Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

This is a continuation of a 'discussion' that started in this thread http://www.kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/v ... =8&t=42161 that was 'off topic' for that thread so I have moved it to its own seperate thread.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Let’s be honest you know our immigration policy is a mess but you have to try and defend it to keep up the liberal narrative.

I do indeed accept that any number of aspects of the UK's immigration policy, past and present, are a mess. I would be more than welcome to discuss such and I have many views that would be hard, i think, for anyone to easily square with 'maintaining a liberal narrative'. The problem is that I am not able to express these views when the conversation starts with the 'UKs immigration policy is such a mess that the effect in terms of things like the number of people granted asylum, the ratio of such granting to refusing and a whole host of other 'stats', all show the UK takes significantly more 'immigrants' than many other comparable countries'. When the conversation starts with this kind of premise, stated as fact and a given, then the only response I can give is 'hang on a minute - is that actually true'. Not because of a need to 'maintain a liberal narrative' but actually because of a need to base discussion on 'reality' rather than 'emotion'. As far as I am concerned when the conversation starts with 'the UK has an open door immigration policy' then there is, for me, little or no space for anything other than to question the validity of that starting premise.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Somebody uses the phrase open door you’ll hammer away at that as being untrue as the UK doesn’t officially have an open door policy. Not wishing to give you the slightest thread to try to pull away at let’s say we have a regulated immigration policy where none of the regulations are worth a light.

Again let me be clear about this. People use that kind of phrase about immigration all the time. I do not like it, for reasons I will and am trying to explain, but almost always I just ignore such expressions. The difference in this case was the use of such a phrase whilst at the same time accusing someone else of 'scaremongering'. It was this combination that led to my responding. The phrase as far as I am concerned is itself an exaggeration and distortion of actual reality. If you had accused waz of scaremongering without using this phrase there would have been no comment from me. If you had used this phrase whilst not also accusing someone else of scaremonger there very likely would have been no comment from me either. Both together - yes I commented.

My back ground is IT. My job basically is about 'troubleshooting', about trying to identify cause and effect in order to be able to efficiently stop or minimise a given effect (slow internet, streaming buffering, random disconnects, whatever). I like to think I am relative good at my job but that may well be ego speaking. Regardless I use a standard process. The process goes something like 'establish a theory as to what the cause is' and then 'work out a way of testing that theory'. So it may go something like this. Theory - the effect is related specifically to the wifi connection in the customers house. Test - try without using wifi in the customers house (by connecting say a laptop with a cable connection). If the problems (effect) go away when connected with cable connected , then this strongly supports the original theory. If on the other hand the effect is still there when connected this way then the original theory has to be questioned. This then is my 'process'

So if the theory is 'the UK has an open door policy' or the ''The UK's immigration policy is so badly implemented in practice that it is in effect the equivalent of having a 'open door immigration policy' or 'we have a regulated immigration policy where none of the regulations are worth a light' I then ask myself what would be a fair 'test' of that theory. Now the 'test' that I come up with does have a built in assumption. That built in assumption is that if the theory is actually 'the UK has an open door policy and so do most / many other comparable countries', then my test is indeed meaningless. If however the theory is the UK does and most / many other countries do NOT, then I think my 'test' is valid and fair.

My 'test' goes along the lines of - if the theory is correct what should I expect to see in actual numbers as a result. If the UK really does have an 'open door policy, or the equivalent to it' then I would expect that to be 'see-able' in all sorts of statistics when compared to other countries (which do not have an open door policy). By 'see-able' I mean there should be a significant, large difference in UK stats vs other countries that do not also have 'open door immigration policies'. Now there are lots of categories of 'immigrants' and so many stats and much contention about the stats. However one category that is relatively 'well defined' and where the stats concerning such are 'clearer' than most is asylum seekers. So if the theory is correct then I would expect there to be a significant difference in things like how many people are granted asylum in the UK vs other comparable countries or in the ratio of how many people who apply for asylum are granted it vs those refused in the UK vs other comparable countries. Not just 20% or 60% difference but double or treble or 5 times more. If I can not find such difference when I look at the numbers, then I have to question the validity of the original theory - that is how my mind and the 'process' works.

So I looked at the numbers to 'test' the theory and I could not find the large, significant difference that I would expect to be there if the theory was true. You then came back with 'the countries you are comparing with have lower population densities than the UK'. I found this strange, I found the notion that for example Australia, widely regarded as NOT having an open door policy and often used an example of the kind of policy the UK should have, having similar stats to the UK was explained by them having a much lower population density, strange shall we say. But I did not dismiss the notion out of hand. I followed the process again. I asked myself- ok if the UK does have an open door policy and countries that have very different population densities are not valid comparisons, what would my 'test' be. My test would then be 'I would expect countries that have similar or greater population densities than the UK and are not also operating an open door policy, to show significant large differences in things like the number of people granted asylum and the ratio between applications and acceptance in such countries. So we already had Germany, that as near as dam it is same pop density as uk but to that list I also added Belgium and the Netherlands (and Lebanon but that was a distraction really). I still fail to see the significant large difference in the numbers. How can this be ? The UK has an open door policy, yet there is no large significant (two times or more) difference in things like how many people are granted asylum (per head of population) or the ratio of how many people are granted asylum vs how many apply for such. What can this mean. Well it can mean the UK has an open door policy and so does Germany and Netherlands and Belgium (and many other countries - but this is explained by their lower population densities). Or it could mean the theory itself has to be questioned.

As I say I would love to 'blow your mind' with some of my own personal radical ideas about what the UK could or should do with regards to say asylum. However when you start with "we have a regulated immigration policy where none of the regulations are worth a light." you just leave me no space in which to do so. The only thing I can do faced with such an assertion is ask, if none of our regulations are worth a light, why is the ratio of granted asylum applications to those not granted around 40% ? Surely if none of the regulations were worth a light, then those granted asylum vs those who apply would be 100% or dam close to it, would it not ? Even if you believe all asylum applications are in fact bogus and that the ratio of granted to applied should be zero, even then would you not have to accept that '60%' refused of the current system is worth some light ? This then is, as far as I am concerned, the only 'space 'left to me, given your starting point.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You can’t go down the route that the UK should throw their doors open because that won’t play well so you keep vague and say you agree we need better rules but obviously you can hammer away at any rules in the future.

So this is very hard for me. Basically you are ascribing motivations to me that as far as I am concerned I simply do not have. You claim I really want a (genuine) open door policy in the UK. This is just not true. You make out that I, personally, me, have a 'hidden agenda' and I am using all my mighty powers of persuasion and deception to trick and deceive people. I do not and I am not. Again I feel you leave me no 'space' here other than protest my innocence of the charges being laid against me.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Do you liberals go to a try and nail a jelly to the wall classes?

In the pejorative way I perceive you use the term 'liberal' in the above (backed up by your own words), I see little difference in it than an equivalent reply given to you along the lines 'Do you racists go to 'how to exaggerate and distort classes ?' I do not want what I say to be written off and discarded for no other reason that the person doing so labels me a 'liberal'. You know what I do to try and make what I want happen? I actively and with intent try my best to not write off and ignore peoples' views about immigration that I disagree with on the basis that they are 'racist'. Now I know absolutely that I try (and sometimes fail but try none the less) and do this but I also understand that you do not know this, that you only have my 'word' that that is what I do. Except you do not just have my 'word', you also have my 'record' of what I have said in the past. The reason why I try and do this is the simple basis that I can not control what other people do. I can however control what I chose to do. So my philosophy is if I do not want to be written of as a 'liberal' then what I can and should do about it is actively try to not write of others as a 'racist' as some kind of default response.

Now text only forums and discussions on such with people you have no knowledge of other than on such a forum are extremely blunt instruments. It is almost like they are designed to promote and encourage misunderstanding and unnecessary conflict. Having said that and accepting that I may well have got 'you' entirely wrong I am going to waffle on about how this feels to me. It feels to me that you do not want to have your views written off and dismissed out of hand by being labelled 'racist', yet you also feel no obligation or need to therefore try your best to not dismiss and write off others views based on labelling them 'liberal'. Or even to consider trying such. It feels like you believe the 'problem' is only with othewr people and liberals and can not be anything to do with you or or in any connected to how you chose to behave. You do not want to be labelled racist but you do seem to want absolute freedom to label any one else liberal as you like. What is more when with a given individual there is no actual evidence in what they have said that thye just write of your views on the basis that you are 'racist', you still want to be free to accuse them of doing that on the basis other people have done it, or on the basis that they might not have done it but only because they are 'too clever' to do so but really they want to. Like I say this may all be grossly unfair, I admit and understand that, but it is how it feels to me none the less. Genuinely.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You perfect the art of appearing to answer a question in some length but go nowhere near it. Epic ten point answers that actually concentrate on one minor point allow you to ignore the rest.

You act incredulous that I suggest that we don’t deport people who lie about their asylum status but go very quiet when I ask how many examples you want.

There was a point to what I wrote. I may not have got my point across with any clarity and I may have been grossly misunderstood but there was a point behind it and the point was trying to answer your question that you claim 'I go quiet on'. So how to make my point again and not be misunderstood, again ? I am not sure how to do that. I do not think my point is particularly hard to understand. Would 'one swallow does not a summer make' explain it any better ? For me given that a 'system' can never achieve 100% 'accuracy', then individual cases tell me very little about to what degree that system does or does not achieve an acceptable 'accuracy rate'. I am not saying such case have no value at all, the certainly do have value in highlighting potential problem areas and areas that should be looked at closer. What they do not do, for me, is prove in and off themselves that the system is beyond any doubt achieving an 'accuracy rate' that is clearly unacceptable. For that I would need more I am afraid. I would need some idea of how many 'accurate' decisions are made in total vs how many inaccurate as well as some idea of what ratio of inaccurate is deemed 'acceptable', given that 100% accuracy is and always will be impossible. I do not think saying this is ignoring your question, I think it is a genuine attempt to answer it. Nor do I think it is 'nailing jelly to a wall either'. To me it just seems 'common sense'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Liberals usually try to close down a debate on immigration quickly by using the racist card but given I pointed this out early, that closed off that tactic so you cleverly personalised it. “Have I called you a racist?” etc.

See above. Also do you see no incongruity with my actual behaviour here in this thread and the claim that as a 'liberal' my objective is to 'close down debate' on immigration ? If we imagine for a minute that ok my intent as a liberal is to 'close down debate' on immigration, then would not a more effective tactic have been in this instance to just have made my initial comment and then said nothing more ? I mean it is not like there seem to be loads of other people jumping in to 'sustain' the debate other than me ? Or is this perhaps just another example of the 'cunning perfidy of the liberal' - a sophisticated 'double bluff' ? That I really want to just say nothing more but you, knowing the evil ways of the liberal have 'closed off' that option for me by saying that is what I will do. Leaving me no other option but to carry on debating, when all I really want to do is call you a racist and chip ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You got a bit carried away by asking has anyone here called you a racist which I replied by quoting Wazs post as probably near as dammit going in that direction. That took the wind out of your sails I guess as you ignored it. Twice.

You are right to a degree that I did get a 'bit carried away'. I would agree that in hindsight I did not use the precision I should have used to make the point I was trying to get across in that response. In hindsight I should have said 'Have I called you racist' rather than 'who has called you racist'. I should not have said 'no one here has called you racist', even though technically it was correct, for I do agree that waz's reply to you can easily be interpreted in such a way and thus it was not at all helpful for the point I was trying to make. There is however a point I was and still am trying to make and seemingly failing to make. I think subsequently I did get a lot clearer in what that point was but it does feel that none the less you have effectively ignored this point and continue to do so.

Now I know you do not have to take my word for it that actually I personally do make a conscious effort to not write of your views by just labelling you 'racist'. That I do so because it really is the only way I have under my control of trying to influence the creation of an environment where my views are not just written off as 'liberal'. I know that you probably just consider it an attempt at a 'clever lie by a liberal' to bamboozle and confuse and generally try and trick 'normal' people. However, as an experiment, just for 30 seconds, I am going to suggest you try giving me the benefit of the doubt here and accept that actually what I say is true. Just for 30 seconds. Now in that 30 seconds can you get any sense of the degree of 'unfairness' I feel in regards to your 'accusations' ? Can you imagine, if what I say is true, how it feels to me to be told that the only reason I did not just write you off as 'racist' was because you were too smart for me and 'blocked' me from doing that by getting in first, whilst you also relentless reply to me in terms of 'what liberals do' (with what they do always being something 'bad' or 'sneaky' or 'dishonest' or the like). Nay sense of how frustrating it is that you use the fact that I have NOT just labelled you racist and ignored the points you have made as 'proof' that what I really want to do is label you as racist and ignore the points you make ?

My point is that I accept that some people will write off views like yours as 'racist' simply as a way of not having to deal with or try and address what you are actually saying and I accept that my first comment on this was not clear in the sense that it did not make this acceptance clear but that I personally have NOT done this and I do not do this in any sort of consistent manner, if you look at my long posting history.

I would like to propose a suggested 'truce' or 'compromise' on this issue if I may? I will continue to NOT call you racist and write off or ignore what you are saying on that basis if you try to stop calling me 'liberal' (when liberal means - insincere, dishonest, tricksy and the like) and using that label as a means of ignoring or dismissing or misconstruing with intent the points I am trying to make ? Does that sound fair to you, or is it in your view just yet another attempted cunning mind trick of the sort that is typical and indicative of 'liberals' and thus just yet more proof of my 'liberal perfidy' ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I also asked whether the remain campaign consistently label leavers racist but you continue to refuse to answer that too. I'm interested to learn if I keep pressing whether you are going to go the feigned wasn't aware of that route?

If I think I have learnt one thing from the whole 'brexit debate' it would be that this simplification of dividing peoiple in to two monolitic blocks of remainer (more often remoner) and leaver (in tit for tat mode, brextremist) and assigning each group with a singular set of consistent reasons and motivations as to why they are in a given group, is not only valueless but it is also in my opinion a real and significant block on the promotion of reasoned debate vs appeals to emotional via rehtoric.

I 'lived' this experience in the brexit discussions here on this forum. There was a lot of passionate debate and I tried to engage. One common theme was 'leavers are all about scaremongering'. Although my initial reaction was to a large degree 'what and leavers are not ?' I did soon switch tack. It was true that 'scaremongering' did feature heavily in the 'remain' debate, so I thought ok I will try put aside the nagging voice in my brain shouting 'so too in leave campaign' and try and come up with some arguments in support of staying that were NOT about 'fear-mongering'. I actually made quite an effort to do this. One example I came up with was 'certifying toasters' as 'safe to use and sell' is better done centrally once , rather than seperately 28 times. Better for those that sell them and those that buy them and those that want to use them in a reasonable expectation of not being electrocuted. Now I am not saying this was some earth shattering insight that would make the most ardent leaver reconsider their position, because it was not. What it was though was a sincere and genuine effort to be both on the 'remain' side of the argument and offer reasons that were specifically NOT based on 'fear-mongering'. What was the response (or more accurately what is my memory of the feeling of the response I got) ? Well it was not 'yeah actually you do have a point there but the benefit of things like this are inconsequential compared with not having total control of our borders, or the loss of sovereignty generally'. My memory of the response I got for such efforts was pretty much to have my point ignored and dismissed and to be lectured once more about how all the leave camp has is 'scaremongering'. After a few more attempts with the same response I pretty much just stopped bothering trying to engage with such discussions here on the forum for quite a while.

I do accept and recognise that the problem with SOME remainers is they do just label ALL leavers as 'racist' or motivated by 'racism'. I would not even argue that hard if the accusation was a lot or most of reaminers do this. But ALL - sorry that I can not just accept as 'read'. In fact I am on the record as having refuted the 'truth' of this from my own personal experience (and I think more than once). Of recounting how my mother, one of the most non racist people I know, voted leave. What I struggle with is the idea that ALL remainers behave in the same way, especially given that I personally as a reaminer do not or at least actively try my most not to (and I know that is true as fact). Where I really struggle with it is when the accusation comes from someone who by their own actions (not those of leavers in general, or some other leavers) gives me the impression that whilst they can accurately see the problem with 'reaminers' they seem to believe and act in a way that says they see no such reciprocal problem at all in the behaviour of not just some leavers but actually ANY leavers. The notion that all remainers do this 'bad thing' and no leavers do it at all, espused by a leaver that has and in fact does do it themselves. That I do struggle with.

So once more , for the record I do NOT believe that all those that support the UK leaving the EU are racist. I do not believe that large amounts of such are racist. I do not believe that significant amounts of such are racist. Nor do I think you can find any consistent evidence in what I have said or written that would contradict these claims and you can in fact find much that supports them. I do believe there are racists but I accept that they are a small % of the population as a whole. I do find it hard to imagine any of this small number of people supporting remaining in the EU but that is an entirely different thing from saying all, or many or a lot of leavers are racist. I do not say this. I have not said this. Being repeatedly told I am saying this, I have said this, or I want to say this but have been stopped from doing so by a 'clever' leaver 'blocking me' before I can do so is frustrating and does severely impact on how much and if at all I decided to continue to engage or not.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Not wanting to openly criticise the xenophobic UK you went down the well trodden path of how wonderful the likes of Australia, France, and Germany etc are doing with asylum seekers.

I am trying here, really I am. Trying not to 'shut down' the discussion. Trying not to just 'give up'. Trying to explain my views and points as clearly as I can. Trying even to 'conceed' where I can. Can you not see how hard that is when the 'means' by which you choose to 'discuss' with me involves YOU telling ME what it is I really think but do not want to admit ?

I have covered this above already but I absolutely did not use or seek to use Australia as an example of 'how wonderful they are doing with asylum seekers' vs the UK. As you keep pointing out the very notion in the case of Australia is just absurd. What I did was seek a 'test' for the 'theory' that the 'UK has an open boarder policy (more so than many comparable countries) as explained above (and before that as well).

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: I mentioned Australia’s detention centre on Nauru and the rise of the far right throughout Europe and again you remain quiet.

If my point was Australia has a more liberal more open more tolerant and more relaxed immigration policy that the UK then your coffe espitting and your conclusions as to why I have 'ignored' Nauru to date would have much justification. But the thing is that is so far from my point, so far from what I was actually trying to say and why I was saying it, so far that it is almost the exact opposite of what I was actually trying to say. I am at a loss here. Something is going on and I do not understand it. Either my explanation has been so bad, so woefully inadequate that is had led you to a conclusion that is just about the exact opposite of what I intended to convey, or you understanding has been so. Probably a bit of both. Being misunderstood is not something new for me but being so totally and fundamentally misunderstood does leave me perplexed.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I understand why because in countries where the liberals have taken hold the far right has grown at a worrying rate. In the UK which our liberals will label xenophobic, racist, colonial etc etc the far right makes zero impact. Or do you have another view?

I have lots of views on this but I would like to at least feel that some kind of progress has been made on all the other stuff raised so far before just jumping off on another tangential subject that will undoubtedly be a big 'can of worms'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Try to go back to the original point I’ve asked you a couple of times whether you felt you would be safer from revenge attacks in the UK than North Cyprus? Still waiting to hear back on that.

Yes you are very good and persistent at asking and re-asking and re-asking the questions you want me to answer but I have to say I do not feel you have the same tenacity when it comes to ensuring you have answered to my satisfaction the questions I have asked of you. In any case the answer you seek (demand - keep demanding) is actually 'on topic' for the original thread and kind of 'off topic' for this one, so I will consider answering it there in due course. That is no promise but I may well do so if and when I feel I have sufficient time to do so and that is where I will do it.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:But here is the million euro question what would you call 4 million immigrants in 15 years?
Too many, not enough or about right?
Or is the figure wrong?

But we both know you won’t answer that.

[/quote][/quote]

Seriously ? The old 'we both know you will not answer that' taunt / gmabit ? Really ? Look there are things I could be asked on a forum that I simply will not reply to, for a whole host of reasons one of which might well be 'because I have no answer'. But the idea that THIS question is one that I have not yet answered because 'I have no answer to it', well that left me chuckling to myself. I am in fact chuckling to myself right now re thinking of this notion.

I have an 'answer' to your question. I have had an 'answer' to it from when you first ask it. You will not like the answer. You will most probably again just 'write it off' as and example of a 'liberal tactic' and then use that very conclusion to reinforce your perception of me and my 'liberalism'. Anyway.

It is not that I think the 'figure' is wrong. I think the very question is wrong. Not wanting to appear personal or be accused of actively trying to get a moderator to shut down the thread by being personal I think the question (the question - not you, absolutely not you in any general sense) is to be blunt a stupid question and I can see no way in which asking or answering it would or could lead to a better immigration policy than what we have cuirrently

To me it is like asking what is the 'right' total population for the UK generally. 40 million ? 50 million? 60 Million ? 70 ? 80 ? There is to my mind no sensible answer to such a question. Or to put it another way it is like asking is adopting 2 stray cats over x years too many ? 6 too many ? 15 too many ? These to me are just 'stupid' (sorry to use that word again - again its the question that I think is stupid not you. I think I can and sometimes do ask stupid questions but I do not think I am stupid) questions based on a false premise that there actually exists some definable 'right number' and a whole load of other numbers that by extension must be 'wrong numbers'. Or to put it yet another way , let me ask you what you think the 'about right' number should be for the UK in the last 15 years, for you unlike me do seem to think that such a magic number exists. Then assuming that your answer to that number is anything greater than zero let me ask what you think should be done if at some point we end up at less than this magic number that you so apparently believe exists ? Should we then go out and actively recruit economic migrants and asylum seekers to get us back up to the magic number ?

Am I saying that there is no level of immigration in to the UK that is 'wrong'. No I am not saying this at all. What I am saying is the notion that there is a magic 'right' number and therefore by extensions all other numbers are 'wrong' - either lower or higher than the 'magic number' is to me just erm, er , well , stupid. Trying to find and agree such a number is I think a pointless exercise. Let alone trying to design build and implement policies that are based on the notion of keeping immigration at this magic number and no higher (or lower ?). Such an approach to my mind will always fail and I think the approach or setting 'targets' and 'quotas' already been shown to be seriously and fundamentally flawed where it has been tried. What we have with immigration, both economic migrants and asylum seekers is a balance. With economic migration we have the 'balance' between the needs of 'industry' and specific sections of industry for workers willing to do jobs at wage levels they can pay and the very real social pressures and tensions such migration in large numbers causes. I do not believe that migration on the whole and in the medium or long term causes 'negative economic cost' to the country. I believe the data shows about as clearly as such data ever can, that actually across the country as a whole and in the medium to long term more immigration means more net positive economic benefit for the country than negative. That is not to say that economic gain is the only factor and thus more immigration is always better. Nor is it a denial that in specific localised areas large numbers of immigrants arriving in an area in short spaces of time do not cause short term pressures on things like housing, health care, unemployment rates as well as generate valid and understandable 'concern' and 'fear' from many 'prior' people living in that area or that such fears are 'racist'. It does and these things and concerns should certainly NOT be ignored, minimised or dismissed. I absolutely believe that such things should be accepted as 'real' and addressed and discussed and managed and control so as to best seek to minimise the impacts and concerns as much as is possible. I just do not think there is some 'magic number' that achieves this. If the number of economic migrants in to the UK was say 400,000 rather than your figure of 4,000,000 and they all got 'dumped' in some decaying former industrial UK town, already with disproportionate pressures on housing, employment, health care etc etc even before the arrival of immigrants - then the problem of 'immigration' would still exist, would still need to be 'dealt with' and addressed, even though the magic number was one tenth of the 4 million number you quote.

Anyway I really would like you to ask me what my 'mind blowing' ideas about migration / asylum are. However please do understand that I will only be able to present these, to have the space to present them as it were, if we can somehow agree a starting point that is closer to 'the current UK immigration policy has some aspects that do work ok and some that do not work'. However if you insist the starting point has to be and can only be that the current UK policy has no aspects that work at all and is in effect and as near as dam it no different from having no controls at all, then I am afraid, for me, such leaves no 'space' for the mind blowing stuff. All it leaves space for is what we have already gone over (and over) and if that is all there is space for then it is highly likely that I am near the end of my will to continue to participate.

erol wrote: show the UK takes significantly more 'immigrants' than many other comparable countries'. When the conversation starts with this kind of premise, stated as fact and a given, then the only response I can give is 'hang on a minute - is that actually true'.

I’d be interested if you can show where I said that I think it was a case that was the question you wanted me to ask. In truth I don’t really give a toss about what other countries are doing.

erol wrote: My back ground is IT.

That explains the length of the “answers”

erol wrote: my 'test' is valid and fair.

The problem is it is virtually impossible to test. I doubt if the UK or any country gives these figures accurately or in an easy to digest format, it’s too emotive a subject. They would rather keep us like mushrooms.
Then it is where you get your ‘facts’ from. You don’t believe say the Daily Mail I don’t believe the Guardian. But what they are quoting is probably accurate just sliced and diced and spun in a way to fit their agenda.

erol wrote: if none of our regulations are worth a light, why is the ratio of granted asylum applications to those not granted around 40% ? Surely if none of the regulations were worth a light, then those granted asylum vs those who apply would be 100% or dam close to it, would it not ? Even if you believe all asylum applications are in fact bogus and that the ratio of granted to applied should be zero, even then would you not have to accept that '60%' refused of the current system is worth some light ? This then is, as far as I am concerned, the only 'space 'left to me, given your starting point.

Following on from facts and I’m not blaming you here but the following statistics from 1997 to 2004 is probably where that 40% came from.

a. Initial decisions made 499,000
b. Granted asylum at initial hearing 52,000
c. Granted asylum on appeal 61,000
d. Granted exceptional leave, discretionary leave or humanitarian protection 72,000
e. Asylum claim rejected (i.e. a-b-c-d) 314,000
f. Removed 75,000 g. Failed but not removed (e-f) 239,000
Figures are difficult to find but from 1997-2004 we approved only 37%.
But let’s drill into these numbers a bit.
10.4% of applications immediately approved.
12.2% approved after appeal.
14.4% approved on humanitirean grounds. Could provide some great examples of that but I’ll just say the grounds you get in on that category aren’t the most robust.
So 63% refused. But and it’s a big BUT only 15% were returned. Most of the applicants who are going through the process aren’t under lock and key so when they lose their second appeal they disappear into the ether. For the 15% they nip back to Calais and start the process again.
So I could more accurately say of those who apply for asylum, 85% will remain in the UK.

erol wrote: You then came back with 'the countries you are comparing with have lower population densities than the UK'.

I’ll be honest I couldn’t say with any certainty who has taken what. I doubt anyone can as I said before I take the figures that the governments decide to share with a very large pinch of salt. They then get sliced and diced by the press depending on their viewpoint. The Guardian and Daily Mail being equally guilty.
But my point is it is down to resources and population densities. I don’t have a heart of stone. If I see children starving in Africa I’d like us to help them if we can and especially if we have a responsibility to do so.
But if we are already struggling for jobs, school places, hospital beds, homes, money, room etc etc then at some point we have to say enough is enough. You can only pull so many into the lifeboat before you all drown. Or at least let’s be a lot more focussed with our help. Kosovo was a crisis and to help we gave homes to thousands of……Albanians. Now maybe my history is rusty but to my knowledge Albania isn’t in the EU has never been in the Commonwealth or had a war in its history. The main humanitarian crisis Albania has suffered is the Norman Wisdom films we inflicted on them. OK a lot of them might fancy living in the UK rather than Albania but many fancy living in a beach hut in the Seychelles.

erol wrote: why is the ratio of granted asylum applications to those not granted around 40% ? Surely if none of the regulations were worth a light, then those granted asylum vs those who apply would be 100% or dam close to it, would it not ? Even if you believe all asylum applications are in fact bogus and that the ratio of granted to applied should be zero, even then would you not have to accept that '60%' refused of the current system is worth some light ?

Covered it above I think, so if you accept that 85% remain then does that change your view? Let’s be clear people go down the asylum route because there is no other conceivable reason that they would be able to settle in the UK.

erol wrote: You make out that I, personally, me, have a 'hidden agenda' and I am using all my mighty powers of persuasion and deception to trick and deceive people. I do not and I am not. Again I feel you leave me no 'space' here other than protest my innocence of the charges being laid against me.

I will admit to maybe sounding off against the liberals and using you as a sounding board which isn’t personal and I apologise. But I do think that the difference between conservatives and liberals is one will try to fix things and the other will pontificate, mull it over research and do nothing. In a flood, conservatives will fill sandbags and liberals will discuss global warming.

erol wrote: Now I know absolutely that I try (and sometimes fail but try none the less) and do this but I also understand that you do not know this, that you only have my 'word' that that is what I do. Now text only forums and discussions on such with people you have no knowledge of other than on such a forum are extremely blunt instruments. It is almost like they are designed to promote and encourage misunderstanding and unnecessary conflict.

I don’t like labels and shouldn’t use them but ever since Brexit and the rise of momentum I note that the left will generally use them when they can’t formulate an argument. I am not impressed that 17 million people are written off as stupid, nationalistic or worse. It is unfair to label someone I don’t know but when you don’t answer a direct question I recognise and label that, maybe wrongly, as a tactic from the liberal left playbook.
Now I know you are an IT man things are much clearer. After reading 50 pages of diagnosis and fault finding in IT language I used to ask; “so is it now working it doesn’t seem to be?” “I’ve already answered you.” “But…but… don’t worry I’ll use a pen and paper.”
Usually followed by an email you can’t open saying fault number 1457469 solved and closed.

erol wrote: For me given that a 'system' can never achieve 100% 'accuracy', then individual cases tell me very little about to what degree that system does or does not achieve an acceptable 'accuracy rate'.

To hark back to the knife crime debate we had. My view is we need to do something, my reading of your view was stop and search might not work and will make the police unpopular. My view is well we can discuss it all day and everyday someone is getting stabbed to death or we can try this and it will get knives off the street. The accuracy rate we can debate while we are saving lives. Also the police aren’t there to be popular half the reason they are getting laughed at and receive little respect is they are trying to be popular. I guess it depends on your view. Similarly they might be right about global warming and whatever is right or wrong even I know sandbags aren’t the best long term solution but they are keeping me dry while the problem is immediate.

erol wrote: I would like to propose a suggested 'truce' or 'compromise' on this issue if I may? I will continue to NOT call you racist and write off or ignore what you are saying on that basis if you try to stop calling me 'liberal' (when liberal means - insincere, dishonest, tricksy and the like) and using that label as a means of ignoring or dismissing or misconstruing with intent the points I am trying to make ? Does that sound fair to you

Sure life is too short.
If I can explain my position so we are clear on both sides. I was furious at wazs post. To try to terrify people with the threat of imminent chemical attacks with no basis in common sense because you don’t believe the bombings were justified was disgraceful in my opinion. I remember watching Question Time the night after 9/11 and the audience virtually crowing at the American ambassador that it was almost deserved because of their foreign policy. I’m not a liberal but yes the American foreign policy is in the main moronic. In my view they spent most of the cold war labelling any rebellions against a dictator as communist and arming the dictator or worse. But this was 24 hours after 3000 odd innocent people of all denominations colours etc were murdered in a horrific way for just going to work. Now the same people alter tactics as they can’t justify the attacks so say the American government or Israel or whoever carried them out. But that’s another argument/debate.
So I replied using the words open door policy trying to make the point. Basically don’t worry think logically you are safer here that you would be in the UK. I might have answered clumsily but immigration was a by product. You can believe that or not.
When you jumped in and zeroed in on immigration I will admit my thought was, I am scaremongering as much as waz because I’m saying there are almost certainly Syrian terrorists in the UK? So my thoughts were ok you want to debate how great our immigration policy is I’m game.

erol wrote: So once more , for the record I do NOT believe that all those that support the UK leaving the EU are racist. I do not believe that large amounts of such are racist. I do not believe that significant amounts of such are racist. Nor do I think you can find any consistent evidence in what I have said or written that would contradict these claims and you can in fact find much that supports them. I do believe there are racists but I accept that they are a small % of the population as a whole. I do find it hard to imagine any of this small number of people supporting remaining in the EU but that is an entirely different thing from saying all, or many or a lot of leavers are racist. I do not say this. I have not said this. Being repeatedly told I am saying this, I have said this, or I want to say this but have been stopped from doing so by a 'clever' leaver 'blocking me' before I can do so is frustrating and does severely impact on how much and if at all I decided to continue to engage or not.

The whole brexit thing is a whole other debate. I agree that not all remainers labelled leavers racist but it is a very loud opinion. Still they say an empty drum rolling down a hill makes the most noise.

I agree there are racists in the UK but they are a tiny proportion.I would even hazard a guess that a large number of BNP voters are protest votes. I would even admit that I’m sure 100% of die hard BNP supporters voted for brexit and probably also joined UKIP. But UKIP pulled in far more votes than the BNP ever got so it doesn’t compute that all it’s members are racist. My view is there are a tiny percentage of racists, a slightly higher percentage of idiots that overcompensate by wanting to relabel blackboards and the like and the biggest proportion don’t really think about it and won’t until race directly effects them. That is the proportion that concerns me. I kept banging on because I was frustrated that you seem to be unable to admit that wazs post about the empire etc was all but calling me a racist and wouldn’t concede that it was a common tactic to shut down a debate.

erol wrote:
I have lots of views on this but I would like to at least feel that some kind of progress has been made on all the other stuff raised so far before just jumping off on another tangential subject that will undoubtedly be a big 'can of worms'.

It is something that interests me because referring back to my point that the biggest proportion don’t really think about it and won’t until race directly effects them I think that is what has happened. I believe that the likes of Momentum and their nonsense will do more to bring in the far right than anything else. Britain might be xenophobic but with our first by the post election rules and tiny percentage of far right voters the fascists should never get a say in our politics. In countries with proportional representation where they are pulling in 20-30% of the votes then it is a matter of time before they do. I would be surprised if anyone could argue that.

erol wrote: I do not feel you have the same tenacity when it comes to ensuring you have answered to my satisfaction the questions I have asked of you.

If I haven’t answered a question it is because I might have missed it and apologise. Any questions you have that I haven’t answered then please repeat them. I would

erol wrote: To me it is like asking what is the 'right' total population for the UK generally. 40 million ? 50 million? 60 Million ? 70 ? 80 ? There is to my mind no sensible answer to such a question. Or to put it another way it is like asking is adopting 2 stray cats over x years too many ? 6 too many ? 15 too many ? These to me are just 'stupid' (sorry to use that word again - again its the question that I think is stupid not you. I think I can and sometimes do ask stupid questions but I do not think I am stupid) questions based on a false premise that there actually exists some definable 'right number' and a whole load of other numbers that by extension must be 'wrong numbers'. Or to put it yet another way , let me ask you what you think the 'about right' number should be for the UK in the last 15 years, for you unlike me do seem to think that such a magic number exists.

I wouldn’t say it is a stupid question it is an impossible question. I asked it because I’m trying to illustrate practicalities. Like I say I’m not stone hearted if we could fence off a meadow with a spring and had abundant resources we could build a school etc and I’d love us to home populations that are in poverty and lack water and such like. But we don’t so when we hear this country took 100,000 and we should try to take as many my question is fine where and how? I know the socialist way is we can do anything and tax the 1% but the flaw is the 1% have a habit of disappearing when it is time to ante up but by then the socialists have already spent the money. I’m just a bit sick of empty socialist left wing rhetoric. I’m waiting with baited breath for Benedict Cumberbatch and Lily Allen to give up one of their spare rooms for an asylum seeker. I can only sympathise with the worry that Sean Connery went through during the Scottish independence vote after saying he would move back from the Bahamas if Scotland won independence.
I worry about real life scenarios not philosophical theories. I can see that we might need 4 foreign workers to pay a current pension but my question is won’t we then need 16 foreign workers to pay their pensions in the future? It’s only fair if they contribute they should get a pension. Isn’t that moving a problem that is a bit more imminent that the earth’s temperature might go up 1 degree in the next 500 years?
With the asylum seekers we took that purported to be children. I’m sure they had a need or desire to go to the UK but we were making room for children and they obviously got barged out the way. So do we try and find more room for the children, deport the fraudsters or turn a blind eye and pretend that that 15 year old might just have not aged well?
Sure quotas are harsh, pulling people into a 12 person lifeboat is harsher but if there is comfortably room for 3 or we can just about keep afloat by taking on 9 then taking on 20 is just going to drown you all.
The UK hasn’t got elastic sides if we choose now to save Albanians from Norman Wisdom reruns then surely we will have less room for a real humanitarian crisis in the future. I can’t be the only one cynical enough to notice that an awful lot of these asylum seekers are 20-30 year old able bodied men. But if there are no rules or quotas and it is a first come first serve basis then that’s what you get.

erol wrote: I believe the data shows about as clearly as such data ever can, that actually across the country as a whole and in the medium to long term more immigration means more net positive economic benefit for the country than negative.

The old cynic in me questions such data and I could easily bring up data that proves the opposite but then we go down the my source is right and I don’t believe your source route. But to simplify the argument, one of the biggest bills the country has is pensions and care for the elderly. If four equals one pension we are surely moving a problem? That is assuming that all of the four is working. Unless of course we work them and throw them out when they are no longer productive? My practical head says that might just work but my heart, and I do have one, doesn’t see that as very fair.

erol wrote: That is not to say that economic gain is the only factor and thus more immigration is always better. Nor is it a denial that in specific localised areas large numbers of immigrants arriving in an area in short spaces of time do not cause short term pressures on things like housing, health care, unemployment rates as well as generate valid and understandable 'concern' and 'fear' from many 'prior' people living in that area or that such fears are 'racist'. It does and these things and concerns should certainly NOT be ignored, minimised or dismissed. I absolutely believe that such things should be accepted as 'real' and addressed and discussed and managed and control so as to best seek to minimise the impacts and concerns as much as is possible.

That’s the crux of the matter. I am extremely proud that we gave homes to the Ugandan and Kenyan Asians and they have contributed to the UK enormously and there are countless other examples. I do feel that Holland, Denmark, Germany and others right on trendy social experiments has directly led to the worrying rise of the right. If we go the same way and stroke our chins and call for studies and reflect then we might go the same way. I have enough faith that for all our faults the British people are amongst the most tolerant people in the world but if you label people racists who have reasonable concerns then don’t be surprised when they think might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb and tick the BNP box come election time.

erol wrote: Anyway I really would like you to ask me what my 'mind blowing' ideas about migration / asylum are.

Sure I do reserve the right to disagree though 
Look if I have come over as aggressive then I apologise, you are obviously a well read guy whose opinions thus far I don’t generally agree with but I enjoy hearing all the same. By all means expound but if I ask a question then don’t hit me with fault number 1457469 solved and closed.
Also if you hit me with a Guardian statistic don’t be shocked if I take it with a pinch of salt and respond with a Daily Torygraph statistic I probably don’t believe anyway but it’s in the paper so must be true.

Slightly off topic but very connected ?... Did anyone watch the very good Channel 5 Documentary 50 yrs on from the rivers of blood speech by Enoch powel....worth watching but in my opinion does not cover the problems of today, s issues ?

turtle wrote:Slightly off topic but very connected ?... Did anyone watch the very good Channel 5 Documentary 50 yrs on from the rivers of blood speech by Enoch powel....worth watching but in my opinion does not cover the problems of today, s issues ?

Didn't see it or know of it but will try and catch it. What was the title? Channel 5 is always tricky to pick up for me.

Terrible speech and my reading of it was Powell was trying to capture the populist Tory vote and unseat Heath. At the time he certainly had a chance of doing so.
An extremely clever man but was also a victim of not living in the real world. The fact he was a Conservative also gives Labour the moral high ground in any racism debate to this day. Obviously you have to forget that Moseley was an ex Labour minister

Interestingly did you know that Powell was voted BBCs Man of the Year in 1971 and 1972? I guess to put it in perspective Jimmy Saville got an OBE in 1971 and Rolf Harris appeared on This is Your Life. Different days eh?

Heath rightly sacked Powell who really overshot with the content of his speech but it did have the effect of shutting down all reasonable political discussion on race/multi-culturism and made politicians feel the best policy is to just ignore any problems like the Rotherham child abuse rather than be accused of racism and killing their career.

ETS... the program last night link is here http://www.channel5.com/episode/rivers- ... -years-on/
I must admit I need to watch it again as it was late and I had part taken in too much red wine and was a little tired so really need to concentrate on the narration a bit more.
But the covering of the here and now from descendants of the immigrants was sadly lacking IMO.

turtle wrote: But the covering of the here and now from descendants of the immigrants was sadly lacking IMO.

That black generation had it tough no doubt. The younger generation black and white seem to overcompensate for missing the civil rights struggle and the other fights imo. I’m all for acknowledging slavery was awful but find it hard to reconcile it being the source of problems now.
I’m pretty sure that my descendants would have been in workhouses and the like back then and their country owned the empire so I don’t think I need to apologise for slavery and imperialism.

Enoch Powell may have had a point back in 1970. The world of today is very very different. It is clear that many countries, their administration, leaders and often gullible populous; fail to see how the world has changed even in the last decade. Protectionist and righteous exclusion of anyone even slightly outside the acceptable gene pool is simply a road to failure economically and culturally.
Migration of people, immigration and the search for new pasture, just like the proverbial wilder beast of the African plains, is here to stay and an increasing level of same upon the planet is inevitable until of course the final demise of planet earth.
Immigration in the UK at current levels is a mainstay of economic success. To close the doors to an important reso labour resource will leave the UK more vulnerable to economic failure as other economies rise, compete ,and leave the UK behind.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: I’d be interested if you can show where I said that I think it was a case that was the question you wanted me to ask. In truth I don’t really give a toss about what other countries are doing.

I did not say that is what you said. I did say that 'in comparison to other countries' was a built in assumption in my 'theory / test' process. The point being 'the uk has an open door policy' has in my view a lot less 'impact' that 'the uk has an open door policy and so does Australia, Germany, Belgium, Canada etc etc etc'

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:That explains the length of the “answers”

In the words of that great sage, popeye the sailor man - "I yam what I yam"

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: I doubt if the UK or any country gives these figures accurately or in an easy to digest format, it’s too emotive a subject. They would rather keep us like mushrooms.

I accept that numbers and statistics can be and often are very misleading. However I maintain that given that in terms of migration some of the clearest most consistent figures we have relate to things like number of asylum applications made and % of those made that are granted. In any case the whole point of my test was the 'comparative' not the absolute - so even if all countries actively lied about this figures, if they all did so in the same direction and to similar degrees my 'comparative test' would still, imo, be valid.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Then it is where you get your ‘facts’ from. You don’t believe say the Daily Mail I don’t believe the Guardian. But what they are quoting is probably accurate just sliced and diced and spun in a way to fit their agenda.

I am aware of how figures can be abused.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Following on from facts and I’m not blaming you here but the following statistics from 1997 to 2004 is probably where that 40% came from.

a. Initial decisions made 499,000
b. Granted asylum at initial hearing 52,000
c. Granted asylum on appeal 61,000
d. Granted exceptional leave, discretionary leave or humanitarian protection 72,000
e. Asylum claim rejected (i.e. a-b-c-d) 314,000
f. Removed 75,000 g. Failed but not removed (e-f) 239,000

Looks to me like those figures came from the migration watch website here https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/108. Not exactly the most nonpartisan source itself but they are in line with the source I used when looking for the figures for the UK - which was this https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... 016/asylum

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So 63% refused. But and it’s a big BUT only 15% were returned. Most of the applicants who are going through the process aren’t under lock and key so when they lose their second appeal they disappear into the ether. For the 15% they nip back to Calais and start the process again.
So I could more accurately say of those who apply for asylum, 85% will remain in the UK.

I am not denying that there is an issue with people in the UK who have had asylum applications denied 'disappearing'. However it does feel like you are 'by passing' the central point I was making, which was if you assertion that none or nothing in the current system is worth a dam, then why is the figure for acceptance not 100%. I maintain that the reason it is not 100% is because the assertion that there is nothing at all in the current system that 'works' at all is a flawed statement and an inherent exaggeration (just like the original assertion of open door policy was / is). It does seem you are reluctant to admit such claims are inherently exaggerated, whilst continuing to make them in one for or another.

There is an issue with those refused not all or near all being deported but there is also a material difference between an asylum seeker granted asylum and one refused who remains illegally in the UK.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:But my point is it is down to resources and population densities. I don’t have a heart of stone. If I see children starving in Africa I’d like us to help them if we can and especially if we have a responsibility to do so.
But if we are already struggling for jobs, school places, hospital beds, homes, money, room etc etc then at some point we have to say enough is enough. You can only pull so many into the lifeboat before you all drown.

I do not disagree in principal with anything you say above. We may have and probably do have differences in 'degree' and so but not in principal. However at the risk of 'harping on' this still not the core of the point I am making and in some ways the 'accusation' I am making towards you. Thios may be down to my own personal 'nerdy' nature (on another forum I got taunted by one poster as 'mr logic' from viz magazine, which to me was as much a compliment as it was a put down) but I do think there is a point here and I do think it is important.

I think that it is incumbent on all those who 'care' about immigration to do their utmost to try and avoid 'exaggeration' to make a point. I think this is true for me and you, true for those on the left and on the right and everywhere in between. I think this tendency to 'exaggerate to make a point' is never useful and just gets in the way of us agreeing and implementing good and effective policies. That really has been at the core of my posts in one way or another since my very first one.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Or at least let’s be a lot more focussed with our help.

Again in principal I agree absolutley. We may differ to some degree on what focused means in practice but in principal I agree,

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: so if you accept that 85% remain then does that change your view?

I am not sure what you mean ? My views was the fact that not 100% of all asylum application are granted was 'proof' that the claim 'none of the current system / policy is worth a light' was not true. Changing the % from 40 to 85 does not really change my view in that regard. If you argument was that the current system was only worth 15% of a light, then changing the % from 40 to 85 would make a difference. But that was not your claim. Again if this all feels excessively 'anal' to you - see above.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Let’s be clear people go down the asylum route because there is no other conceivable reason that they would be able to settle in the UK.

Some do and some go down that route because they genuinely have had their lives destroyed in their home countries with no realistic chance of recovering them if they stay there and seeking asylum in a third country is the only realistic chance they have for a future for themselves and their loved ones that is not one of misery and constant risk of death. 14 odd million people that have fled their homes in Syria and feel unable to return are not all just 'making it up' as a 'gambit' to get in to the UK.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: But I do think that the difference between conservatives and liberals is one will try to fix things and the other will pontificate, mull it over research and do nothing. In a flood, conservatives will fill sandbags and liberals will discuss global warming.

I do have problems with this assertion but I'll just let this one go for now.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I don’t like labels and shouldn’t use them but ever since Brexit and the rise of momentum I note that the left will generally use them when they can’t formulate an argument. I am not impressed that 17 million people are written off as stupid, nationalistic or worse. It is unfair to label someone I don’t know but when you don’t answer a direct question I recognise and label that, maybe wrongly, as a tactic from the liberal left playbook.

It does feel like I am just repeating myself here. You are not impressed that 17 million people are written off as stupid, nationalistic or worse. I agree with you that this, when it happens and it does, is 'bad'. What I struggle with is this idea that this is the 'whole story', with you raising this point repeatedly yet seem unable to accept or acknowledge that it is just as bad, when it happens and it does, when 16 million people are written of as undemocratic, (re)moaners, liberals, intent on destroying the UK or worse.

I think what we need is a 'coalition' across the right and the left and everywhere in between that is unanimous against such behaviour from all sides regardless of their other differences. Ego aside I think I make real effort in word and deed to be part of this 'coalition' but such can not be created with people who think or believe that it something only the 'other side' does to them and is something 'their side' never does to others.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:To hark back to the knife crime debate we had.

I am not avoiding this and I have much I could and would write about it but it is 'off topic'. If you make a new thread about this, then I will time allowing comment there (and I would say I can not sustain this level of 'output' for much longer given I have some life outside of the forum, so it may be 'slower' for me to respond). For now I am gonna try and stay 'focused' in this thread on 'immigration'

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Sure life is too short.

I would have preferred 'yeah actually I can see what you are saying and see how it in principal is not helpful to the debate' but I will , with thanks, take what I can get on this one

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:If I can explain my position so we are clear on both sides. I was furious at wazs post. To try to terrify people with the threat of imminent chemical attacks with no basis in common sense because you don’t believe the bombings were justified was disgraceful in my opinion. I remember watching Question Time the night after 9/11 and the audience virtually crowing at the American ambassador that it was almost deserved because of their foreign policy. I’m not a liberal but yes the American foreign policy is in the main moronic. In my view they spent most of the cold war labelling any rebellions against a dictator as communist and arming the dictator or worse. But this was 24 hours after 3000 odd innocent people of all denominations colours etc were murdered in a horrific way for just going to work. Now the same people alter tactics as they can’t justify the attacks so say the American government or Israel or whoever carried them out. But that’s another argument/debate.
So I replied using the words open door policy trying to make the point. Basically don’t worry think logically you are safer here that you would be in the UK. I might have answered clumsily but immigration was a by product. You can believe that or not. When you jumped in and zeroed in on immigration I will admit my thought was, I am scaremongering as much as waz because I’m saying there are almost certainly Syrian terrorists in the UK? So my thoughts were ok you want to debate how great our immigration policy is I’m game.

I hear what you are saying and would only comment - render unto waz what is waz's

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The whole brexit thing is a whole other debate. I agree that not all remainers labelled leavers racist but it is a very loud opinion. Still they say an empty drum rolling down a hill makes the most noise.

I do appreciate you 'conceding' that not all remainers do this but in the words of those other great sages, the spice girls, what i really really want, is some acknowledgement that this also happens 'the other way round'. Sure not using the specific word racist but using words just a pejorative.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I agree there are racists in ....

I am not ignoring this but I am under pressure of time gonna try and 'stay focused' so will not comment directly.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:If I haven’t answered a question it is because I might have missed it and apologise. Any questions you have that I haven’t answered then please repeat them. I would

See above ? There are, to me at least, core things, points, ideas, that I am raising and keep raising and have raised again that I do feel you have yet to fully 'come clean' about. Like for example do you accept that these 'bad things' you keep complaining about the left' doing in terms of debate, about immigration, about brexit, also happen the other way round or do you maintain that they only happen 'in one direction'. That to me seems to be a question you have 'missed'

Sorry I do have to go now. Will try and address the remaining parts of your reply but it may be a while before I can find the time to do so properly.

waz-24-7 wrote:Enoch Powell may have had a point back in 1970. The world of today is very very different. It is clear that many countries, their administration, leaders and often gullible populous; fail to see how the world has changed even in the last decade. Protectionist and righteous exclusion of anyone even slightly outside the acceptable gene pool is simply a road to failure economically and culturally.
Migration of people, immigration and the search for new pasture, just like the proverbial wilder beast of the African plains, is here to stay and an increasing level of same upon the planet is inevitable until of course the final demise of planet earth.
Immigration in the UK at current levels is a mainstay of economic success. To close the doors to an important reso labour resource will leave the UK more vulnerable to economic failure as other economies rise, compete ,and leave the UK behind.

Can't agree Waz,... yes there is a small amount of professional trained people who have migrated to the UK but the vast majority are low skilled manual labour people who the British businessman take advantage of in keeping it's costs under control £8 an hour to someone who earns a fraction of that back home is a very welcome lure.

Turtle,
Labour costs are the single biggest outlay for UK business. Continual wage and salary pressure on UK business forces an increasingly difficult manpower plan based primarily on cost and how to reduce manpower requirements. The immigrant labour within the UK economy at present is pivotal to its ongoing success. This labour is not cheaper or more expensive than any other but is indeed generally more productive in many aspects particularly manual type productivity. It is a fact that by enlarge this labour pool is hard working and committed to earning a better standard of living and monetary advantage. None should criticise this aspiration.
It is a total misnomer that to exclude UK business from this pool of labour will somehow make everything right and that other sources of labour will jump at any new opportunity.

waz-24-7 wrote:Enoch Powell may have had a point back in 1970. The world of today is very very different. It is clear that many countries, their administration, leaders and often gullible populous; fail to see how the world has changed even in the last decade. Protectionist and righteous exclusion of anyone even slightly outside the acceptable gene pool is simply a road to failure economically and culturally.
Migration of people, immigration and the search for new pasture, just like the proverbial wilder beast of the African plains, is here to stay and an increasing level of same upon the planet is inevitable until of course the final demise of planet earth.
Immigration in the UK at current levels is a mainstay of economic success. To close the doors to an important reso labour resource will leave the UK more vulnerable to economic failure as other economies rise, compete ,and leave the UK behind.

Nope Powell didn’t have a point or are you saying it was ok to be racist then but not now as we need immigrants?
Not that we have a manufacturing industry to speak of but an immigrant on minimum wage is still far more expensive than a Chinese worker. In the future manufacturing will only become more automated. How many jobs would you estimate Amazon has cost in the last few years? That will only get worse. Immigration won’t briing hands to help it will bring mouths to feed. Who’s being gullible?

waz-24-7 wrote:Turtle,
Labour costs are the single biggest outlay for UK business. Continual wage and salary pressure on UK business forces an increasingly difficult manpower plan based primarily on cost and how to reduce manpower requirements. The immigrant labour within the UK economy at present is pivotal to its ongoing success. This labour is not cheaper or more expensive than any other but is indeed generally more productive in many aspects particularly manual type productivity. It is a fact that by enlarge this labour pool is hard working and committed to earning a better standard of living and monetary advantage. None should criticise this aspiration.
It is a total misnomer that to exclude UK business from this pool of labour will somehow make everything right and that other sources of labour will jump at any new opportunity.

Yes Waz you are right .. Labour is the biggest outlay in business i agree but,. The quest for ever cheaper products by the consumer should not only be paid for by business employing cheap labour and by saying that immigrant wages are no cheaper is a total lie....you know perfectly well that this type of labour will work for basic wage or less and as for committing to a better standard of living does 20 blokes to one house and sending their earning home constitute a better standard of living... I don't think so but if it keeps your profits in tact the i suppose that's all that matters

Turtle,
As an employer of approximately 9 different nationalities. I can assure you that immigrant labour is not cheap labour.
Immigrant labour as I have said is however more productive. Exactly why I do not know. I can only guess.
Furthermore your comprehension of accommodation, living standards and what people do with their earnings is unfounded though there may be some examples that you will surely google trawl for.
Also your notion upon business profit carries no credence and you are making assumptions without any supportive substance.

I can certainly tell you that the level of competition within global business continues to push UK manufacturing into decline. To hinder or reduce access to productive labour will only hasten the decline.

Waz it would be pointless producing any evidence to substantiate my argument as you would only dismiss it anyway...... as you always do.

waz-24-7 wrote:Turtle,
As an employer of approximately 9 different nationalities. I can assure you that immigrant labour is not cheap labour.
Immigrant labour as I have said is however more productive. Exactly why I do not know. I can only guess.
Furthermore your comprehension of accommodation, living standards and what people do with their earnings is unfounded though there may be some examples that you will surely google trawl for.
Also your notion upon business profit carries no credence and you are making assumptions without any supportive substance.

I can certainly tell you that the level of competition within global business continues to push UK manufacturing into decline. To hinder or reduce access to productive labour will only hasten the decline.

OK all immigrants are harder working and more skilled than British workers. There is no basis to believe this but I’ll rely on your expert opinion.
This mythical worker, he is paid the same a British worker and works the same hours? No dependants? No schooling for the country to pay for, child benefit? He promises to go home before he collects a pension? You pay him through the books and he pays tax?
Are we knocking off the cost of benefits paid to other immigrants who aren’t so keen or even if keen can’t get a job?
Because if we are looking at this in purely business terms let's look at three Eastern European families and all have two kids.

One works for himself as a self employed plumber. That grows the economy how much? Somebody was going to get their toilet fixed anyway. The customer saved money so they can spend more I guess but the more expensive plumber has lost that same amount of money to spend so that cancels that out. So where is the benefit to the UK? Tax? The more expensive plumber would have paid more tax.
I’m assuming our cheap plumber will be collecting child benefit for his children, they will be in a state school. If born here the NHS would have been utilised.
Over the course of his life how much profit will we make on this guy? I venture zero at the most.

One works for a company making toilet seats on minimum wage. Because he is a super worker he helps increase production. I’m assuming the company pays tax? Where are they exporting these toilet seats to? Because Britain isn't known for it's manufacturing or exports. No matter how productive and how cheap he is to employ the British firm’s toilet seats won’t be cheaper or better or more plentiful than a Chinese firm’s toilet seats. Obviously cost of child benefit, schooling, NHS is the same.

Last one is can’t get a job. So he needs to be supported so he is all outgoing for UK PLC.

Obviously as we take more and more rent then house prices will go up. More schools will have to be built, more hospitals will have to be built. How much more productive are these foreign workers going to be? I know you are looking at it just from your business but my taxes have now gone up I have waited 6 years for an operation and have to drive my kids 15 miles to go to school. My wages are being driven down so whatever I was buying from you I am now buying less.

I can see what an exploitive employer gets out of an immigrant with dodgy papers with cheap wages and long hours but can’t see how that is helping Britain.

But your mythical worker sounds great, very employable so why is he in the UK?
If we follow through on your theory that only migrant workers will enable any of us to survive why don’t France, Germany or Holland want him? Their wage scales are higher so if they did he would obviously go there.
I have heard this declining population and how all countries will be fighting for migrant workers theory before and they grow the economy.....
And as for the bigger picture, as you have your crystal ball out I’ll ask again.
How do you see future automation fitting in with your future where we will need more and more migrant workers?
How many jobs has Amazon taken out of the UK workforce would you say? How many would you predict they will take in the future? Personally I give WH Smith a year tops.
So won't more workers be more mouths to feed not hands to help?
We need four workers to pay a current pension. So when those foreign workers retire we need to import 16 workers for them. 64 for those 16. Ooops I forgot dependants, how many bring a non working wife. Surely we'll need to give her something in her old age.
Ok lets say a quarter of them don't work. So we need to import 5 for that current pension and then 20 for their pensions.
And on and on and on.
But sure if I suspend basic economics, Britains historical balance of payments deficit, common sense and logic I can see your point.

Erol I'm not ignoring your post I just don't have the time to answer it in the depth it deserves but I will.

I'm still trying to find for the UK and the EU in general whether the growth of migrants workers is not increasing unemployment, is growing productivity by more than the ratio of migrants, is leading to a higher balance of payments. Whether the mythical increased balance of payments covers any increase in welfare. Struggling to find that and beginning to suspect I never will.
In a stone cold business point of view if a British company makes 10,000 toasters and sells all 10,000 at a profit of £10 each, then if they increase their workforce by 25% for that to be of benefit then they surely now need to make 12,500 toasters and they then need to sell them all. Or they still sell 10,000 but even after their increased wage bill they are now cheaper or more profitable. Or am I missing something?
Or could they not make the 10,000 because Britain doesn't have enough workers? Then why do we have unemployment?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Erol I'm not ignoring your post I just don't have the time to answer it in the depth it deserves but I will.

Like wise. To be honest right now with what time I have I would prefer to 'move on' a bit. Hence this post.

Asylum

I believe in the principal of asylum. I believe the UK should grant asylum to some number of people who genuinely need the protections that asylum affords. I do not, for now, really want to talk about and get bogged down with 'how many' people the UK should grant such status to. I do want to talk about how this is done, from a starting basis that some number greater than zero should be granted such in the UK.

I would support, given certain 'requirements', a system that said no one who presents themselves in the UK and applies for asylum there will be granted such. No one. That any asylum seeker who arrives in the UK is told and indeed required to first leave the UK and apply through the UK's asylum offices that would be set up by the UK throughout refugee camps in and around the worlds trouble spots.

The reason why I would support such a system over the current one can be summed up in two words. People traffickers. People trafficking is a scourge on the face of the earth. I say forget policies like 'we will make the UK a hostile environment for illegal immigrants' which I believe are more about securing votes and power for politicians than they are about actually achieving real positive results and I think have shown that it is not possible to implement without also making the UK a hostile environment to all sorts of people who are NOT illegal immigrants. I say let us have a policy of making the UK the most hostile country for and towards people traffickers. Let's try and direct hostility away from people in genuine need of asylum and focus it on people traffickers. Let set a goal and target of destroying utterly the global business of people trafficking.

So part of seeking to destroy people trafficking would be to structure things such that we (UK), as far as possible, removes the 'point' of people trafficking in the first place. That is why I say let us stop even considering an application from anyone who arrives in the UK directly. Make it clear that there is simply no point in turning up in the UK and requesting asylum because you will not even get considered for. However such a policy can not just be an excuse to avoid our obligations towards those seeking asylum entirely and if it were I would not support such. So in addition to this we should create real and effective means by which people genuinely in need of asylum can apply without having to first arrive in the UK. At the moment the whole 'structure' of how gaining asylum in and from the UK is one that aids, promotes and plays in to the hands of people traffickers and this to my mind is so clearly wrong and in need of fundamental reform. Look at the 'Dublin agreement' for example. What the Dublin agreement means is if you are person in genuine need of asylum and you believe for whatever reason the UK is the best place for you to seek such, then the Dublin agreement means it is better for you to get to the UK by paying people traffickers to take you there than if you were to make your own way there without the use of people traffickers. If you get to the UK via you own means then under the Dublin agreement the UK can say sorry we will not consider your application for asylum because in getting to the UK you first came through France and or Italy and or where ever and thus you must go back to these places and apply for asylum there. Yet if you arrive in the UK having been 'people trafficked' the Dublin agreement does not apply, because even though you may have come through France or where ever first, you were locked in a van or a shipping container and had no opportunity to seek asylum there. The UK was the first place in which you had such an opportunity. Thus the very structure of this system means it is better to be people trafficked than not. This is madness and it has to be stopped.

Changing the structure of how asylum in the UK can be sought is only part of what needs to be done. In addition to changing the structure from one that supports and encourages and promotes people trafficking to one that does not, there needs to aggressive, pro active and effective targeting of people traffickers and the people trafficking 'industry'. Find these people and bring them to trial. Disrupt their networks and ability to operate. Seize their assets. Bring the full force of law enforcement, national and international down on them like a ton of bricks. If we decide that we will not grant asylum even to people in genuine need of it and right to it, if you arrive in the UK then we will also need to establish fair and just means where by it can be sought and granted without having to arrive in the UK first. So I am thinking of 'offices' in refugee camps in and around Syria for example. However these offices can also be used for enforcement against people traffickers as well. Lets staff these 'offices' not just with home office civil servants processing requests for asylum, lets also send in our enforcement agencies with a brief to track down and identify and close down the people traffickers. Lets send in James Bond. I would support a policy that seeks to actively recruit from people in refugee camps in genuine need of asylum 'under cover' operatives that would seek to work with the UK to close down people trafficking operations and in exchange for such grant asylum as a 'reward' for such dangerous work.

Are these ideas 'liberal' ? Personally I do not know or care. I think they are sensible.

erol wrote: I would prefer to 'move on' a bit. Hence this post.

Asylum

I believe in the principal of asylum. I believe the UK should grant asylum to some number of people who genuinely need the protections that asylum affords. I do not, for now, really want to talk about and get bogged down with 'how many' people the UK should grant such status to. I do want to talk about how this is done, from a starting basis that some number greater than zero should be granted such in the UK.

Won't quote the whole post but totally agree with you. No one can argue with giving shelter to people in genuine need.
I even agree that in their early days they may need a leg up and will need welfare.
But we do need to get people in who are trying to improve themselves and make a future contribution to their, now, countrymen.

If they don't the UK won't be able to afford to help future people in need.
They also need to assimilate into the British way of life. If they wish to just recreate where they come from in a new country I can't see why they moved. I don't mean the freedom to follow their religion, that is fair enough but people didn't come to TRNC and demand the government built them a church or hid their way of life so as not to upset their sensibilities. I would imagine you move to a country because you like their way of doing things?

The ideas are sensible but to implement them we will need to suspend the think the best of people attitude to a point. Unfortunately some people do fib when they think they might benefit. That's life.
Is the country of entry as Greece fiddle still applicable? That's a cracker

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:If they don't the UK won't be able to afford to help future people in need.
They also need to assimilate into the British way of life. If they wish to just recreate where they come from in a new country I can't see why they moved. I don't mean the freedom to follow their religion, that is fair enough but people didn't come to TRNC and demand the government built them a church or hid their way of life so as not to upset their sensibilities. I would imagine you move to a country because you like their way of doing things?

I am already in the middle of my next post that is on these very things above.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The ideas are sensible but to implement them we will need to suspend the think the best of people attitude to a point. Unfortunately some people do fib when they think they might benefit. That's life

At the moment we already make these judgements under a structure that promotes and encourages and supports people trafficking. I am saying lets change to system where we do so under a structure that does NOT promote people trafficking but seeks to end it. Either way these judgements need to be made.

Economic Migration

My views on economic migration are informed and shaped mainly by my own personal lived experience. Much more so than by being 'liberal' whatever that means.

I was born in the UK in 1966 to an immigrant father and a British mother. My father was an 'economic migrant' in the UK and I grew up in the UK as the son of an economic migrant father. In reality there was some element of 'asylum' in motivating my father's decision to leave the country in which he was born and seek a life in the UK but he was predominantly an economic migrant to the UK rather than an asylum seeker. Now having decided to leave the country of his birth (Cyprus) he did not sit down and think 'which country other than Cyprus has the best welfare system, the best unemployment benefit the best social housing and the best free healthcare and then pick the UK on that basis. He decided to leave the country of his birth and seek to make a life and future in the UK as opposed to Germany or Italy of France because he had met and 'fallen for' a British lady whilst in Cyprus. Not a German one, not an Italian but a British one because in the country of his birth at that time there were a lot more British ladies around than German or Italian. He also already spoke English and not German or Italian because in the schools he went to in in the country of his birth English was the main language, even over Turkish or Greek or any other. He also chose the UK rather than Germany or Italy because he in fact was a British citizen, independent of his marriage to my British mother. The reason why he was already a British citizen was that his country of Birth was ruled and Governed, at that time, by and from Britain. Britain to this day still 'owns' as 'British sovereign territory' significant areas of the country of my fathers birth.

Now this is not a 'one swallow makes a summer' argument. I am not saying because my father did NOT choose to migrate to the UK rather than some other country because it had the 'best benefit system' or was 'most welcoming to immigrants' that therefore means no one seeks to migrate to the UK rather than another country because of these things. What I am saying is my response when I hear arguments along the lines of 'the problem is the UK is so soft on immigration and gives benefits and houses and TVs to them so that economic migrants choose the UK as a destination rather than France or Germany or Sweden or where ever', is 'informed' or if you prefer 'tainted' by my own personal lived experience as the son of a father that migrated to the UK (and not Germany etc etc) and most certainly did not choose the UK rather than some where else for these reasons.

Even more than the experience of being born and growing up in the UK as the son of an immigrant father, my views and perspectives on economic migration are 'informed' by my own choice around 15 years ago to migrate from the country of my birth (UK). My views on migration are informed by the fact that I am myself and by choice a migrant. Yes I am, by birth right and law, a citizen of Cyprus (both the TRNC and the RoC) but I still chose to migrate from the country of my birth to somewhere that was not the country of my birth. Not only am I a migrant I am undeniably an economic migrant. Unlike in the case of my father there is no grounds on which I could claim I had to leave the country of my birth (UK) for 'safety' reasons. I moved from the UK to Cyprus for overwhelmingly economic reasons, in the hope and belief my life in Cyprus would be better than if I stayed in the UK.

Now I think a common theme amongst many economice migrants FROM the UK to places like Cyprus is along the lines of, yes we are economic migrants but we are rich economic migrants that add to the economies of the places we migrate to not subtract from it and too many immigrants to the UK are poor migrants that subtract from the economy of the UK not add to it. There are also the 'parallel' views expressed like those above like "They also need to assimilate into the British way of life" complete with the implication that this is what migrants from the UK do in places like Cyprus where as it is not what many migrants to the UK do.

I chose to migrate from the UK to Cyprus at the age of around 35. I came to Cyprus because I believed in Cyprus I could live a pleasant life without having to work at all, or failing that without having to work any where near as much as I knew I had to to live a pleasant life in the UK. This is the truth and I am unashamed of it. Yes I came to Cyprus with 'assets', fixed ones in the UK and some in Cyprus and with some 'cash in the bank', though in reality surprisingly little of that. Yes I contribute to the economy in Cyprus, I buy things, I spend money and after 7 years of trying to live without working at all I have, reluctantly, started working 'part time'. If the TRNC were to have a system based on 'there is limited space for migrants and therefore we should seek to limit such migrants to those most likely to create the biggest net economic benefit to Cyprus' I would and should be way way down the list of people who meet that criteria. Way way lower than for example my father was, who migrated at the age of low 20's with no assets in Cyprus or the UK than literally a few pounds in his pocket and through nothing but his (and my mothers) hard work and effort built a (small) business empire . Or if you prefer, way way lower than a young migrant from India or Pakistan, with an intent and drive and work ethic similar to the one my father had when he migrated and vastly different from my own. Which to me then begs the question "so why is it, really, that it so much easier for me to chose to migrate and be allowed to migrate from the UK to Cyprus than say a young person from India or Pakistan ?" Or why is it so much easier for me to migrate and be allowed to migrate from the UK to Cyprus than a young person migrating from India or Pakistan to the UK ?

I have more, so much more and in time I will undoubtedly continue to 'spout off' as is my nature but for now I have to go and do some paid work

erol wrote:Economic Migration

My views on economic migration are informed and shaped mainly by my own personal lived experience. Much more so than by being 'liberal' whatever that means.

Nice story and no one can argue with the content.
I am not writing off economic migration or against it. It has enriched and provided the bedrock of many societies, particularly the USA and Australia.
It is win/win for both sides of the deal. The country may have more jobs than workers or who are lacking a particular skill set benefits. The migrant hopefully improves his way of life.
I have asked a fair few ex pats out here who complain about foreigners who can’t speak English in the UK how much Turkish they can speak. That is a guaranteed conversation killer. I personally am embarrassed how little Turkish I can speak. I believe the main basis for our supposed special relationship with the USA is we share in general a complete inability to speak other languages.
So I am in TRNC and at odd occasions would get confused and struggle when confronted by problems if the other person couldn’t speak much English. But where I struggle with the TRNC rules and the rules in England is what the, let’s call them do-gooders, have bought in.
When I’m struggling in a hospital would I expect the hospital at tax payer expense to supply me with a translator? Sure I’d like one and I’d struggle without one but I could have made the effort to learn a lot more Turkish, so it’s my problem not the TRNC.
There is high unemployment in TRNC, there is high unemployment in the UK. If I have made the decision after doing my sums that it would be better for me to work in the TRNC I wouldn’t expect priority or even a fair crack of the whip. I would expect TRNC to prioritise their unemployed before me. You feed your own kids before your neighbours after all.
Everything the TRNC does to prioritise its population’s needs over mine I can’t argue with. If after feeding their kids they have some food for me then great.
If I wanted to follow my culture in the TRNC I would try to do so. I would not expect the TRNC to adapt or dilute their culture to me. You are allowed to drink here, if that changed and I found that the lack of alcohol overshadowed other benefits then I guess I would have to move. I moved here because on balance I thought the way of life was better. There are things that drive me insane but on balance the good outweighs the bad. I would not expect them to change, I’m the minority so I have to adapt. That’s not anti English, anti balding overweight ex pat or anti minorities it’s just common sense.
I find generally that the do-gooders usually do their good where it has zero impact on their life and show a bare faced hypocracy. This is not aimed at you but for example how many labour politicians have a die hard hatred of private or selective schooling but that principle does not hold with their own children for example?
The non smoking law was bought in with one of the few exemptions for the Houses of Parliament.
To personalise this a little and give you a frame of reference I’ll share my background.

erol wrote: My memories of my own childhood is that of carrying knives through out my childhood. Pen knives but also smallish bowie type knives, with a blade of maybe 3 - 4 inches. Such knives would typically be used for 'whittling' and the like and certainly I have no memory of ever having used such on another person but in my childhood, in 'ruralish' Hertfordshire, say from 10 to about 15 or 16 there was nothing unusual in 'carrying' a knife for me.

I was bought up in ruralish Hackney in the seventies and whilst knives were not carried on the scale they are carried now they were carried by some. At the time it was labelled as a sign you couldn’t fight with your fists so peer pressure maybe kept the numbers down. But I can assure you when confronted by a knife, and I was on odd occasions, the first thought that went through my head wasn’t wondering what they intended to whittle with it.
Not saying that to belittle you but to point out that our frames of reference are different.
On the same thread you asked me if I had ever been stopped by the police I replied more times than I’d happily admit too. Was I happy at the time? No. I no doubt yelled at the infringement of my civil rights but on reflection if it took the knife out the other guy’s pocket it wasn’t a bad trade.
It is my problem when I’m confronted by a do-gooder from the home counties who says I have no idea what it is like to be a black man. I can’t argue with that but I went to a kitchen sink comprehensive that was 50% non white and have many non white friends so might have a bit better frame of reference than someone who just sees black people on the television or as a political tool.
Great link here which sums it up better than I ever could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs
Our eras were similar I am a few years older but have boyish looks 
I went to a few anti National Front concerts in my teens and had run ins with skinheads at them. I would love to say for lofty ideological reasons but in honesty it was because I wanted to see The Clash and wasn’t adverse to a punch up. Black friends who went ideals weren’t any higher, I think it was Aswad that drew them if memory serves. The older cynic in me wonders if that was why we got the free tickets. Generally the home counties freedom fighter who talked me and my friends into going to the concert wasn’t very visible when it all kicked off.
I also used to go to football a lot in my teens. Was there horrendous racist chanting from the terraces? Yes for sure. Was it for ideological reasons after all the NF did have a presence? Not in the slightest, there might have been a few Nazis but most were just trying to put the opposition’s star player off. Billy Bremner got worse, his being ginger was pointed out quite robustly. When the chanters team got their own very good black player the chanting eventually stopped. The hypocrisy become too overwhelming I guess.
So I hope you see my point I don’t need to read surveys, statistics or books from that era I was there in my small way and remember it well.

Without getting too deep in Brexit again for me the problems with the Immigration/Migration issues stems for the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (article 45) of which the Labour government did not let the British people vote upon and knowing that this signing was inevitably going to lead to the issues we have today, had we had a vote in 2007 then there would not have Brexit today in my opinion.
From 1975 to 1992 immigration was steady per year and I guess largely went under the radar but Since signing the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 it has increased sizeably year on year since and in 2007 when that clown Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty the influx of Immigrants/migrants has been relentless and this in my opinion is what has led to so much unrest with our relationship with the EU.
I have no issues whatsoever with people coming to the UK to work or live and make a better life for themselves but to just fling the door open (no official Policy) and allow 200,000 people in every year is simply not sustainable between 1997-2010 Immigration/Migration quadrupled as we are now seeing today, Schools, Hospitals, Traffic on Roads, Doctors surgeries at bursting point it simply can’t continue. Now you might argue that we should build more and spend more to accommodate this but surely this should have been done before,…you can’t expect a Family of four to pitch up a tent on a piece of land and wait until Wimpey build some houses so they can move in.
My upbringing was from a working-class background in the Steel areas of Sheffield and I too went to a large some would say underperforming comprehensive school and unlike you 2 I chose to move my family out of the big city to a more rural part of the world in Staffordshire instead of abroad the main reason was my job but I didn’t need much persuading to leave the big city with rising crime rife.
When I visit “Home” now all I hear from family is certain areas of the place are no go area’s that are frequented by black, Asian and Romanian enclave’s areas that used to be very nice residential areas when I was growing up are now places that you wouldn’t enter at all for fear of some kind of trouble.
So for me the problem with Immigration/Migration is too much too soon and massively underestimated by the powers that be.

@EnjoyingTheSun

Am 'at work' at the moment but and waiting on a rather large set of files to copy from one place to another before I can get on, so have some mins spare. Interesting posts. Thanks.

So when are we gonna meet up and have a beer ? PM me ?

turtle wrote:Without getting too deep in Brexit again for me the problems with the Immigration/Migration issues stems for the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (article 45) of which the Labour government did not let the British people vote upon and knowing that this signing was inevitably going to lead to the issues we have today, had we had a vote in 2007 then there would not have Brexit today in my opinion.
From 1975 to 1992 immigration was steady per year and I guess largely went under the radar but Since signing the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 it has increased sizeably year on year since and in 2007 when that clown Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty the influx of Immigrants/migrants has been relentless and this in my opinion is what has led to so much unrest with our relationship with the EU.

I think the problem is we have seen a mixture of a social experiment and the cynicism of politicians.
The problem for the left is the working class is getting smaller. In 1964, the working class was 60 per cent of the electorate, by 1992 it had fallen to 40 per cent. Of the remaining working class voters those pesky people just didn’t want to stay in their place, they wanted to better themselves. Own their house, have a holiday abroad, maybe a second car.

Generally people have self interest although they do have a conscience, many want a great NHS but a lot don’t want to pay for it.
Thatcher was very attuned at appealing to peoples self interest. By the late 1980s it was impossible to find anyone who said they voted for Thatcher as they felt it was an admission they were selfish but she kept on winning so someone obviously was.

The further left you go nowadays the further away from the working class you go, the upper middle class Corbyn being a typical example. As they aren’t from the working classes like Ernest Bevin and Aneuran Bevan were, have no idea of working class aspirations and have little idea how to engage with them.
But they did figure out that ethnic minorities were on the whole a pro- Labour group.
Mandelson was quoted as saying that 'as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them.’
So it depends on your point of view, were they employing a workforce or importing voters?
I guess their future problem will be that generally those that go to the UK to work will hopefully improve their lot and leave the Labour Party behind. Those that don’t and wish to be an underclass will be loyal Labour voters for life.

One of the most publicly visible groups to arrive after 2004 were white East Europeans.
Ironically for those who feel any opposition to immigration is racist, Shaun Bailey, the black Tory politician noted that ‘a lot of people in the black community think that just when we were getting a foothold we have been pushed to the back of the queue again and these white Europeans have jumped ahead.’

Between May and August 2010, the Ethnic Minority British Election Study asked almost 4,000 voters nationally who they had chosen in the general election that May. Of Brits who were ethnic minorities, 68 percent supported Labour.
The British Election Study conducted a national survey on the attitudes of religious groups. Among those who said their religion was Islam, 73 percent said they would vote Labour.

Although the Muslim vote is a minority, due to the way ethnic minorities seem to bunch it is vital in areas such as Rotherham, Blackburn, Burnley and the like. So to keep the Muslim vote is vital to win seats, how many I wouldn't hazard a guess but I'm guessing a fair few.
I think the days of 100 seat majorities in parliament are a thing of the past so a dozen seats won or lost could be the difference between forming a government or not. So even if the Asian vote is small nationwide it could be the difference to forming a government.
That gives a disproportionate influence and who knows may have bought on the blindness to child abuse in Rotherham etc.
It certainly seems to give certain politicians difficulties reconciling their support of gay and women's rights and not speaking out about the suppression of those rights at times.
I'm not saying all Muslims are misogynists or anti gay but the more extreme and vocal can be and politicians have a habit of listening to the noisiest rather than the majority.

Enjoying the sun & Erol - why don't you go out for a meal and a beer and talk this out between you?

Waz - why do you hate your country so much?

erol wrote: So when are we gonna meet up and have a beer ?

Hedge-fund wrote:Enjoying the sun & Erol - why don't you go out for a meal and a beer and talk this out between you?

More than up for that. F
Face to face conversations flow much better and are less misunderstood than typed forum posts. Tongue in cheek comments and the twinkle in the eye gets missed.
Also as the beers flow the last man sober and standing will be right
I’m in Lapta if that’s convenient

waz-24-7 wrote:Turtle,
Labour costs are the single biggest outlay for UK business. Continual wage and salary pressure on UK business forces an increasingly difficult manpower plan based primarily on cost and how to reduce manpower requirements.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41082828
This means that for every £1 the average worker earns, their chief executive makes £129.

The High Pay Centre says that while this has come down from 2015, when the ratio was £148-£1, it is still high when compared with the £45-£1 ratio 20 years ago.

kerry 6138 wrote:

waz-24-7 wrote:Turtle,
Labour costs are the single biggest outlay for UK business. Continual wage and salary pressure on UK business forces an increasingly difficult manpower plan based primarily on cost and how to reduce manpower requirements.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41082828
This means that for every £1 the average worker earns, their chief executive makes £129.

The High Pay Centre says that while this has come down from 2015, when the ratio was £148-£1, it is still high when compared with the £45-£1 ratio 20 years ago.

Sure company CEOs are very greedy and with their bonuses and share options their strategies are often very short term.
But if there is 1 CEO to 50,000 workers that slightly puts the 129 times ratio into perspective?

Is this topic really contributed to by emigrants from one country discussing (and largely criticising) immigration to another country? Seems a bit like pots and kettle!!

desih wrote:Is this topic really contributed to by emigrants from one country discussing (and largely criticising) immigration to another country? Seems a bit like pots and kettle!!

I have probably misunderstood you ? Are you suggesting that immigration in general or immigration in the UK should not be discussed by people who are themselves immigrants or immigrants somewhere other than the UK, because they are immigrants ?

desih wrote:Is this topic really contributed to by emigrants from one country discussing (and largely criticising) immigration to another country? Seems a bit like pots and kettle!!

How about if you feel the country you have left could learn a lot from the country you have emigrated to?
No one is questioning immigration only the scale of it and the implementation of controls.
Anyway if you are not careful you might get myself and Erol agreeing on something

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Anyway if you are not careful you might get myself and Erol agreeing on something

There is no need to be rude

kerry 6138 wrote:

waz-24-7 wrote:Turtle,
Labour costs are the single biggest outlay for UK business. Continual wage and salary pressure on UK business forces an increasingly difficult manpower plan based primarily on cost and how to reduce manpower requirements.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41082828
This means that for every £1 the average worker earns, their chief executive makes £129.

The High Pay Centre says that while this has come down from 2015, when the ratio was £148-£1, it is still high when compared with the £45-£1 ratio 20 years ago.

The fact remains that business within the UK must compete with businesses from other countries. Many of which have much cheaper labour and have a massive reservoir of available labour. The BRIC economies are the evidence of such. Manufacturing in particular which is the biggest sector for employing people is under immense pressure.
The High pay centre is simply a pen pushing useless entity that cannot help UK manufacturing and employers in any manner. It is primarily focused upon social welfare and has no understanding of competitive advantage and the global competition to succeed.
The commercial and capitalist world that predominates is the only system that drives employment of the masses.
To employ people. It must be worthwhile for employers to take on the role.
There is no private club or other restriction to becoming an employer in the UK. Not everyone can or will take on the profession.