisely? Are you talking about the Celts? The Romans? Coming over here...giving us roads and Latin and civilisation and stuff. The Vikings? Coming over here...giving us an entire Anglo-Saxon cultural reference. The Huguenots? The Welsh? fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/how_many_migrants_come_to_europe_uk_one_million-48273You might mean illegal immigrants; refugees; asylum seekers; pig pokers. Who knows. Each to their own. I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years? Brilliant analysis. ...common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2015 7:18:44 GMT
Two years ago there was 154,000 racially motivated 'hate crimes ' reported in England and Wales .
There was 280,000 in total .
Each one of these crimes is recorded and many go to court.
Each one of these crimes costs the UK tax payer a hell of a lot of money .
It is one small piece of a very big jigsaw .
It begs the question how many go unreported or are not collated in the same way .?
How much more of our Green and Pleasant land are we going to dig up to accommodate immigrants and refugees .?
These figures are official government stats.
We talking about an enormous amount of money . You couldn't put a precise figure on it , but we are talking billions of pounds .
It's an absolute national disgrace of epic proportions .
|
|
|
Post by underdog on Sept 27, 2015 7:54:39 GMT
Going by the manner and general state of some of the locals in the boothen end concourse yesterday, immigrants would be preferable. Two big rough scrote telling kids to fuck offs out the way so they could make progress. Big nasty scrotes. ..deport them instead.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 27, 2015 9:47:16 GMT
Interesting. You say you need to "preserve" a British culture you've not defined and then admitted in the same paragraph "will evolve" anyway. That's a very funny exemplification of a contradiction. For nearly everything else you said, read this; www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kieran-turner-dave/the-top-10-ukip-arguments_b_4650602.htmlImmigrants who arrived into the UK since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. Immigrants were also 7% less likely to live in social housing. European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 are on average better educated than UK natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable figure is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011). You can fill your boots and more here - www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigrationYou didn't answer my question: how many would you be happy with? Interesting. A question that you, yourself, won't be able to justifiably answer. The point about immigration is that whether you like it, or accept it, or not there has never been a desired level of immigration. It's about perception. " There has never been an accepted optimum population level as there are all sorts of constraints. There are various land uses that housing must compete with. For example, you could say that if we hadn’t built all the golf courses we have in Surrey, then we’d have a lot more space to build housing and therefore be in a better position to manage an increased population.
It’s really a matter of perception and what people are comfortable with. Many of the problems associated with immigration are regionally specific. For example, one of the big problems in the South East is water supply and it could be said that immigration in that region is adding to that pressure, but that is very different to saying Britain is full up. It is possible to divert resources to those areas experiencing most pressures associated with immigration, from those that do not.
Logic dictates that you cannot keep increasing your population forever. However, when I first began studying this subject in the 1960s, the assumption was that the population would increase to as much as 80 million by the end of the century. All sorts of regional strategies were developed, including plans to create substantial extra capacity in towns like Milton Keynes, Swindon and Northampton. But then the pill was invented and that simply didn’t happen." (Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit) Frustratingly for the UKIP argument, and central to the whole point about immigration, is that there is no generally accepted level of immigration. For example, how do UKIP quantify levels of immigration? There never has been one quantifiable level. There never will be one. That's the point UKIP continually misunderstand. The needs of a society change over time and therefore the idea of an "absolute limit" is as ridiculous as the idea that "Britain is full." It is undeniably perceptive rather than objective. I understand the points you make about services. Most immigrants come here to work, pay taxes, buy homes, buy services. "One of the arguments is that certain...occupations are disproportionately affected, such as catering, food processing, driving jobs and construction, where it is often claimed wages are driven down. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small."UK studies continually find that immigration has a very small impact on average wages but has more significant impact along the wage distribution: low-waged workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain. Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn. UKIP says that immigration levels of between 30,000 and 50,000 per annum are acceptably "normal." ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32162123 ) In 1992, net migration was minus 13,000 and in 1993 it was minus 1,000. So in both of those years more people left than arrived. In 1994, it was 77,000, in 1995 it was 76,000 and in 1996 it was 55,000. During the 1960s and 1970s, net migration was mainly negative, with more people emigrating from the UK than arriving to live here - perhaps that was normal. In the 1980s, net migration moved into positive low levels and then started gradually increasing from the mid-1990s. Since the turn of the century, annual net migration has been between 150,000 and 300,000 - maybe that's normal. The point is that since records began in the 1960s, net migration has only been between 30,000 and 50,000 for six years, so for UKIP to describe that range as "normal" seems illogical, if not a bit odd at best. It is hard to see what would be described as "normal". That's the point. It's plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air apropos of nothing. The level of immigration is indicative of societal and global trends. The fact is that people with low attainment need to blame someone or something for their perception of the ills they face. That's what UKIP do - they rely on fear and ignorance, blame immigration, watch the lowly educationally attained indigenous people scramble, and then sit back. The largest burden on the welfare state is state pensioners. Not immigrants. Certainly not refugees or asylum seekers. It's state pensioners. Many non-EU nationals with permission to reside in the UK have 'no recourse to public funds' and cannot claim benefits. Asylum seekers are not eligible for welfare benefits while their claims are pending, but may be given less generous financial support through a separate Home Office programme. They become eligible for public funds if they are granted refugee status. That's why UKIP don't want the Syrian refugees to be called refugees. It's pitiful. Why don't UKIP directly attack pension reform? That would be a logical consideration if they are worried about public funds. Attachment DeletedThe last time I drove through Altrincham it wasn't over-crowded. Likewise Irlam; Sale; Carrington; Lymm; it's the urban centres which appear busy. But they are supposed to be crowded. That's why they're urban centres. There are lots of empty brown field sites, empty factories, empty warehouses, and empty council flats (surprisingly to some who haven't worked in social housing) in and around North Staffordshire. Immigrants rely on social housing less than demographically similar UK born residents. Studies on the “net fiscal impact” of migration have generally found that, overall, immigrants make national and local tax contributions that are roughly comparable to the cost of the services and benefits they receive. Some public services rely heavily on migrant workers. Foreign born people are overrepresented in social care and in the NHS medical workforce, for example. The NHS would collapse without immigrant workers. People need to ask themselves what they are and question why they think the way they do. Challenge their own preconceptions. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-britain-really-full-up-we-put-the-most-common-assumptions-about-immigration-to-an-expert-10427400.htmlwww.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigrationfullfact.org/immigration/welfare_benefits-44747fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 27, 2015 10:13:40 GMT
You didn't answer my question: how many would you be happy with? At last. A sensible question that you, yourself, won't be able to answer. The point about immigration is that whether you like it, or accept it, or not there has never been a desired level of immigration. It's about perception. " There has never been an accepted optimum population level as there are all sorts of constraints. There are various land uses that housing must compete with. For example, you could say that if we hadn’t built all the golf courses we have in Surrey, then we’d have a lot more space to build housing and therefore be in a better position to manage an increased population.
It’s really a matter of perception and what people are comfortable with. Many of the problems associated with immigration are regionally specific. For example, one of the big problems in the South East is water supply and it could be said that immigration in that region is adding to that pressure, but that is very different to saying Britain is full up. It is possible to divert resources to those areas experiencing most pressures associated with immigration, from those that do not.
Logic dictates that you cannot keep increasing your population forever. However, when I first began studying this subject in the 1960s, the assumption was that the population would increase to as much as 80 million by the end of the century. All sorts of regional strategies were developed, including plans to create substantial extra capacity in towns like Milton Keynes, Swindon and Northampton. But then the pill was invented and that simply didn’t happen." (Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit) Frustratingly for the UKIP argument, and central to the whole point about immigration, is that there is no generally accepted level of immigration. For example, how do UKIP quantify levels of immigration? There never has been one quantifiable level. There never will be one. That's the point UKIP continually misunderstand. The needs of a society change over time and therefore the idea of an "absolute limit" is as ridiculous as the idea that "Britain is full." It is undeniably perceptive rather than objective. I understand the points you make about services. Most immigrants come here to work, pay taxes, buy homes, buy services. "One of the arguments is that certain...occupations are disproportionately affected, such as catering, food processing, driving jobs and construction, where it is often claimed wages are driven down. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small."UK studies continually find that immigration has a very small impact on average wages but has more significant impact along the wage distribution: low-waged workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain. Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn. UKIP says that immigration levels of between 30,000 and 50,000 per annum are acceptably "normal." ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32162123 ) In 1992, net migration was minus 13,000 and in 1993 it was minus 1,000. So in both of those years more people left than arrived. In 1994, it was 77,000, in 1995 it was 76,000 and in 1996 it was 55,000. During the 1960s and 1970s, net migration was mainly negative, with more people emigrating from the UK than arriving to live here - perhaps that was normal. In the 1980s, net migration moved into positive low levels and then started gradually increasing from the mid-1990s. Since the turn of the century, annual net migration has been between 150,000 and 300,000 - maybe that's normal. The point is that since records began in the 1960s, net migration has only been between 30,000 and 50,000 for six years, so for UKIP to describe that range as "normal" seems illogical, if not a bit odd at best. It is hard to see what would be described as "normal". That's the point. It's plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air apropos of nothing. The level of immigration is indicative of societal and global trends. The fact is that people with low attainment need to blame someone or something for their perception of the ills they face. That's what UKIP do - they rely on fear and ignorance, blame immigration, watch the lowly educationally attained indigenous people scramble, and then sit back. The largest burden on the welfare state is state pensioners. Not immigrants. Certainly not refugees or asylum seekers. It's state pensioners. Many non-EU nationals with permission to reside in the UK have 'no recourse to public funds' and cannot claim benefits. Asylum seekers are not eligible for welfare benefits while their claims are pending, but may be given less generous financial support through a separate Home Office programme. They become eligible for public funds if they are granted refugee status. That's why UKIP don't want the Syrian refugees to be called refugees. It's pitiful. Why don't UKIP directly attack pension reform? That would be a logical consideration if they are worried about public funds. View AttachmentThe last time I drove through Altrincham it wasn't over-crowded. Likewise Irlam; Sale; Carrington; Lymm; it's the urban centres which appear busy. But they are supposed to be crowded. That's why they're urban centres. There are lots of empty brown field sites, empty factories, empty warehouses, and empty council flats (surprisingly to some who haven't worked in social housing) in and around North Staffordshire. Immigrants rely on social housing less than demographically similar UK born residents. Studies on the “net fiscal impact” of migration have generally found that, overall, immigrants make national and local tax contributions that are roughly comparable to the cost of the services and benefits they receive. Some public services rely heavily on migrant workers. Foreign born people are overrepresented in social care and in the NHS medical workforce, for example. The NHS would collapse without immigrant workers. People need to ask themselves what they are and question why they think the way they do. Challenge their own preconceptions. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-britain-really-full-up-we-put-the-most-common-assumptions-about-immigration-to-an-expert-10427400.htmlwww.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigrationfullfact.org/immigration/welfare_benefits-44747fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-ukSo you haven't answered either part. Of course what level of immigration is OK is subjective. 100,000 Ok. 100,001 not Ok. Silly. But at what point does it start to become a problem? I've read a few of those studies in the past. They quite often take arbitrary judgements about where they start and stop the analysis to reinforce their message. Of course we can tarmac over many parts of Britain to make more housing. Who pays for that? You do realise the objective here is not to fill the country? I will try and pick up some of the rest of this when I have more time. You've just resorted to bringing UKIP back into it again. FFS - we're talking about refugees and immigration levels here (as refugees are part of the overall picture). Stop trying to muddy the water and changing the subject to something you feel you have the upper hand on. As I said earlier - start a thread if you want to discuss UKIP (but you're last thread on the subject died when I pointed out that whole premise of the thread was just made up).
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 27, 2015 10:27:08 GMT
At last. A sensible question that you, yourself, won't be able to answer. The point about immigration is that whether you like it, or accept it, or not there has never been a desired level of immigration. It's about perception. " There has never been an accepted optimum population level as there are all sorts of constraints. There are various land uses that housing must compete with. For example, you could say that if we hadn’t built all the golf courses we have in Surrey, then we’d have a lot more space to build housing and therefore be in a better position to manage an increased population.
It’s really a matter of perception and what people are comfortable with. Many of the problems associated with immigration are regionally specific. For example, one of the big problems in the South East is water supply and it could be said that immigration in that region is adding to that pressure, but that is very different to saying Britain is full up. It is possible to divert resources to those areas experiencing most pressures associated with immigration, from those that do not.
Logic dictates that you cannot keep increasing your population forever. However, when I first began studying this subject in the 1960s, the assumption was that the population would increase to as much as 80 million by the end of the century. All sorts of regional strategies were developed, including plans to create substantial extra capacity in towns like Milton Keynes, Swindon and Northampton. But then the pill was invented and that simply didn’t happen." (Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit) Frustratingly for the UKIP argument, and central to the whole point about immigration, is that there is no generally accepted level of immigration. For example, how do UKIP quantify levels of immigration? There never has been one quantifiable level. There never will be one. That's the point UKIP continually misunderstand. The needs of a society change over time and therefore the idea of an "absolute limit" is as ridiculous as the idea that "Britain is full." It is undeniably perceptive rather than objective. I understand the points you make about services. Most immigrants come here to work, pay taxes, buy homes, buy services. "One of the arguments is that certain...occupations are disproportionately affected, such as catering, food processing, driving jobs and construction, where it is often claimed wages are driven down. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small."UK studies continually find that immigration has a very small impact on average wages but has more significant impact along the wage distribution: low-waged workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain. Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn. UKIP says that immigration levels of between 30,000 and 50,000 per annum are acceptably "normal." ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32162123 ) In 1992, net migration was minus 13,000 and in 1993 it was minus 1,000. So in both of those years more people left than arrived. In 1994, it was 77,000, in 1995 it was 76,000 and in 1996 it was 55,000. During the 1960s and 1970s, net migration was mainly negative, with more people emigrating from the UK than arriving to live here - perhaps that was normal. In the 1980s, net migration moved into positive low levels and then started gradually increasing from the mid-1990s. Since the turn of the century, annual net migration has been between 150,000 and 300,000 - maybe that's normal. The point is that since records began in the 1960s, net migration has only been between 30,000 and 50,000 for six years, so for UKIP to describe that range as "normal" seems illogical, if not a bit odd at best. It is hard to see what would be described as "normal". That's the point. It's plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air apropos of nothing. The level of immigration is indicative of societal and global trends. The fact is that people with low attainment need to blame someone or something for their perception of the ills they face. That's what UKIP do - they rely on fear and ignorance, blame immigration, watch the lowly educationally attained indigenous people scramble, and then sit back. The largest burden on the welfare state is state pensioners. Not immigrants. Certainly not refugees or asylum seekers. It's state pensioners. Many non-EU nationals with permission to reside in the UK have 'no recourse to public funds' and cannot claim benefits. Asylum seekers are not eligible for welfare benefits while their claims are pending, but may be given less generous financial support through a separate Home Office programme. They become eligible for public funds if they are granted refugee status. That's why UKIP don't want the Syrian refugees to be called refugees. It's pitiful. Why don't UKIP directly attack pension reform? That would be a logical consideration if they are worried about public funds. The last time I drove through Altrincham it wasn't over-crowded. Likewise Irlam; Sale; Carrington; Lymm; it's the urban centres which appear busy. But they are supposed to be crowded. That's why they're urban centres. There are lots of empty brown field sites, empty factories, empty warehouses, and empty council flats (surprisingly to some who haven't worked in social housing) in and around North Staffordshire. Immigrants rely on social housing less than demographically similar UK born residents. Studies on the “net fiscal impact” of migration have generally found that, overall, immigrants make national and local tax contributions that are roughly comparable to the cost of the services and benefits they receive. Some public services rely heavily on migrant workers. Foreign born people are overrepresented in social care and in the NHS medical workforce, for example. The NHS would collapse without immigrant workers. People need to ask themselves what they are and question why they think the way they do. Challenge their own preconceptions. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-britain-really-full-up-we-put-the-most-common-assumptions-about-immigration-to-an-expert-10427400.htmlwww.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigrationfullfact.org/immigration/welfare_benefits-44747fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-ukSo you haven't answered either part. Of course what level of immigration is OK is subjective. 100,000 Ok. 100,001 not Ok. Silly. But at what point does it start to become a problem? I've read a few of those studies in the past. They quite often take arbitrary judgements about where they start and stop the analysis to reinforce their message. Of course we can tarmac over many parts of Britain to make more housing. Who pays for that? You do realise the objective here is not to fill the country? I will try and pick up some of the rest of this when I have more time. You've just resorted to bringing UKIP back into it again. FFS - we're talking about refugees and immigration levels here (as refugees are part of the overall picture). Stop trying to muddy the water and changing the subject to something you feel you have the upper hand on. As I said earlier - start a thread if you want to discuss UKIP (but you're last thread on the subject died when I pointed out that whole premise of the thread was just made up). As you've highlighted, I've actually answered you. I'd give it another read. I'm glad you agree. Immigration should be objective rather than subjectiveYou need to grasp that it's not difficult to see UKIP are part of your narrative, whether you deny it, or not. You allow them to set the pretext by looking at the question of immigration in precisely the same context they do. As your argument is essentially to drive the UKIP agenda you shouldn't be too shocked when people respond to it accordingly. You don't appear to like the direct reference to it, for what it is, and you don't appear to like being called on it. That's fine. Each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 27, 2015 11:30:25 GMT
Two years ago there was 154,000 racially motivated 'hate crimes ' reported in England and Wales . There was 280,000 in total . Each one of these crimes is recorded and many go to court. Each one of these crimes costs the UK tax payer a hell of a lot of money . It is one small piece of a very big jigsaw . It begs the question how many go unreported or are not collated in the same way .? How much more of our Green and Pleasant land are we going to dig up to accommodate immigrants and refugees .? These figures are official government stats. We talking about an enormous amount of money . You couldn't put a precise figure on it , but we are talking billions of pounds . It's an absolute national disgrace of epic proportions . ************** won't engage Mumf, don't forget!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 27, 2015 11:34:49 GMT
At last. A sensible question that you, yourself, won't be able to answer. The point about immigration is that whether you like it, or accept it, or not there has never been a desired level of immigration. It's about perception. " There has never been an accepted optimum population level as there are all sorts of constraints. There are various land uses that housing must compete with. For example, you could say that if we hadn’t built all the golf courses we have in Surrey, then we’d have a lot more space to build housing and therefore be in a better position to manage an increased population.
It’s really a matter of perception and what people are comfortable with. Many of the problems associated with immigration are regionally specific. For example, one of the big problems in the South East is water supply and it could be said that immigration in that region is adding to that pressure, but that is very different to saying Britain is full up. It is possible to divert resources to those areas experiencing most pressures associated with immigration, from those that do not.
Logic dictates that you cannot keep increasing your population forever. However, when I first began studying this subject in the 1960s, the assumption was that the population would increase to as much as 80 million by the end of the century. All sorts of regional strategies were developed, including plans to create substantial extra capacity in towns like Milton Keynes, Swindon and Northampton. But then the pill was invented and that simply didn’t happen." (Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit) Frustratingly for the UKIP argument, and central to the whole point about immigration, is that there is no generally accepted level of immigration. For example, how do UKIP quantify levels of immigration? There never has been one quantifiable level. There never will be one. That's the point UKIP continually misunderstand. The needs of a society change over time and therefore the idea of an "absolute limit" is as ridiculous as the idea that "Britain is full." It is undeniably perceptive rather than objective. I understand the points you make about services. Most immigrants come here to work, pay taxes, buy homes, buy services. "One of the arguments is that certain...occupations are disproportionately affected, such as catering, food processing, driving jobs and construction, where it is often claimed wages are driven down. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small."UK studies continually find that immigration has a very small impact on average wages but has more significant impact along the wage distribution: low-waged workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain. Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn. UKIP says that immigration levels of between 30,000 and 50,000 per annum are acceptably "normal." ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32162123 ) In 1992, net migration was minus 13,000 and in 1993 it was minus 1,000. So in both of those years more people left than arrived. In 1994, it was 77,000, in 1995 it was 76,000 and in 1996 it was 55,000. During the 1960s and 1970s, net migration was mainly negative, with more people emigrating from the UK than arriving to live here - perhaps that was normal. In the 1980s, net migration moved into positive low levels and then started gradually increasing from the mid-1990s. Since the turn of the century, annual net migration has been between 150,000 and 300,000 - maybe that's normal. The point is that since records began in the 1960s, net migration has only been between 30,000 and 50,000 for six years, so for UKIP to describe that range as "normal" seems illogical, if not a bit odd at best. It is hard to see what would be described as "normal". That's the point. It's plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air apropos of nothing. The level of immigration is indicative of societal and global trends. The fact is that people with low attainment need to blame someone or something for their perception of the ills they face. That's what UKIP do - they rely on fear and ignorance, blame immigration, watch the lowly educationally attained indigenous people scramble, and then sit back. The largest burden on the welfare state is state pensioners. Not immigrants. Certainly not refugees or asylum seekers. It's state pensioners. Many non-EU nationals with permission to reside in the UK have 'no recourse to public funds' and cannot claim benefits. Asylum seekers are not eligible for welfare benefits while their claims are pending, but may be given less generous financial support through a separate Home Office programme. They become eligible for public funds if they are granted refugee status. That's why UKIP don't want the Syrian refugees to be called refugees. It's pitiful. Why don't UKIP directly attack pension reform? That would be a logical consideration if they are worried about public funds. View AttachmentThe last time I drove through Altrincham it wasn't over-crowded. Likewise Irlam; Sale; Carrington; Lymm; it's the urban centres which appear busy. But they are supposed to be crowded. That's why they're urban centres. There are lots of empty brown field sites, empty factories, empty warehouses, and empty council flats (surprisingly to some who haven't worked in social housing) in and around North Staffordshire. Immigrants rely on social housing less than demographically similar UK born residents. Studies on the “net fiscal impact” of migration have generally found that, overall, immigrants make national and local tax contributions that are roughly comparable to the cost of the services and benefits they receive. Some public services rely heavily on migrant workers. Foreign born people are overrepresented in social care and in the NHS medical workforce, for example. The NHS would collapse without immigrant workers. People need to ask themselves what they are and question why they think the way they do. Challenge their own preconceptions. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-britain-really-full-up-we-put-the-most-common-assumptions-about-immigration-to-an-expert-10427400.htmlwww.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigrationfullfact.org/immigration/welfare_benefits-44747fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-ukSo you haven't answered either part. Of course what level of immigration is OK is subjective. 100,000 Ok. 100,001 not Ok. Silly. But at what point does it start to become a problem? I've read a few of those studies in the past. They quite often take arbitrary judgements about where they start and stop the analysis to reinforce their message. Of course we can tarmac over many parts of Britain to make more housing. Who pays for that? You do realise the objective here is not to fill the country? I will try and pick up some of the rest of this when I have more time. You've just resorted to bringing UKIP back into it again. FFS - we're talking about refugees and immigration levels here (as refugees are part of the overall picture). Stop trying to muddy the water and changing the subject to something you feel you have the upper hand on. As I said earlier - start a thread if you want to discuss UKIP (but you're last thread on the subject died when I pointed out that whole premise of the thread was just made up). UK, there's none as blind as those who won't see. You may be wasting your time trying to help. You have clearly, simply and succinctly explained the situation accurately, without an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Sept 30, 2015 9:14:05 GMT
I detest bigotry in all forms, which if you bothered to take the time you'd know. Anything else? As all the definitions of "bigot" agree (even the one you selectively copied), bigotry is about intolerance of those holding a different opinion. Your posts - continuously - show that you aren't tolerant of many differing opinions. Kind of leaves you with a bit of a problem given your statement above don't you think? Nail on head mate Outstanding
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 30, 2015 9:20:40 GMT
For the last time I didn't selectively post anything I offered an alternative to your initial narrow minded definition, which was very selective was it not? Depends if I consider those "opinions" to be for example, Racist or Homophobic as regularly posted by others on this board. You might think Arnie is a better wide man than Etherington was, I may disagree with you. Does that make you or me bigots for having a difference of opinion? No it doesn't. What a daft thing for you to post. For the last time you pasted only part of the definition. Strangely enough I believe what I can see you actually did, rather than what you tell us you did. 'My' definition is the one provided by google by searching "bigot definition' then pasting in the first result. All the results on the page provide pretty much the same definition. One mentions in one of the definitions racism - and that's the one you picked. I wasn't selective. "Depends if I consider those "opinions" to be for example, Racist or Homophobic as regularly posted by others on this board". Admin don't seem to consider the posts "Racist or Homophobic" - and we all know that Sal is some right winger. You see racism all the time. In fact quite often when anyone disagrees with you. "You might think Arnie is a better wide man than Etherington was, I may disagree with you." If I'm intolerant of people holding a different opinion then by the definition I'd be a bigot. Not just because I disagree. But you do appear to be intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your views. Me? My Mrs joined the Labour party. My middle son was excited as hell when Corbyn won. I have lots of discussions with them - even though I disagree with them on many things, but I do respect them for their opinions even if they are wrong. Excellent news re your Wife and son. Watch his speech from yesterday it may well persuade you to join too.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Sept 30, 2015 10:11:22 GMT
For the last time you pasted only part of the definition. Strangely enough I believe what I can see you actually did, rather than what you tell us you did. 'My' definition is the one provided by google by searching "bigot definition' then pasting in the first result. All the results on the page provide pretty much the same definition. One mentions in one of the definitions racism - and that's the one you picked. I wasn't selective. "Depends if I consider those "opinions" to be for example, Racist or Homophobic as regularly posted by others on this board". Admin don't seem to consider the posts "Racist or Homophobic" - and we all know that Sal is some right winger. You see racism all the time. In fact quite often when anyone disagrees with you. "You might think Arnie is a better wide man than Etherington was, I may disagree with you." If I'm intolerant of people holding a different opinion then by the definition I'd be a bigot. Not just because I disagree. But you do appear to be intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your views. Me? My Mrs joined the Labour party. My middle son was excited as hell when Corbyn won. I have lots of discussions with them - even though I disagree with them on many things, but I do respect them for their opinions even if they are wrong. Excellent news re your Wife and son. Watch his speech from yesterday it may well persuade you to join too. No chance . Was a poor speech from a mentally disturbed individual that only appeals to other brain dead types . Thankfully Corbyn will never be PM and the majority of his bile is rejected by the great British public. Thumbs up
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 30, 2015 10:38:26 GMT
Excellent news re your Wife and son. Watch his speech from yesterday it may well persuade you to join too. No chance . Was a poor speech from a mentally disturbed individual that only appeals to other brain dead types . Thankfully Corbyn will never be PM and the majority of his bile is rejected by the great British public. Thumbs up Did you watch it in full then Harry? I'd be interested in your "constructive" criticism. 53% of sky viewers disagree with you by the way.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Sept 30, 2015 10:39:51 GMT
No chance . Was a poor speech from a mentally disturbed individual that only appeals to other brain dead types . Thankfully Corbyn will never be PM and the majority of his bile is rejected by the great British public. Thumbs up Did you watch it in full then Harry? I'd be interested in your "constructive" criticism. 53% of sky viewers disagree with you by the way. Thankfully the majority of "the people" don't agree . I prefer farage
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 1, 2015 23:10:56 GMT
Did you watch it in full then Harry? I'd be interested in your "constructive" criticism. 53% of sky viewers disagree with you by the way. Thankfully the majority of "the people" don't agree . I prefer farage ... the sort of person who feels Al Murray "The Pub Landlord" is literal and not satire.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Oct 2, 2015 0:09:31 GMT
Thankfully the majority of "the people" don't agree . I prefer farage ... the sort of person who feels Al Murray "The Pub Landlord" is literal and not satire. Your lies don't get you anywhere . People can see through it. Most try harder I'm afraid
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 2:36:47 GMT
Did you watch it in full then Harry? I'd be interested in your "constructive" criticism. 53% of sky viewers disagree with you by the way. Thankfully the majority of "the people" don't agree . I prefer farage Ay up Harry. Pal of mine here in Thai was in the UK for the lead up to the election and was an active campaign manager for a UKIP candidate down south, who obviously didn't get in. One thing he did elude to though was that 10's of 1000's of UKIP members temporarily joined the Labour Party just to vote for Corbyn, and have now re joined UKIP, not sure how the Labour leadership election worked, but if this is so what a masterpiece of gerrymandering.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 2, 2015 5:45:52 GMT
... the sort of person who feels Al Murray "The Pub Landlord" is literal and not satire. Your lies don't get you anywhere . People can see through it. Most try harder I'm afraid I don't think most people have to try hard to understand Al Murray is satire. Clearly you do. It's not a lie to point out that Al Murray is satirising UKIP voters. That's the whole bloody point of him - THAT'S the joke! I thought everybody knew that. It's like being the teacher who told you Santa isn't real. Each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Oct 2, 2015 8:35:16 GMT
Your lies don't get you anywhere . People can see through it. Most try harder I'm afraid I don't think most people have to try hard to understand Al Murray is satire. Clearly you do. It's not a lie to point out that Al Murray is satirising UKIP voters. That's the whole bloody point of him - THAT'S the joke! I thought everybody knew that. It's like being the teacher who told you Santa isn't real. Each to their own. thats not what you said though was it youth ;-) Murrays been doing his thing before ukip became popular kid . Sorry mate still voting for ukip and still prefer farage to the snake that is Corbyn Must try harder
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Oct 2, 2015 10:25:16 GMT
I don't think most people have to try hard to understand Al Murray is satire. Clearly you do. It's not a lie to point out that Al Murray is satirising UKIP voters. That's the whole bloody point of him - THAT'S the joke! I thought everybody knew that. It's like being the teacher who told you Santa isn't real. Each to their own. Ah, the traditional Derrida/************** ploy of deliberately misinterpreting something to make a point and take the discussion off at a tangent. Most can see through it mate
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Oct 2, 2015 16:48:56 GMT
Ah, the traditional Derrida/************** ploy of deliberately misinterpreting something to make a point and take the discussion off at a tangent. Most can see through it mate You've got this horribly mixed up. You're a Son of the Hood indeed.
|
|