BS: UK immigration too high?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: MartinRyan
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 04:51 PM

GUEST Paul

There's some relevant information in THIS THREAD

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 21 Nov 09 - 06:35 PM

Oh Dear, Keith, talking to you really is trying to walk through a swamp. OF COURSE, there are children in our schools with little or no English. Your 'Bakanced Immigration' group deliberately conflated these with fluent English speakers who have a diffewrent mother tongue. You must realise this, musn't you. Just go back and look! My God, why don't you use YOUR critical factors in a balanced way?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:16 AM

Tug, I accept that you have a point, and that the expression was not well chosen.
What is not acceptable is for you to use that trivial point to claim that I am not worthy of any respect, and to dismiss all the hard factual information on that site.
I am just arguing that immigration is now much too high. The precise number of pupils with no English does not matter, only that there are a large number of schools who feel overwhelmed by the unprecedented influx of such children.
That is amply borne out by the BBC reports.
I have seen high profile campaigns against the admission of a few Traveller children to village schools, but this problem is confined to poor, inner city scools.
And who cares about the children of the poor?
Not the Left, who collude in grinding them down, and just call them racist scum if they complain.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 09 - 02:20 AM

Paul, you were lucky to find someone like Martin in amongst all this.
Music related threads are in the top half of the forum.
I hope you find plenty to interest you there. We usually have at least one thread about Irish music running.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:43 AM

The middle classes are "insulated" from the effects of immigration and find it hard to understand fears about housing and jobs, John Denham, the communities secretary said.
The affluent often are able to see opportunities within change and uncertainty, whereas those who are less insulated from potential drawbacks may see the same change as a risk or a threat

People who were better off tended to look more favourably on mass immigration, he said.

"Crudely expressed, the higher you are in the pecking order, the more likely you are to benefit from immigration," he said.

"Those of us who feel culturally enriched by the benefits of migration and who are insulated from the competition for jobs, housing and public services that is potentially posed by migrants, often find these views difficult to appreciate.

It echoes a speech last month by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said: "If the main effect of immigration on your life is to make it easier to find a plumber, or when you see doctors and nurses from overseas in your local hospital, you are likely to think more about the benefits of migration than the possible costs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8389701.stm

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:23 AM

I am reopening this only because Royston has, in a current thread, said that my views expressed here show me to be a far right bigot.

The views of John Denham and Gordon Brown quoted in my last post here exactly coincide with mine expressed throughout.
You never responded Royston.
Did you recognise yourself in their description of the kind of person who shouts loudest for mass immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:46 AM

No, Keith. What Royston said (roughly) was that many people here thought you were a right wing bigot, and that if you were not you might care to ponder how they came to form such views.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:00 AM

Never mind "roughly"
He said exactly "Keith, most people here suspect you (from your posting history in general) to hold a number of rather right wing prejudices; that you are a right wing bigot"

Do you think he did not include himself?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:58 AM

Keith,

If you wish people to be clear about what your political position is, then you should make it clear with each post, and if people get the wrong end of the stick you should explain what your actual opinion is.

You may feel that it is up to others to understand things the way that you meant them, but sometimes that is simply unrealistic and you have to allow for a margin of error and misinterpretation on all sides. That is the subtlety of good communication (something which I could do well to develop in my own posts).

In the Ugandan death penalty thread, your posts do appear is if they were posted to add credence to Ake's or GfS's position, not least because Ake repeatedly indicated that he saw you as being on his side.

This was something that you never distanced yourself from, just as you made no attempt to refute his numerous unfounded assertions about homosexuals.

It could easily be inferred that the reason you do not take Ake to task when he describes Gays as having a natural propensity for child abuse, and when he says that Gays should effectively be imprisoned, (amongst other things)is that you agree with him.

It could easily be inferred that you are more concerned with refuting those who are outraged by his position than you are with setting the record straight wholly neutrally as you claim you are.


Civil rights is a fundamental principle of our society, and when people argue to limit them, they condemn us to a return to the jungle.

We live in a world that depends on ideas to continue functioning.

Political debate is the arena in which ideas are examined and developed.

Money for example is nothing more than an idea. It only exists because we all agree it does.

The law, parliament, the courts, queueing for the bus, ... all these things are nothing more than ideas ... yet their agreed existence has allowed human beings to survive in a way unprecedented by any other species.

Of course Ideas can also result in the creation of solid tangible things too, like cars and computers, but I am more concerned with the imaginary mechanisms that mean we don't have to live in caves and hunt big game with spears, or have a life expectancy of about 30 years.

So if you wish to engage in political discussion, why not share your ideas, and why not give your reaction to the ideas that are around you.

So in short,

1, what do you think

2, what problems do you find with the assertions made by GfS and Ake?


If you aren't prepared to answer these questions, then it may be realistic to expect people reading your posts to view you as being an apologist for homophobic and racist politics.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 05:08 AM

Just to clarify, it wasn't clear until you stated clearly in a recent post that you do not see homosexuality as a gay or african disease.

However, I fear that Ake would miss the subtlety of your post and simply see it as a point scored for his team.

For the record, I live in inner city London and live on less than 25K a year. The reason why I do not subscribe to racist politics is not that I am part of a demographic which benefits from immigration, but that I am lucky eough to have an open mind so I have been able to consider racist ideas in a bit more depth and have consequently rejected them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 05:58 AM

I cannot remember if I have posted to this thread before so apologies if I am repeating myself. I do not subscribe to the view that everyone who thinks immigration should be restricted is a racist. I do not personaly agree with the view for various reasons, mainly becuase I believe the flow is distinctly tidal and will always ebb and flow, but I can see how it will bother some people. Maybe if the term 'UK population is too high' was applied it may be seen as less controvertial?

I have seen no evidence of Keith saying that immigration should be restricted on grounds of race, colour or creed so the views are more exclusionist than right wing. Whether the exclusive use of one piece of land by the people lucky enough to be on it is right or not is yet another matter. Whether the borders should go up when a particular country is full is yet another. What constitues full is a third as, even if we were to accept many more people, our standard of living would still be much higher than some of the less densely populated countries in, say, Africa.

Bearing these things in mind I think it is a fair question to ask but one that was always bound to attract the extemists from both ends. To imagine otherwise would be naive.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 06:35 AM

Just to clarify, I also have seen no evidence of Keith holding racist or homophobic views, and my experience of him has been that when he has wound me up with his posts, he has been able to set me straight as to his intentions pretty quickly.

Of course noone is perfect, and we can all learn from each other.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:46 AM

Exactly, with context: -

"Keith, most people here suspect you (from your posting history in general) to hold a number of rather right wing prejudices; that you are a right wing bigot. You need to consider, if you believe us all to be mistaken, just what is it that you say and do that leads people to hold that suspicion of you."


So why are we, and so many of us, so mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:30 AM

Richard, I do not know but suspect that that is how some people label anyone who challenges their dearly held beliefs.

Lox , on the other thread I kept out of the dicussion of morality. I had no desire to enter that bull pit.
Opinions I did not challenge, only supposed factual information.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:57 AM

"Opinions I did not challenge, only supposed factual information."

You did provide your subjective interpretation of stats.

You also posted others opinions, including that of a guardian columnist.

"I had no desire to enter that bull pit."

I think this may have been unrealistic. I don't believe it is possible to contribute to a disussion and not be a part of it.

Had you done the research you referred us to, that might have given you an immunity if sorts, but what you did was refer us to research and opinions from other sources.

It is not possible to be neutral in that respect, though with careful attention it is possible to provide as balanced a picture as possible and to draw attention to inaccuracies across the board where you think you see them.

I would like to reiterate that I am of the view (not that I see myself as meriting any position of judgement, but for the purpose of reassurance) that you are honest and well intentioned, and that this is demonstrated extremely clearly in your retractions and where, when asked, you have clarified your position.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:09 AM

I provided the opinions of experts in the field for consideration.
I did not find but withold anything because it did not fit someone's agenda. I put up everything relevant that I found.
The Guardian columnist included some statements from very well informed professionals, beside extreme opinions of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:18 AM

Two threads are becoming confused here.
Sorry.
Lox re me not seeing AIDS as gay or African, my post on 21st Jan
"Globally HIV / AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of heterosexual people both in absolute number and in terms of the percentage of sufferers"
Yes, I do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM

""I am reopening this only because Royston has, in a current thread, said that my views expressed here show me to be a far right bigot.""

Keith, it is well known on this forum that I am a Tory voter, and also that my income is sub £12000, yet I find your posts to show a bias considerably to the right of my own.
_____________________________________________________________________

""Richard, I do not know but suspect that that is how some people label anyone who challenges their dearly held beliefs.""

An odd answer, given that the people who are most in agreement with you persist in calling those who challenge their dearly held beliefs "liberal fascists".

No, my friend, it is your insistence upon posting the opinions of others with suspect motives, and disseminating their dodgy "factoids".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 11:12 PM

Still, immigration is probably too high in every developed country.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:43 AM

Dodgy factoid!
Oh dear.
Please give me an example so I will know never to post one again.
Just one will do.
Make it the very worst one I have ever posted.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:06 AM

Mudcat Dictionary

Dodgy Factoid: A piece of hard evidence that weakens or destroys your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:28 AM

Was there just a funny smell in here?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:55 PM

Yeah!

Big Nasty Pong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:59 PM

""Dodgy Factoid: A piece of hard evidence that weakens or destroys your argument.""

No Mate!.......A so-called fact from a source or origin with a serious axe to grind, a fixed political bias, or a somewhat iffy mental capacity only equalled by those who believe, and quote, said source.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM

I see I have been mis-called on this thread despite never having posted here.
In other threads on this subject I have spoken against Govt sponsered "economic immigration" which I have always regarded as a vicious con perpetrated against the poorest UK residents.

I have never been against the movement of people to other countries per se.

During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.
Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:20 PM

You will like to know that I have met many educated folks from eastern Europe who have settled here. They are polite and speak better English than a good proportion of the sluggage one comes across in the south of England.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM

"You will like to know that I have met many educated folks from eastern Europe who have settled here. They are polite and speak better English than a good proportion of the sluggage one comes across in the south of England.""

I agree, and they often work a bloody sight harder too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM

I see I have been mis-called on this thread despite never having posted here.
In other threads on this subject I have spoken against Govt sponsered "economic immigration" which I have always regarded as a vicious con perpetrated against the poorest UK residents.

I have never been against the movement of people to other countries per se.

During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.
Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?""

Slight terminological inexactitude there Ake.

Below are the other times when you haven't posted to this thread.

_____________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 01:31 AM

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:25 AM

Just thought you might like to acknowledge the fact that you ARE not as infallible as you try to make out.

Mind you, there wasn't much of substance in those two posts, but hey! Why change the habits of a lifetime.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:25 PM

I apologise for missing the fact that I had posted twice...I even checked to make sure....must be the auld eyes!

I see you've forgotten to answer my question!....must be the auld brain cells! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM

Answer?

NO!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:35 PM

""During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.
Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?""

On second thought this does deserve some expansion beyond a simple no.

Right Ake, listen up, so you won't miss anything.

You have pointed out that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections.

Now, stay with me on this, right?

How do you think they know this????

Because they have tested them for, guess what,....YES! HIV.

DUH!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM

Don....for fuck sake waky! waky!

You test them BEFORE they are allowed into the fuckin' country.
If they are hiv positive, they should not be allowed in....Seemples!


Even for you!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:20 PM

""You test them BEFORE they are allowed into the fuckin' country.
If they are hiv positive, they should not be allowed in....Seemples!

And if they're new infections it's still six months after after they arrive that they have a sufficient viral load to test positive.

And shouldn't you be grubbing up bugs in the Kalahari?

Not so seemples (the tests I mean)

You?.......Well, if the cap fits.............

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:40 PM

Perfectly simple, test six months before entry and again on entry!

Isn't this all getting a little too complicated for you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:12 AM

Could someone tell us how USA has imposed its ban on HIV infected people entering?
Now that Obama is to reverse that policy, do we know if anyone is going to pay for their treatment?
If the answer is no, they will not be living in USA for long.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:44 AM

"Perfectly simple, test six months before entry and again on entry!

Isn't this all getting a little too complicated for you?"

And if they pass the first test, how do you propose ensuring that they do not become infected before the second test?

There would still be a risk of them developing it, passing both tests and then being admitted wouldn't there?

What a waste of money that would be ...

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:07 AM

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has telephoned a woman for calling her "bigoted" while out on the campaign trail.

The PM's comments came as he was driven away from an event in Rochdale at which 65-year-old widow Gillian Duffy tackled him in front of the cameras about Britain's financial problems, taxes, student financing and immigration.

Unaware that his radio mic was still connected, Mr Brown told an aide that the encounter had been "a disaster" and said he should never have been made to speak with Mrs Duffy, adding: "She was just a bigoted woman."

You can't open your mouth or expression an opinion about these fucks pouring into the UK without some arsehole calling you a bigot or racist. The word they should be called is a realist. Ship them out if they are here to scrounge benefits as 95% of them are, 29 Polish nationals have committed murder in the UK within the last 23 months.

The lady expressed what a lot of us think.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:40 AM

Troll alert!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:25 PM

KEITH please spell my name correctly ,I am schweik.
multi national capitalists believe all immigration controls should be abolished,they wish to be able to get labour as cheaply as possible.
however sending immigrants back and preventing immigration will not solve any economic depression.
the BNP and the other anti immgration parties do not seem to have an understanding of how to manage the capitalist system efficiently.
KEITH, please explain how you think restricting immigration will help to get England out of an economic depression.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 10:09 AM

Sorry Good Soldier Schweik (I read the book once).
I have not said that immigration is the cause of recession.
I only suggested that there might be an optimum level and that we may well have passed that.
I also pointed out some of the problems associated with a rapid large influx, e.g. housing, schooling, health care resources, employment, etc.
I also pointed out that the burden falls unequally on the already poor and disavantaged, while the already rich benefit even more.

Like the Rochdale pensioner, I was called a bigot for daring to express such views, which are completely mainstream and middle of the road.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/tim-finch/is-progressive-case-for-migration-truly-progressive

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:35 AM

I hope Royston follows my link.
It is a piece by a progressive leftie who heads the immigration section of a left wing think tank, who has reconsidered his position on immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 07:14 AM

The wages of British workers were forced down because the Labour government failed to restrict immigration from eastern Europe, Ed Balls claims today. In a provocative article in the Observer, the Labour leadership hopeful says the party will rebuild trust only if it admits "what we got wrong".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/06/ed-balls-labour-immigration-wages

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 11 - 07:39 AM

This thread ran before our government changed.
Our current immigration minister this week:

The Government blamed the previous Labour administration. Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'These statistics show that immigration was out of control thanks to the old system.

All parties now agree that immigration was and is too high, and the losers are the low paid workers.

Yesterday Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/net-migration-uk-immigration

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:19 AM

I'm not going to stick my neck out and comment on the EU or immigration, but I will say that on my recent visit to Ireland and England I was surprised and irritated by the large numbers of service people who were unable to speak or even understand English.

If I move to another country would I expect them to cater to me and speak my language?

Well, yes, I will comment on immigration; many people I talked to lament the joining of the EU. Both England and Ireland came out on the short end of the deal.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max)
Date: 27 May 11 - 10:40 AM

I agree Kendall, but in these times too many are willing to jump down your throat for making such a comment.

There is a major problem in the area I live. The Polish used to come to the UK to seek employment, now they have discovered having children is more profitable. None of them work now, they get their rent and council tax paid for them and live off generous state benefits. They are now bringing their elderly family members into the UK for free health care The Health Service simply can't copy with the numbers.

The government must deal with this problem.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 11 - 11:41 AM

Ja, ve must more "Schower rooms" machen und darein the schvein tueren.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Big Phil
Date: 27 May 11 - 02:14 PM

Geordie "On the whole, immigration has made this country a better place to live in than it was before"

Clearly you don't live near families of nine living in one house speaking no English, drinking beer all day and selling dope near you. Raising their glasses to the British Social Security Benefit system.

Europeans come here to breed, Claim benefits, bring their granny over and get the N.H.S. to run an M.O.T. on her."


A harsh post, but very true.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 May 11 - 03:32 PM

"None of them work now, they get their rent and council tax paid for them and live off generous state benefits." Geordie

I don't know how the Poles are now, I only know they have been. It would surprise me very much if they- or even half of them- fit that description.

I expect that Richard Bridge is being satirical. I should hope so, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 11 - 07:51 PM

Er - yes!

Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high?
From: kendall
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:52 PM

I was told by a hotel owner in Dingle Ireland that the Poles are skipping England and coming to Ireland because the benefits are more. Just what Ireland doesn't need!
A few fleas are no problem to a healthy dog, but a thousand can kill it.