I'm not sure how many of you Brits out there are going to watch Question Time this thursday, I think 10.30. I watch it normally because it's amusing, but this week it's very special, because we get to see everyone's favorite gakker, Nick Griffin, get shafted by the panel, and by the audience. I hear there's going to be questions asked by such people as Holocaust Survivors (Griffin is a vehement Holocaust denier), and those who have been victims of vicious racist attacks. In every sadist vein of your bodies, brothers, watch it - I think it's going to be hilarious
I know I shouldn't hold it against him, but he's a ugly bastard as well.
The BNP, as you know, have been in the news a lot lately - recently yesterday because Mike Jackson and another former General got pissed off with Griffin's use of a Spitfire and such imagery as WW2 British infantry as part of his campaign speech, as he did when he was rooting for a seat in the European Parliament. Personally, I agree with them: what right has he to defile the memories of those who fought, suffered, and died for the cause of liberty and equality, fighting against the same vein of policy that Griffin is purporting, in order to get a seat in the EU? bs. This is often overused, but I know both my Grandfathers would turn in their grave if they saw such imagery being used thus.
His use of phrase is revolting. Battle for Britain? What is this?!
This man needs to get his head in order.
He joined the National Front aged 15, a horrible group. These people would actively recriminalise Homosexuality, bring back the Death Penalty for Murder, Rape, Paedophilia and Terrorism, and get us out of NATO and the EU. What sickens me even more, is that this group, in this day and age, are whites only.
I'm not sure what your thoughts are, Dakka, but this sickens me. On the other hand, we cannot allow ourselves to completely exclude these people from the Media, because this is repression of Free Speech. They can have their opinion, but they can shut the feth up about it.
Agreed. (Though alot of people agree with them on the Death Penalty.)
Just a point of interest, the Battle for Britain is actually what that time period in the Blitz was called, so it's not THAT overtly politically agressive.
It should still be funny to watch this guy get laid into though.
"Lordhat: He was merely pointing out that they are relatively extreme in ALL aspects. (I doubt very much that they want the DP back for anything other than a bit of sport)
Emperors Faithful wrote:"Lordhat: He was merely pointing out that they are relatively extreme in ALL aspects. (I doubt very much that they want the DP back for anything other than a bit of sport)
Having known more than a few fundamentalists/fanatics for more than a few years, I can tell you: They want the Death Penalty back because they believe it's the proper response to such transgressions. In this case I have to say I agree with them.
He even looks like a nasty character. My mother (who lived in England until I was born), has told me in the past about how awful the BNP are, and when I read about them, everything I was told just gets proven correct. It's sickening that anyone would support their ideals.
Is Question Time on Youtube? I'd like to see this particular session.
@Lordhat: That's a matter of opinion, I was merely bringing it up to show the extent of their proposed reforms. I personally believe Rape and Paedophilia not to be appropriate for death.
@Cheese: Not sure, maybe on BBC iPlayer. Do you get that over there?
BBC iPlayer? I think it's possible to get it here, but it apparently takes quite a lot of messing around with internet tech. It might be on Austar Pay-per-view though.
I'd like to beat this fether to death with a crowbar.
In other news, yes, I'll be watching Question Time although I suspect it will devolve into shouting far too quickly to get the gasbag properly ridiculed.
Anyone know who the rest of the panel is? I'd love to see old Wedgewood-Ben and Stephen Fry play squash with this bastard's reasoning for a while.
Then I hope they bring out the Indian and Sikh veterans who served in WW2 with honour for King and Country and shame that weaseling bastard for all his fascist lies.
According to Radio Times, the panel also includes Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman. I'll be watching, even though it'll probably just make me angry if I have to listen to the tosser.
These people would actively recriminalise Homosexuality, bring back the Death Penalty for Murder, Rape, Paedophilia and Terrorism
There are quite a lot of conservative Americans on this very site that would seem to share their views, then. I've not been posting here that long, but must admit to being shocked at some of the opinions held by people on here. Unbelievable.
I'm gonna try and watch it, if only out of morbid curiosity.
Oh my, a thread not about the US for once. Excellent.
I'd suggest you read up on their material and the criticisms of them (all the major parties or candidates) before voting. An educated voter is a dangerous voter. Excellent...
That is funny, but the BNP are not exactly anti-Pole. Their policy is not clear, the Poles are immigrant and arriving in large numbers, but Polish are white after all.
There is a large polish community in the UK anyway since the War and are very Anglicised, many Poles are Englishmen with Polish names, but thats a logical point based on observation rather than knee jerk, and logic and BNP dont mix very well.
If everyone suddenly starts watching Questiontime because that fecker is on there it will push the ratings right up. He'll use that for his own political ends saying it was in support of him and the BBC will no doubt get him or others from his party back on the programme to get the ratings again..
I say just watch it on iplayer or youtube after if you want to see it, dont give anyone ammo if you dont need to...
Mick
A BNP guy was handing out leaflets in my home town in Cornwall, due to my own shaved head he seemed very keen that I take a leaflet and kept insisting in his thick Birmingham accent that I needed to sign up and protect England from immigrants.
At which point I told him to feth off where he came from and stop taking Cornish jobs and living in a Cornish house and go back over the Tamar bridge to 'Saxon land' cos he smelled like fething hotpot and jellied eels.
Stupid fether didn't get the joke or the irony.
RACISTS are damaging the reputation of the British Army and undermining its mission to kill brown people, it was claimed last night.
Forces'sweetheart George MonbiotA group of senior generals has written to the Times accusing the British National Party of 'hijacking the good name of the military' and insisting the BNP's extremist values are at odds with the Army's values of thinking up funny names for foreigners and flattening their houses with a tank.
The letter, signed by Sir Alfie Allendale, Sir Binky Beaver, Sir Chippy Chappell and Sir Dandy Dinmont, stated: "The Army has a proud tradition of interacting with all manner of brown people before persuading them to give up their land while dealing sensitively with their concerns by shooting them fairly and squarely in the middle of the face."
It added: "To suggest Britain's unquestioning pride in its army and nostalgia for the empire it so brutally maintained somehow contributed to the mentality that created organisations like the BNP is so completely ludicrous that it must never be discussed in any way, shape or form."
Major Nathan Muir, deputy director of inter-racial harmony at the Ministry of Defence, said: "The vast majority of Britain's soldiers are proud and enthusiastic multi-culturalists.
"I have lost count of the number of young privates who have told me that when they leave the service they want to work for the Equality and Human Rights Commission helping Bangladeshi women to fill in benefit forms."
Captain Stephen Malley, currently based in Helmand province, said: "At the end of a hard day in the field my men like nothing more than to crack open a bottle of Cloudy Bay and discuss their favourite Guardian columnists.
"Wee Jimmy Jamieson is a big fan of Polly Toynbee, though he does say she can be a bit too reactionary at times, while Sergeant Major Douglas has a beautiful signed poster of George Monbiot on the inside of his locker."
He added: "Just last week, as we went into action, Jimmy shouted 'alright lads, this one's for Shami Chakrabati!'
Nick Griffin was one of only 2 boys at an otherwise all girls school....
He should be shouted down, but it depends on who gets in the audience.
The episode broadcast two days after September 11th had a studio audience made up largely of people with anti-american views. It was most definitely not the BBC's finest hour.
I would love to know where Nick Griffin and his sinister little cronies get the idea that the Armed forces are supportive of his party. The vast majority of those serving are the same as the rest of the populace, they are only interested in the two parties who have a chance of getting into power. After all it is these parties that will have the decision with regards to future deployments and other key issues which will effect them such as the defence budget.
Lets say that the BNP did ever get into government, I wouldn't give it long before we were getting into conflicts with all sorts of different countries. Which soldier in their right mind would want to see a government elected who is likely to go out looking for wars to get them killed in?
Given that the Army in particular goes to huge efforts to recruit from Comonwealth countries and openly welcomes those from all ethnic backgrounds I can't see how they would be sympathetic to the BNP cause.
Almost all the guys I served with had the same veiw, when the gak hits the fan you couldn't give a damn what race, religion or sexual orientation those fighting with you were, you were just glad to have them there watching your back.
As previously posted I can also imagine Nick Griffin getting flustered and angry very quickly. My bet is that he will walk out before the programme is done and claim that the whole thing was staged to make him look bad.
squilverine wrote:As previously posted I can also imagine Nick Griffin getting flustered and angry very quickly. My bet is that he will walk out before the programme is done and claim that the whole thing was staged to make him look bad.
I concur, he (and his minions) very much like to portary the image of the put-upon, as if everyone is out to get the... Just so happens everyone is and everyone is right to!
Lets say that the BNP did ever get into government, I wouldn't give it long before we were getting into conflicts with all sorts of different countries.
Indeed....and, for some reason or other, I can't see Obama being incredibly sympathetic to calls for aid either....
It's probably not going to be worth watching as I would imagine that his idea of a discussion is to stick his fingers in his ears and go la, la, la, not listening. Or like evil religious family in the US, the ones who just shout louder if you disagree with them.
Every single racist/homophobe/bigot I've ever met have when challenged, genuinely struggled to support their views. Mr Griffin is just another tosspot. No doubt the fat git is boning up on his Right Wing Rhetoric, quite forgetting that like all extreme Political Propaganda, most of it is made up, embellished and generally sourceless.
For example? Ra Immagrunts is takin' all our jobs innit bruv. Neatly countered by pointing out more people have Emigrated from Britain in recent year than come into the country.
And English for the English? Then I fully expect Mr Griffin to be able to trace his lineage back to pre-Roman natives without deviation, or piss off out of the country and leave it to the descendants of the Britoni Clans and Tribes.......Fat racist gakker. Not to mention our public services would collapse overnight if all non-white, non English born staff were banished.... All those Doctors from the Indian Subcontinent, all the Nurses from Asia, all the Poles who build stuff.....total collapse of society.
When will idiots like him realise where you're born is just that. Where you're born. Nothing more to it. Ultimately, racism is like hating someone because they live on the other side of the road to you...
I'd also like to know if he'd pay the inflated food prices that would occur if he got rid of the imigrants. Pretty certain that the CBI has stated that they are needed to help pick crops as us Brits won't do it.
smiling Assassin wrote:Death Penalty for Murder, Rape, Paedophilia and Terrorism,
Have to say I'm not sure about the problem with that one, its just my opinion though and YMMV
Emperors Faithful wrote:Agreed. (Though alot of people agree with them on the Death Penalty.)
Just a point of interest, the Battle for Britain is actually what that time period in the Blitz was called, so it's not THAT overtly politically agressive.
It should still be funny to watch this guy get laid into though.
Battle OF Britain was the way I've always seen it described.
Emperors Faithful wrote:"Lordhat: He was merely pointing out that they are relatively extreme in ALL aspects. (I doubt very much that they want the DP back for anything other than a bit of sport)
Having been a few fundamentalist/fanatic for more than a few years, I can tell you: They want the Death Penalty back because they believe it's the proper response to such transgressions. In this case I have to say I agree with them.
I fixed your quote for you. Even murder isn't cut and dry, let alone rape, paedophellia is often times not even a violent crime, and it's one that can be commited by doing as little as owning certain materials, and the term terrorism doesn't even have a concrete definition. Hardlining all of it as capitol offense is just stupid.
I thought that was why the system had varying degrees of murder?
It is. If a crime where someones life ended has such varying degrees, preventing it from being a capitol offense in a significant percentage of cases, what makes something like pedophilia, or rape instant capitol crimes? Both of those are heavily dependent in situational specifics, and the act of taking the life of a prisoner is the absolute final say in punishment. It's the opposite of rehabilitation, something a civilized society is meant to strive for. Death penalty for terrorism is an even more nebulous issue, as many terror groups are classified as such due to the monetary contribution of the group itself and not any actual physical act.
Its why the BNP is a bunch of loonies. They catch votes by saying things like "Kill the rapists", but if they ever landed in power they wouldn't know what to do with it. Those aren't actionable platforms. You want everyone committing those crimes to be executed? There are quite a few countries in the middle east and africa where it's done. But then the BNP is also quick to denounce the barbarism of the muslims and terrorists alike, which is remarkably ironic, though their constituency would never see it.
I thought that was why the system had varying degrees of murder?
It is. If a crime where someones life ended has such varying degrees, preventing it from being a capitol offense in a significant percentage of cases, what makes something like pedophilia, or rape instant capitol crimes? Both of those are heavily dependent in situational specifics, and the act of taking the life of a prisoner is the absolute final say in punishment. It's the opposite of rehabilitation, something a civilized society is meant to strive for. Death penalty for terrorism is an even more nebulous issue, as many terror groups are classified as such due to the monetary contribution of the group itself and not any actual physical act.
Its why the BNP is a bunch of loonies. They catch votes by saying things like "Kill the rapists", but if they ever landed in power they wouldn't know what to do with it. Those aren't actionable platforms. You want everyone committing those crimes to be executed? There are quite a few countries in the middle east and africa where it's done. But then the BNP is also quick to denounce the barbarism of the muslims and terrorists alike, which is remarkably ironic, though their constituency would never see it.
I see what you are saying, death penalty only for the highest degree of the crime, even then only certain crimes. Killing someone for donating money to a terror cell, not the thing you execute people for, training terrorists another thing you probably don't kill them for. That's kinda what you're saying right, but obviously about more than just terrorism or murder.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This really ought to be funny.
Every single racist/homophobe/bigot I've ever met have when challenged, genuinely struggled to support their views. Mr Griffin is just another tosspot. No doubt the fat git is boning up on his Right Wing Rhetoric, quite forgetting that like all extreme Political Propaganda, most of it is made up, embellished and generally sourceless.
For example? Ra Immagrunts is takin' all our jobs innit bruv. Neatly countered by pointing out more people have Emigrated from Britain in recent year than come into the country.
And English for the English? Then I fully expect Mr Griffin to be able to trace his lineage back to pre-Roman natives without deviation, or piss off out of the country and leave it to the descendants of the Britoni Clans and Tribes.......Fat racist gakker. Not to mention our public services would collapse overnight if all non-white, non English born staff were banished.... All those Doctors from the Indian Subcontinent, all the Nurses from Asia, all the Poles who build stuff.....total collapse of society.
When will idiots like him realise where you're born is just that. Where you're born. Nothing more to it. Ultimately, racism is like hating someone because they live on the other side of the road to you...
MDG, thats terrible. You shouldn't stereotype people. What about all the lazy, degenerate, useless people from those places? You have to accurately represent all parts of a population.
As for the BNP, LOL. I didn't know Britain had Neocons as well. It reminds me of the government in Children of Men, that set up the refugee camps and stuff.
I thought that was why the system had varying degrees of murder?
It is. If a crime where someones life ended has such varying degrees, preventing it from being a capitol offense in a significant percentage of cases, what makes something like pedophilia, or rape instant capitol crimes? Both of those are heavily dependent in situational specifics, and the act of taking the life of a prisoner is the absolute final say in punishment. It's the opposite of rehabilitation, something a civilized society is meant to strive for. Death penalty for terrorism is an even more nebulous issue, as many terror groups are classified as such due to the monetary contribution of the group itself and not any actual physical act.
Its why the BNP is a bunch of loonies. They catch votes by saying things like "Kill the rapists", but if they ever landed in power they wouldn't know what to do with it. Those aren't actionable platforms. You want everyone committing those crimes to be executed? There are quite a few countries in the middle east and africa where it's done. But then the BNP is also quick to denounce the barbarism of the muslims and terrorists alike, which is remarkably ironic, though their constituency would never see it.
I see what you are saying, death penalty only for the highest degree of the crime, even then only certain crimes. Killing someone for donating money to a terror cell, not the thing you execute people for, training terrorists another thing you probably don't kill them for. That's kinda what you're saying right, but obviously about more than just terrorism or murder.
Pretty much. The act of killing a prisoner does little actual good. It's sole real value is in the fact that it can make the people offended by the criminal feel better. Vindicated. It's not wrong to ask for that in my opinion, but where do we draw a line as a society? Killing people for killing doesn't rectify their crimes, and it doesn't somehow wipe the slate clean. They are still murderers, just dead ones, in which case they can no longer reform or do any good with their lives. They have no chance to redeem themselves through their actions. I actually believe in the death penalty, I think the penalty for the highest degree of crime should be the highest penalty possible. But I dislike it when people trump the death penalty like it accomplishes something beyond letting people feel better about themselves, and I dislike it even more when groups like the BNP do it simply for the sake of looking tough.
What Mr Griffin fails to realise is that a lot of his votes are 'warnings' to the main Political Parties, that a portion of the electorate wish for more immigration controls, rather than fellow idiots ratifying all their extremes.
What Mr Griffin fails to realise is that a lot of his votes are 'warnings' to the main Political Parties, that a portion of the electorate wish for more immigration controls, rather than fellow idiots ratifying all their extremes.
What's happening in the UK is that a lot of people are feeling hard done by (rightly or wrongly.) They can't get good jobs. They can't afford houses. They can't get their children into a decent school, and so on.
None of this is the fault of immigration, but it is an easy target to pick on.
The only issue with a program like this with having a such a high profile person on it, is simply that it will turn into a human form of bear baiting.
Which my fears were confirmed fully as I am watching at the moment. Don't get me wrong I completely disagree with the BNP but its been 50minutes of people laying into the BNP which is all it was designed to do. It was a masterstroke of generating ratings by the BBC.
That being said its quite funny watching Nick Griffin being as restrained as possible whilst everyone in the panel and audience are trying to make him slip up.
In some ways its pathetic in other ways very very interesting.
Actually, I don't think he said anything that bad - if you are a non-skilled worker in the UK, the jobs you are applying for are very often filled by people who are not from this country. I have first hand experience of this. Also, visit an inner city Jobcenter and play 'spot the brit', should make for an interesting game. This doesn't make me a racist - anyone who lives in a large metropolitan area will have noticed this.
Maybe right wing groups, like the BNP, hate it when they see the moral fiber of their society falling apart. I think this story sums up their disgust pretty well. Not that I am for them mind you, I am just trying to understand all of their points of view....
JEB_Stuart wrote:Maybe right wing groups, like the BNP, hate it when they see the moral fiber of their society falling apart. I think this story sums up their disgust pretty well. Not that I am for them mind you, I am just trying to understand all of their points of view....
I did find it highly amusing that the Baroness Warsi, after being highly gleeful in attacking the easy target of Griffon and his racist goons, was then questioned about her Muslim religion fired prejudice against homosexual relationships and previous comments that she opposed civil partnerships. She ummmed and ahhhed and then backtracked.
hypocrite...
Jack Straw was pathetic, he has never impressed me, his speeches were poor attempts to garner a round of applause from the audience instead of actually addressing issues. Man of Straw indeed.
The lib dem bloke instantly forgettable.
Bonnie Greer seemed ok but was not overly formidable or really making much other than also fairly easy point scoring, her comment about the British Isles being entirely covered in ice is also bollocks and she should be fired from the board of the museum for that comment.
Griffon himself was just crap, he was shaking and his arguments, so toned down to avoid causing a riot, were contradictory and patently obvious as a very amateurish attempt at spin and reinvention.
The audience were rubbish and again, it was about taking a shot at Griffon rather than anything like trying to get him to open his mouth long enough to hang himself, things like that gak calling him 'Dick' Griffon and the sniggering in the audience and then telling him to move to the South Pole, this isn't the fething comedy club.
Griffon will return to his supporters enabled to justify that the BBC was bias, that the entire thing was angled as an attack against them, that the audience was 'racially disproportionate' and that the panel and all questions did nothing other than target him, he was not included as part of the panel but the test study for the rest of them to pull apart and that will lend him power in his own ranks via the passive aggressive stance that he made the steps to join in and was heckled and abused for his trouble.
A bit of a disappointment all in all, I wish Tony Benn had been there, he'd have breezed that and made it great viewing.
Albatross wrote:Actually, I don't think he said anything that bad - if you are a non-skilled worker in the UK, the jobs you are applying for are very often filled by people who are not from this country. I have first hand experience of this. Also, visit an inner city Jobcenter and play 'spot the brit', should make for an interesting game. This doesn't make me a racist - anyone who lives in a large metropolitan area will have noticed this.
Sorry pal, I worked in an inner city jobcentre. This is a crock of gak.
In Sheffield, maybe that's true - it's certainly not true in Manchester as of this year. And I'll thank you not to be so dismissive - you haven't the first idea about my experiences.
Just a point of interest, the Battle for Britain is actually what that time period in the Blitz was called, so it's not THAT overtly politically agressive.
it very politicaly aggresive, wanting to fight a battle to get rid of those the BNP hate.
the question time was hilarious, he made a massive fool of himself, he was like a squerming disgusting mutant baby that needs to get back to his mine shaft. his most popular phase was 'i never said that' followed by Jack Straw saying 'its on youtube' ne has won no one over with this show
on a less political side, he goes on about how he wants to protect the white genepool, have you seen him, he's a fat, mutant baby faced monster, who wants those genes.
1. mixing genepools is the best thing for speices otherwise we turn into giant panda humans (stupid, unadaptable and unable to breed creatures)
2. immagrents work harder and pay more taxes than the majority of BNP voter, the white benefit class of britian
I just watched it like an hour ago, and it was H.I.L.A.R.I.O.U.S!
Nick Griffin is so full of gak, he basically said "We'll say were going to give you what you want when were not in power, but when we are, you can feth off and I want KKK supporters in the party too."
Albatross wrote:it's certainly not true in Manchester as of this year.
Well that's a big step back from:
Albatross wrote:anyone who lives in a large metropolitan area...
Sadly I can neither confirm nor deny your limited experiences though I'd like a bit more evidence before I accept them at face value since your experiences differ so greatly from mine. I'll also point out that we're in a recession and the pound is worth less than usual against foreign currency. Two good reasons why foreign workers would and are choosing to work elsewhere.
How do you know the other people you see in a job centre aren't British?
British people don't generally need interpreters (paid for by the tax-payer) to speak to other British people. I visited Job-centres regularly to search for part-time work and this is something I noticed. Are you telling me I DIDN'T notice it? Also, when I attended a job-interview through the same service, I was the only British applicant out of 20-odd ( I met them in the waiting room). What I was implying by the statement I made was that an inordinate amount of people claiming benefits in my area seem to be non-British. Maybe it's different on the mean streets of Cornwall! Please don't make me out to be a racist - I made no mention of skin-colour. Not cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Spiggott - It's worth pointing out that I didn't say there were NO Brits there, I just implied that there were a relatively large number of Non-Brits signing on whenever I have visited a JobCentre - strange, since apparently they are looking for work. I lived in Spain (a socialist country) for a year and a half and their system requires you to pay tax for a year before being eligible for benefits. Also I have dutch friends who tell me a similar system exists in The Netherlands - it's a little bit more than six months. Why shouldn't it be the same in the UK? - and why shouldn't I care about that?
But since you used to work in a JobCentre in Sheffield that no foreigners visit (apparently) I must bow to your superior knowledge, as my experience obviously counts for dick.
Albatross wrote:I lived in Spain (a socialist country) for a year and a half and their system requires you to pay tax for a year before being eligible for benefits. Also I have dutch friends who tell me a similar system exists in The Netherlands - it's a little bit more than six months. Why shouldn't it be the same in the UK?
Nice strawman. Your gripe was that they were applying for jobs. Remember?
Albatross wrote:...if you are a non-skilled worker in the UK, the jobs you are applying for are very often filled by people who are not from this country.
Or is your position that you don't want foreign nationals here at all?
Albatross wrote:...and why shouldn't I care about that? But since you used to work in a JobCentre in Sheffield that no foreigners visit (apparently) I must bow to your superior knowledge, as my experience obviously counts for dick.
This is hyperbole. Stop pretending that you're arguing from a moderate position and that I said something extreme. There's wisdom in the last sentence though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:It's weird, I went to a local job center over the summer and I saw no british people at all.
Albatross wrote:I must bow to your superior knowledge, as my experience obviously counts for dick.
This is hyperbole. Stop pretending that you're arguing from a moderate position and that I said something extreme. There's wisdom in the last sentence though.
There is like three separate jokes in this picture, and you both should really stop making fun of the fact that dick... is very blind...
How do you know the other people you see in a job centre aren't British?
British people don't generally need interpreters (paid for by the tax-payer) to speak to other British people. I visited Job-centres regularly to search for part-time work and this is something I noticed. Are you telling me I DIDN'T notice it? Also, when I attended a job-interview through the same service, I was the only British applicant out of 20-odd ( I met them in the waiting room). What I was implying by the statement I made was that an inordinate amount of people claiming benefits in my area seem to be non-British. Maybe it's different on the mean streets of Cornwall! Please don't make me out to be a racist - I made no mention of skin-colour. Not cool.
I raised a question. I did not state you were racist.
As to the mean streets of Cornwall, I don't live there, I live in Bristol. Interesting place Bristol, you should watch this week's Panorama programme on BBC iplayer. There is a very serious racial issue here in this city and a very high rate of immigrant placement in the city.
You mention 20 people applying for the same job, did you ask them all where they came from? Was it evident from them all needing an interpreter or did they all volunteer the information about their origins to you?
I am not calling you racist, you are making statements I am interested in hearing more about to help me understand.
So who watched it last night? I thought it was a bit messy and didn't achieve much either way. Griffin didn't sell himself or his views well at all, but the other panellists didn't do a particularly good job of putting him down either (apart from Bonnie Greer, some of her comments were inspired).
I live in Bristol. Interesting place Bristol, you should watch this week's Panorama programme on BBC iplayer. There is a very serious racial issue here in this city and a very high rate of immigrant placement in the city.
I watched about half of it, couldnt watch the rest, some of those dicks were about my age, hanging around in gangs on estates, and they think there better then another human being because there of there skin colour.
@MGS - sorry mate, dunno where I got the impression you where from Cornwall....weird, must be the Flu playing tricks on my brain! I watched that Panorama thingy, but I'm gonna reserve judgement. As for the job-interview thing, there WERE several dudes with interpreters, plus I chatted to a couple of nice chaps from Sierra Leone. The rest of the guys seemed to be African judging by language/accent when speaking amongst themselves.
And you DID seem to imply that I would have a problem with non-white people attending the JobCentre - if I read you wrong I apologise.
@Spiggott - You seem to be the type of person who gets offended if people criticise our immigration situation, so I'm questioning the wisdom of continuing this discussion - I have a funny feeling it'll just degenerate into an argument. Anyway....
Nice strawman. Your gripe was that they were applying for jobs. Remember?
Not just that - the fact that in addition to filling many unskilled jobs (I assume you have McDonalds/Burger King/Primark in Sheffield?), we have visitors claiming benefits seemingly at the point of entry - that bothers me, especially during a recession. Many people from all walks of life share my opinion - it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and not a 'crock of gak' as you so rudely put it.
This is hyperbole. Stop pretending that you're arguing from a moderate position and that I said something extreme. There's wisdom in the last sentence though.
What would be a moderate position in this case? - I'm dying to know, because allowing unchecked immigration WOULD be a fairly extreme position to take on this matter. You would struggle to find many Britons who would share your views in the current climate. But then, you haven't stated your position, you've just attacked mine.
Again, please explain how having experience of more than one benefit system adds up to 'limited'. You worked in a JobCentre? Big deal! I have a friend who worked in a Manchester JC for 3 years - it doesn't make him an expert on immigration, just as it doesn't make you one. In fact, I would say that your views on immigration seem a little naive - but then, as I said earlier, maybe you just need to explain them better.
I am pleased to know those moving to the UK are seeking gainful employment, unlike the lazy bastards we have making a living off sponging benefits as a lifestyle choice.
As a socialist I am entirely against the welfare state being abused.
I found the racists from the Panorama programme especially humorous since likely all of them were being funded by the state and the hard earned taxes of working people with many colours of skin.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am from Cornwall, I live in Bristol.
I am an immigrant...
Bloody Cornish coming over here to Bristol bringing their stinking pasties and clotted cream. Sod off back to where you came from and stop taking up all the flats on Barton Hill
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am from Cornwall, I live in Bristol.
I am an immigrant...
Bloody Cornish coming over here to Bristol bringing their stinking pasties and clotted cream. Sod off back to where you came from and stop taking up all the flats on Barton Hill
Screw you hippy, I dwell down with the dead things in Bedminster...
I thought it was a fething farce, a disgrace to what is normally a fantastic programme.
I wanted to hear Griffin's bigotted views when faced with normal policy questions, like everyone else, but this was just a horrific form of public bullying.
I hate the man's guts, but in a society based around free speech, free debate, and good pies, this was a freak show, a kangaroo court where Dimbleby was the sordid ringleader. It was shocking to see the audience and the panellists reduced thus. And when they finally get to something about another Party, this serves as a breather until they can just shout at Griffin again! This isn't how our politics should be conducted. The only light on the situation was the Baroness, she was fantastic.
As a matter of interest, Griffin did make comments about Hitler before, including the phrase "...Yes, Adolf went a bit too far."
I'm going to try and move off that horrible Gladiatorial gak on Television, I found something about another hateful young swine - Mark Collett. He's on the left.
Former head of the Youth BNP (hey, any parallels?), he's been quoted as saying:
"Churchill was a fething witch who led us into a pointless war with other whites [i.e. The Nazis] standing up for their race". "The Royals have betrayed their people. When we're in power they'll be wiped out and we'll get some Germans to rule properly." (and, on the Prince of Wales...) "He's a fething traitor."
Apparently a few people were outraged at this event... and they called themselves anti-fascists.
I can't agree with them, but I also cannot entirely disagree with them. Overall though, it is simply silly try and censor an elected officials views... and I seriously wonder what definition of fascist these cats are using, mainly because in their act of attempted censorship, they were being fascist in at least one sense.
How is there something wrong with allowing a politician to be ripped to pieces by the public? At what point was that "not becoming of a nation" for doing such. Part of politics is meant to be courteous, other parts benefit greatly from this type of venting; which in all honesty was much to easy on the guy. Free speech does mean just that, and beyond a select few things (mainly threats against anothers well being) anything goes. So if you hate this guy, let him be a complete moron, and let people be incredibly angry at him.
smiling Assassin wrote:I thought it was a fething farce, a disgrace to what is normally a fantastic programme.
I wanted to hear Griffin's bigotted views when faced with normal policy questions, like everyone else, but this was just a horrific form of public bullying.
I hate the man's guts, but in a society based around free speech, free debate, and good pies, this was a freak show, a kangaroo court where Dimbleby was the sordid ringleader. It was shocking to see the audience and the panellists reduced thus. And when they finally get to something about another Party, this serves as a breather until they can just shout at Griffin again! This isn't how our politics should be conducted. The only light on the situation was the Baroness, she was fantastic.
I'm not that familiar with the BNP, but from the reaction most British people seem to have with them, that's about what I would have suspected.
If you ask people like this real questions, about real issues, they'll probably founder, or espouse opinions that will show you exactly what their ideology entails. Instead you have people yelling "ZOMG Y U LUV HITLER SO MUHC?" and then they go back to their neighborhoods and complain about how people are out to get them; and you can't argue against that, because they are out to get them, when they don't even need to be.
Albatross wrote: You seem to be the type of person who gets offended if people criticise our immigration situation...
Fraid not, nice bit of prejudice there though.
Albatross wrote: Not just that - the fact that in addition to filling many unskilled jobs (I assume you have McDonalds/Burger King/Primark in Sheffield?), we have visitors claiming benefits seemingly at the point of entry - that bothers me, especially during a recession. Many people from all walks of life share my opinion - it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and not a 'crock of gak' as you so rudely put it.
Non English speakers are taking all the retail jobs, really? You know full well that I said “crock of gak” to your first post and not the things you said subsequently but if you really think the cap fits…
Albatross wrote: What would be a moderate position in this case? - I'm dying to know, because allowing unchecked immigration WOULD be a fairly extreme position to take on this matter.
Fortunately neither of us are arguing for that position, in fact this is the first time you’ve brought it up with me. Do you have any more of these strawmen or is this your last?
Albatross wrote: You would struggle to find many Britons who would share your views in the current climate.
Do you really believe that? I don’t believe that foreign unskilled workers are a problem (even less so since Sterling devalued and fewer of them come over). Could the benefits system be tightened up? For sure, across the board but that’s a thread all by itself right there so I won’t go into detail here.
Well, what am I supposed to think? When I disagree with someone, I don't just reply: 'that's a crock of gak' and leave it at that. I'd like to think that I'm grown-up enough to say something along the lines of 'well, I disagree with you because of 'a', 'b' and 'c'...' Your response suggested an emotional attachment to the subject. But if I'm wrong - hey, I can hold my hands up and admit that I may have misread you.
filling many unskilled jobs
'many is not 'all' retail jobs - again, maybe this isn't the case in Sheffield, but if not that would make Sheffield fairly unique amongst large metropolitan areas in the UK.
You say that foreign unskilled workers aren't a problem given the current financial climate - what planet are you living on? We have high unemployment levels and plenty of British unskilled workers who need work - why should they have to compete with outsiders? I have absolutely no problem with SKILLED foreign workers - for example, we have a shortage of engineers at present so it would make sense to employ foreign engineers to fill that particular skills-gap. But there are enough potential Cleaners and Retail/Customer Service Assistants already living here, without importing more.
Anyway, we are now firmly in argument territory, nit-picking at each others posts. You haven't stated your position on this matter at all, so this isn't a debate - you're just trolling me, really. By all means reply if you so wish - but unless you have anything constructive to say on this issue, I'm gonna leave it there mate. Not really looking to fall out with anyone over Nick fething Griffin.
Albatross wrote:
for example, we have a shortage of engineers at present so it would make sense to employ foreign engineers to fill that particular skills-gap.
There's a shortage of engineers in almost every developed nation. Primarily because the cost of the education isn't generally offset by the average salary. Sure, you can make some bank as an engineer, but the really high paying positions tend to be fast tracked to the best students; who also tend to pay the least for their education.
dogma wrote:...but the really high paying positions tend to be fast tracked to the best students; who also tend to pay the least for their education.
Could you elaborate on what you mean here? How do the best students end up paying less for their education? I don't know many self-taught engineers (if any for that matter), so I am not exactly sure what it is you mean here.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Could you elaborate on what you mean here? How do the best students end up paying less for their education? I don't know many self-taught engineers (if any for that matter), so I am not exactly sure what it is you mean here.
Scholarships, merit-based financial aid, etc. There are also certain ways to enslave yourself to an organization in order to earn an advanced degree, though that usually only happens at the doctorate level.
For example, I'm working on getting a fellowship at Northwestern which will effectively pay me 50k a year in order to earn a dual PhD with Sciences Po in France. Granted, that's in political science, but there are similar programs in the hard/applied sciences.
Yeah, I don't get that statement either. That's not been my experience - but if you're referring to some sort of industrial scholarship specifically for engineers... nah, I'm still confused, mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: you got in before me there! Fair enough, then - although I'm not sure how it works in the UK. My brother-in-law is doing a Phd in engineering, so I'll ask him.
Engineering is a pretty tough subject. You're pretty much guaranteed a job, but not necessarily one which will allow you to live in a lifestyle which is immediately commensurate with what you might want. There's a lot of deferred gratification involved which simply doesn't appeal to as many people as are necessary in the field; especially at the entry level.
So, I am pretty sure I understand you now. It does essentially sound like a form of apprenticeship, with some type of contract I would assume.
So a company might pay (if you are skilled/merited enough) for your education as to guarantee your services over the course of that contract, right?
I have a friend in school for mechanical engineering, and he said something along the lines of a guaranteed job, but the lack of a choice as to what kind of job would be guaranteed in that respect. I assume that he will be doing fairly general work, while trying to figure out how to get into a job that suits his chosen expertise, by that time.
I told him he should be focusing on medieval siege weaponry, as I see an emerging market for it (me, and a few friends, and a case of beer that is), and his prospects would diversify as his career developed. Oh... and it would also be awesome too... mucho awesomeness.
“Albatross” wrote:'many is not 'all' retail jobs - again, maybe this isn't the case in Sheffield, but if not that would make Sheffield fairly unique amongst large metropolitan areas in the UK.
No, non-English speakers do not go for public facing retail jobs; they don’t get them because they can’t communicate with their customers. Warehousing, cleaning and unskilled factory work, yes. Retail, no. Not just in Sheffield, everywhere.
“Albatross” wrote:You haven't stated your position on this matter at all, so this isn't a debate - you're just trolling me, really.
I’m sure I just stated my position in my last post. Stop trying to be a victim, I’m not trolling you. If it’s all too much for you don’t reply to this post.
What concerns me is that all these protestors were concentrating on Nick Griffen... I think we should be more concerned about the people who actually believe what he's saying. Don't forget, it takes two to tango. By this I mean it shouldn't make a difference what he says, as nasty as it is, if you don't respond to it.
I think you will find that his opinion has less impact than the vile stand point that papers such as The Mail, The Express and sometimes Sun take. It's their opinions that actually seep into the minds of the uneducated, because it's in the paper so therefore must be true. The trouble with the populations of a lot of countries is that most of them are either too lazy or uneducated to cope with looking in to the facts, they want something that is spoon fed to them so they don't have make any effort. It also needs to be like a drug, they have to get a "hit" straight away.
As an example I'll use the UK's involvement in the EU. The likes of the forementioned newspapers will do scare stories that say the EU will rape our women, steal our jobs, hang the Queen, that sort of nonsense. There will be no real evidence of this, just hearsay and hints, but it will be presented as fact. Now the readers of this delightful publications will get up in arms and write many anti EU letters condeming Johnny foreigner and that we didn't fight two world wars... blah, blah, blah, etc.
Now the thing is, they could be right... but they could also be wrong. The problem is nobody actually takes the time to produce a publication which shows the pros & cons, in an unbiased fashion. You only have to listen to business leaders to know that there are for's & against's, none of then can agree if it's the right thing to do.
So coming back from my slight detour my point is, don't concern yourselves with the likes of Nick Griffen and the BNP, be worried about the people who listen to him and the newspapers, as they are the ones too stupid to be trusted with a vote.
No, non-English speakers do not go for public facing retail jobs; they don’t get them because they can’t communicate with their customers. Warehousing, cleaning and unskilled factory work, yes. Retail, no. Not just in Sheffield, everywhere.
Never said anything specifically about retail in the first place, never said anything about non english-speakers, in any case - THIS is what I said:
Not just that - the fact that in addition to filling many unskilled jobs (I assume you have McDonalds/Burger King/Primark in Sheffield?), we have visitors claiming benefits seemingly at the point of entry
Read it properly this time. No mention of non english-speakers. I refer to 'Unskilled' work - yes, the examples I mention happen to be in the retail sector, but it's irrelevant because of my earlier point. And I don't refer to 'retail' specifically. Perhaps you don't speak english as a first language, perhaps that's why you struggled to comprehend this - If that's the case, I apologise.
I don’t believe that foreign unskilled workers are a problem (even less so since Sterling devalued and fewer of them come over). Could the benefits system be tightened up? For sure, across the board but that’s a thread all by itself right there so I won’t go into detail here.
That's your position? Just saying that foreign workers aren't a problem and that the benefits system needs tightening up? So insubstantial, no wonder I disregarded it. I'm not 'playing the victim', it's not 'all too much for me' - you're just being a bit of a dick and you're not worth wasting time on, that's all. Get some opinions and back them up - don't just pointlessly nitpick at other people's. That IS trolling, despite what you say. You haven't contributed anything to what could otherwise have been an interesting debate.
Albatross wrote:Never said anything specifically about retail in the first place, never said anything about non english-speakers, in any case - THIS is what I said… … Read it properly this time.
If You mean read it while ignoring all your examples that you now find are counter to your argument (McDonalds, Burger King and Primark) then that isn’t reading it properly is it? You’re backtracking again. This was your first hand (anecdotal) evidence that you were referring to non English speakers:
Albatross wrote:British people don't generally need interpreters (paid for by the tax-payer) to speak to other British people. I visited Job-centres regularly to search for part-time work and this is something I noticed.
It was key to you defence against being accused of being a racist. You have after all picked up this knowledge first hand on the “mean streets” of Manchester.
Albatross wrote:Just saying that foreign workers aren't a problem and that the benefits system needs tightening up? So insubstantial, no wonder I disregarded it. I'm not 'playing the victim', it's not 'all too much for me' - you're just being a bit of a dick and you're not worth wasting time on, that's all. Get some opinions and back them up - don't just pointlessly nitpick at other people's. That IS trolling, despite what you say. You haven't contributed anything to what could otherwise have been an interesting debate.
How about some evidence that Foreign worker numbers are in decline. Did you just insult me and accuse me of trolling you in the same paragraph?
Then let's talk UK benefits then, I'm sure we'll have plenty to agree about.
The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, found himself the victim of an extraordinary attack from his own supporters last night following his controversial appearance on the BBC's Question Time.
As a public postmortem into one of the most divisive broadcasts in the corporation's history attempted to gauge its impact on the party's fortunes, Lee Barnes, the BNP's legal officer, accused Griffin of "failing to press the attack" during the televised debate, which was watched by a record 8 million people. Others sympathetic to the BNP's views expressed dismay at Griffin's flustered attempts to appeal to the mainstream.
The BNP's critics were quick to use the comments as proof of deep divisions within the party's membership over how it should position itself with the electorate. Griffin has claimed that he has dragged the party into the political mainstream. But the resulting backlash from those on his own side suggests many are uncomfortable with the BNP's attempts to cloak itself in more moderate terms.
Barnes complained on his personal website that Griffin "should have stood up to these whining, middle-class hypocrites that use the race card for self-enrichment – and thrown the truth right back into their fat, sanctimonious, hypocritical, self-serving faces". He accused his party's leader of "failing to press the attack" on the "ethnic middle class" for "taking up the best jobs while still playing the bogus race card for every opportunity". And in a move that is likely to reinforce concerns that Griffin's appearance will spark violence, Barnes used his personal website to suggest that "perhaps there needs to be a few 'white riots' around the country a la the Brixton riots of the 1980s before the idiot white liberal middle class and their ethnic middle-class fellow travellers wake up".
A spokesman for the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight said: "This strips away once and for all Nick Griffin's pretence that the BNP is a non-violent organisation. Lee Barnes is not just another BNP member, he is the organisation's legal officer, and here he is talking about riots in the streets. The BNP hoped the Question Time appearance would mark their entry to the political mainstream, but instead they have pushed themselves back to the violent, extremist political fringe where they belong."
Labour MP Jon Cruddas said: "If this is the view expressed by Griffin's legal officer, imagine the views among the hardcore BNP membership."
Griffin's performance on Question Time, in which he was ambivalent about incendiary comments he had made in the past, admitted to links with the Ku Klux Klan, attacked Islam and appeared sweaty, smirking and evasive, has been widely derided in the media and by politicians from all the main parties. But the party's sympathisers are also joining the attack. Negative comments from BNP supporters were posted on the party's website yesterday, but many were quickly taken down.
One comment read: "Maybe some coaching could of been done so that Mr Griffin could of answered any questions articulately."
And in far-right internet chatrooms, the mood last night was one of a missed opportunity. In the Stormfront online forum, a BNP sympathiser said: "It was quite a bad performance by Griffin in comparison to his other TV appearances. Though he managed to get one or two things over (despite the constant interruptions and barracking) that would appeal to the majority, he did seem overawed by the occasion and was not, for the most part, at his best."
Another said: "It's almost like Nick went on expecting a normal episode of Question Time, it was always going to be a hatchet job and he should have been fully prepared for questions relating to his past. This lack of preparedness left him open to attack and flustered when asked to provide a reply." Another commented: "I'm starting to think this appealing to the mainstream approach is the wrong direction. I would rather have seen George Lincoln Rockwell [founder of the American Nazi party] on the panel, there would have been a riot."
The emerging splits within the BNP's core support over Griffin's performance came amid claims that Question Time had acted as a recruiting agent for the far-right party. A poll for the Daily Telegraph published yesterday suggested that 22% of the electorate would "seriously consider" voting BNP, while the party claimed thousands had registered for information following Griffin's appearance. "By the end of the night 9,000 new people had signed up as registered potential members or on our mailing lists," Simon Bennett, the BNP's webmaster, declared. "In the Euro elections, we gained 40,000 enquiries, but spent £500,000 to do so – on Question Time we spent peanuts but gained almost 25% of the Euro election total in eight hours! We had to upgrade our server capacity enormously, which allowed us to cope with extra traffic."
The claims seemed to reinforce concerns expressed by the Welsh secretary, Peter Hain, who had opposed Griffin's appearance on Question Time. "The BBC has handed the BNP the gift of the century on a plate and now we see the consequences," Hain said. "I'm very angry."
The BNP – and indeed the entire far-right movement – is no stranger to infighting and claims of splits will be dismissed by its high command. Griffin, a former key player in the National Front, assumed control over the party only after ousting its founder, John Tyndall.
Since then he has shored up his position, surrounding himself with a core of lieutenants and taking control of party finances. This has led to concerns that Griffin has become too powerful. Several senior BNP members quit after he overhauled the constitution to make his position as leader practically unassailable.
In far-right chat rooms yesterday many were asking whether the Question Time appearance was a watershed. "Griffin carries too much baggage to act as spokesman for the BNP," one said. "I lost count of the number of times past quotes came back to haunt him."
I just read about the KKK distancing themselves from the BNP (specifically Griffin) in The Star (lunchtime newspaper of choice ). In some ways it seems strange that we desire a more extreme 'right wing supremo' to replace Griffin. I wonder if the BBC will have the balls to do a Griffin/Paxman interview, I'd watch that.
@Spiggott - Yeah - I'd watch that, too. It'll be less of a middle-class smugfest, and harnessing the power of Griffin's nervous tics while Paxman slaps him about would probably solve our energy problems for a few years.
MGS asked how I could identify people as foreign whilst at a JobCentre - I replied that they where using interpreters. Once again, I never explicitly stated that non english-speaking people were taking all retail jobs in major metropolitan areas. Unless you can provide a direct quote of me saying this, I guess it's 1-1 - so S8N!
Anyway - let's get back on topic, as this can't have been much fun to read for other posters.
When the KKK distance themselves from you - you have major problems!
I hope they do so. But they'll have to be careful about how they go about it. If the accusations (which havn't been denied yet) that the BBC 'cherry picked' the audience to cause maximum disruption are fully proved then they (BBC) will have to provide an opportunity to redress the balance. Let him trip himself up with his own words, not try to mislead him into saying something he does not mean to.
Now while I think that this will show up the BNP it will be very uncomfortable for the mainstream parties, as for all their faults the BNP are asking the questions that the majority of voters are wanting asked. I saw a poll taken after the show in which a tiny fraction would consider voting BNP but an overwhelming majority wanted the government to answer the questions he was raising.
I believe the BBC have denied cherry picking the audience. I have in the past wondered how Question Time go about picking people out of the audience to give these questions. I had always assumed that some sort of pre-selection was used if not of the audience then certainly of the questions. If they get this pillock making a fool of himself again on TV it may be no bad thing.
@Albatross: As your worker numbers are just a figure you pulled out of your arse I don't suppose it matters how many. Don't be so hasty to keep score it's unbecoming, and stop that irritating passive aggressive ploy of demanding the end of a conversation without allowing for a retort. I think you will find that the lumpen-proles love a good squabble.
@GS - Being a lumpen prole, I too love a good ruck! . It's just that a Mod was telling me (I assume) to knock the insults on the head. But fine, let's keep going - I'm game if you are RedS8N was keeping score, so that was a retort to him - and you still haven't found the quote I mentioned. What numbers did I furnish you with? I inferred that there where a lot of foreigners at the JC - MGS asked how I knew that - I replied that they were using interpreters.
Liked the Guardian article - Asylum-seekers up? Interesting. But yeah, people seem to be going home due to the recession, and (slightly)fewer seem to be coming in, fair enough.
Albatross wrote:…and you still haven't found the quote I mentioned. What numbers did I furnish you with?
Which one did you mention, this one? “I never explicitly stated that non English-speaking people were taking all retail jobs in major metropolitan areas.” Quite right, many isn’t all, have a cookie. My disagreement you’re your position still stands as there is there’s absolutely no substance to your claim. "Many" and "very often" suggest a great number of the total available (otherwise it’s completely meaningless) if not an actual numerical value.
How do you know these "many" people in these jobs are foreign? As your mean of determining they were foreign in the Jobcentre was that they required interpreters what are your means in say McDonalds or Primark? BTW: Accents don't count.
Then there's this:
Albatross wrote:Actually, I don't think he [Nick Griffin] said anything that bad...
Is this trolling disguised as literalism (he was very careful to not reveal his true beliefs) or something else?
The Dreadnote wrote:According to Radio Times, the panel also includes Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman. I'll be watching, even though it'll probably just make me angry if I have to listen to the tossers.
@GS - he said some pretty outlandish stuff, but it wasn't the political pornography most people were expecting, that's all I meant. You're not a MOD - don't act like one.
I also think you are fairly biased and definitely have some sort of agenda behind this line of questioning. If you want to call me a racist, at least have the courage of your convictions and do so - you are very obviously implying that my postion is based on racial politics. My position is this: Especially during a recession, we should have a stricter immigration policy, given the high levels of unemployment in the UK. Foreign unskilled workers should not be allowed enter the country and take jobs from British workers (of every ethnicity). The article you linked to DID show that people where going home in greater numbers and that immigration growth was slowing. It also showed that Asylum-seeker numbers are on the increase. The immigrant population is still growing - growth hasn't stopped, so I was technically correct in my OP. Your bias won't let you see or admit this, apparently.
And why do non-british accents not count all of a sudden?
@Andrew: Polls are unreliable sources of information. You can only say "the majority of poll-participant voters wants this or that". A poll involves at best a few thousand people, and these people want their opinions to be heard, it's just slightly representative of a general population, but never an accurate source of information. Sadly, many people think polls are! which breeds braindead statements of "he says what everyone in this country thinks but is afraid to say themselves". besides, people who have time to fill in polls obviously have time to spare, might be uneducated/unemployed and will in some cases take a more extreme stance because of that, skewing the result.I used
I'm not a minority for NOT thinking what "everyone" thinks but "dares not say". I think the MAJORITY of people think it's BS to make such statements. Among these "taboos" a lot IS actually said by people ("Benefit-takers stink", "the government never does anything right" etc.).
Moreover, the only way to make the market for unskilled work fair is to fix wages for jobs (with room for inflation). Everyone in the same country, with the same job and experience/skill should earn the same amount of money. No mutations should be allowed for immigrant workers. This will improve the opportunities for native speakers, or those immigrants with an accaptable level of skill in the required language. In my country, quite a few immigrants speak better Standard Dutch than a lot of provincial natives, who just grunt or drawl for a bit and expect anyone to understand what they are saying... even British dialects/accents are more intelligeble than the weird sounds some of my fellow countrymen/women produce when they appear to be talking... and I live in a tiny country!
well, someone might actually ask LESS money for a job to improve his chances to be hired.
I wrote what I wrote, because there is the notion in many western countries, that foreign labour is cheaper, hence more in demand for employers. That is because prices of living can be very different depending on the country. For example, a Czech could have a better life with Dutch minimum wage when he returns to his homeland with his earnings than a Dutchman staying where he is with the same salary. This is the cause of anxiety for many "native people" as said Czech might ask less money for his work, knowing he could have a good life with less money than the Dutchman entitled and requiring to a certain minimum or standard rate of pay (which he has to take as iit is offered, or he/she can negotiate for more, rather than offering to do it for less)
I know pretty sure that official labour, i.e. through job/employment centres are following local laws on employment and salaries. More concern should be aimed at black market labour, illegally "tax-free" labour (clandestine?). That damages the state and it's social institutions (the state loses two tax opportunities), and the job opportunities for all other people who follow the legal channels.
Herohammernostalgia wrote:well, someone might actually ask LESS money for a job to improve his chances to be hired.
I wrote what I wrote, because there is the notion in many western countries, that foreign labour is cheaper, hence more in demand for employers. That is because prices of living can be very different depending on the country. For example, a Czech could have a better life with Dutch minimum wage when he returns to his homeland with his earnings than a Dutchman staying where he is with the same salary. This is the cause of anxiety for many "native people" as said Czech might ask less money for his work, knowing he could have a good life with less money than the Dutchman entitled to a certain minimum or standard rate of pay.
Wouldn't the logical move be for the Dutchman then be to move to the Czech Republic? (Ha! Almost said Czechoslovakia!) And for the people in the Czech Republic to raise prices where they can (do to the influx of new income)?
I have no doubt that the cost of living in China is lower than it is in America (Meal for five costs $10? Sweet!), but they still don't have the actual purchasing power that the average American in America (or person of another wealthy nation in that nation) would likely have. Most impoverished Americans have cable, if I recall. A lot more people own cars, food is a lot less of their budget, etc.
In that sense, the people living in poorer countries should theoretically deserve a wage somewhere between their actual wage and the wages paid in wealthier nations.
I know pretty sure that official labour, i.e. through job/employment centres are following local laws on employment and salaries. More concern should be aimed at black market labour, illegally "tax-free" labour (clandestine?). That damages the state and it's social institutions (the state loses two tax opportunities), and the job opportunities for all other people who follow the legal channels.
I agree that it's never good for criminals to benefit while law abiding citizens suffer, but I don't see why anyone should be unable to sell their labor for a specific price. Much like drug-dealing and the like, it's never easy to come in and stop two consenting adults from agreeing to exchange things.
What you say, I can't deny to be a valid opinion. Sure he could [move to the Czech Republic], but if he will work there, his mobility to move back or visit his homeland is reduced. Raising prices and wages will take a long time to 1) be accepted, 2) take effect. In the mean time, the potential problem remains. In addition, those who complain about immigrant labour have little international mobility to start with. It's moving an issue to another place, rather than a solution. In addition, Europe is very different from the USA, few countries speak the same language, and a lot of foreign languages are not part of school curriculi. Teaching in the language might be unavailable or expensive. A Texan will have an easier time migrating to, say, Massachussets than a Dutchman in Poland or Spain were few people speak foreign languages the Dutchman might know (french, English, German)
Immigrating to a cheaper country with lower wages seems a bit counter-intuitive, or do you mean "work in the Netherlands, live in the Czech Republic"? I find that a big hassle just to save money...
Purchasing power is quite local in most cases, it does affect imported goods but it it's effect is far more national than international. besides, prices could be lower, wages are too, so it's not very effective to migrate to low-wage/price countries. Chinese, indeed earn very little money, and they obviously pay less to just live. Domestic luxuries are priced accordingly too.
I'm not at all against immigrant labour, but if immigrants are allowed to do a job cheaper, it's unfair to the local unemployed.
Herohammernostalgia wrote:I'm not at all against immigrant labour, but if immigrants are allowed to do a job cheaper, it's unfair to the local unemployed.
You could look at it that way for sure. I would not go so far as to call it unfair, mainly because business has always worked in this fashion; only recently have people been getting "fair pay for fair work". You can look back over the last century alone, and see how drastically things have changed.
Regardless of these changes though, large companies have adapted accordingly. In construction, labor goes for about 10$/hour, at least for a simple job, or a stady job (20$ is nice, but half the work is most definitely not). If someone hired a migrant worker for less than that, I would say that those people, are in fact the real problem. It has less to do with competition in the field, and more to do with a lot of consumers not giving so much as a flying feck, as long as they save a lot of money in the process. The reason that you and I, can now get massive TV's, and computer monitors, is because a bunch of companies, took their business (in part) to cheaper workers, simply to make money, and in turn, change that money into progress.
When you see a person working harder than you, it is fair to assume that you should be trying to compete for whatever work there is in that field. The problem with this, is that for an average native, of relatively comfy origins (as in, not whatever country the immigrants are coming from, for lack of work), it can be realistically impossible to do so. Essentially, the cheaper goods get, the cheaper the labor becomes. This is most definitely not in proportion to the bottom line in most cases, but it does often lead to relatively efficient economies. You run into problems, when massive companies, make massively stupid decisions, and that is basically where we are right now.
Unionizing is simply not the answer, and even though minimum wage is outrageously low, people that take those jobs out of necessity are not really a major part of the problem. I really don't mind that there is no work at McDonalds for me, just that a plethora of other problems, create a very, extremely nasty job market; where a lot of people simply scramble for work, and the cheaper bids are usually the ones to get the work. I prize quality and forethought, the problem is that a lot of consumers (basically most) could give a rat's ass, as long as whatever they are getting is as "good" as the next persons, "thing'... people like shiny stuff, and they like it incredibly cheap.
@Albatross: However the increase in asylum seekers is quite small, around 400 people from all walks of life. Yes the immigration numbers are growing, they always have and always will, what matters is the rate of growth. Raising the bar for immigration eligibility and repatriating criminal and illegal immigrants are good ideas. Closing the borders every time there’s an unemployment spike (of which this one is certainly not as bad as the previous one in the early 90s) is not. Accents don’t count because there’s no guarantee that the person you’re talking to is not a British citizen.
So these sweeping statements that you posted are neither racism nor trolling? You’ve externalised your employment problems onto another group (immigrants) and you post these comments knowing full well they will get a reaction. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
@GS - I don't advocate closing the borders, only being more selective about who we let in, I'm not suggesting we implement anything that is not already in place in several countries (Australia and USA spring to mind). You don't stop being an immigrant after obtaining a British passport, either - so the citizenship point you raised is irrelevant.
And if wanting British jobs to go to British people makes me a racist, I suggest you stop reading Guardian articles and have a lie down. I am the only British employee in my workplace (I'm working part-time whilst at Uni as a mature student), and there are currently around 3 million britons who are unemployed. Am I racist if this makes me uncomfortable? Who are you to say that? What makes you my moral authority? Did I miss that email?
I'm not the only person in the UK concerned about immigration - read a newspaper.
1. All EU citizens have the right to reside and work in other EU member states. This also benefits Brits who want to go and work abroad.
Obviously not everyone agrees this is ideal, however there will be some very heavy political lifting to be done to get us out of our treaty obligations.
Without some clear plan of how to do this and a good idea of how it will affect everything (Brits being denied work abroad, for example) it's useless to worry about this aspect of immigration.
2. Immigration has been tightened by the skill points system similar to what is used in the US and Australia.
3. It has also been reduced by the fall in the value of the £, which makes the UK a much less attractive place to work in and send money home to Poland or wherever. Most immigrants are moving on economic reasons. If they home country could be made a better place to live and work, they would not be so keen to come to the UK. (Clearly not an easy fix!)
3. We can't automatically give preference to British born workers if they are low skilled. Some rather high percentage of schoolchildren leaves English schools semi-literate/numerate and this does not fit them for work in the modern economy.
Whilst it isn't their fault, to deny businesses the chance to employ well educated foreigners does not address the core problem and probably makes things worse by dragging down UK productivity.
4. There is a certain amount of illegal immigration going on. This needs to be effectively addressed or it acts as a poisonous wedge issue for the whole thing.
Or, they could do the hard, but far better job and at least fix it in the European Union as a whole, and later, the UN too! It would solve so many problems...
Herohammernostalgia wrote:What you say, I can't deny to be a valid opinion. Sure he could [move to the Czech Republic], but if he will work there, his mobility to move back or visit his homeland is reduced. Raising prices and wages will take a long time to 1) be accepted, 2) take effect. In the mean time, the potential problem remains.
I still think a chance to increase the standard of living is worth pursuing, even if it's being pursued slowly.
In addition, those who complain about immigrant labour have little international mobility to start with. It's moving an issue to another place, rather than a solution.In addition, Europe is very different from the USA, few countries speak the same language, and a lot of foreign languages are not part of school curriculi. Teaching in the language might be unavailable or expensive. A Texan will have an easier time migrating to, say, Massachussets than a Dutchman in Poland or Spain were few people speak foreign languages the Dutchman might know (french, English, German)
True, there's some loss inherent in trying to move between two places; learning the language is one example, the plant ticket there is another.
Still, this should effect both the Czech going to the Netherlands and the Dutchman going to the Czech Republic equally. The only reason you would move is if you had a lot to gain; enough to overcome the inconvenience of moving.
Immigrating to a cheaper country with lower wages seems a bit counter-intuitive, or do you mean "work in the Netherlands, live in the Czech Republic"? I find that a big hassle just to save money...
Isn't it natural that flexibility in where you're willing to work/live will result in being able to pursue the most amount of wealth? I mean, if you really like staying where you are, then you may value that over a chance for more money; but that's just the choice you often have to make. It's the same as me being, say, offered a job in California. I don't particularly want to move there, so that would factor into my decision of taking it.
Purchasing power is quite local in most cases, it does affect imported goods but it it's effect is far more national than international. besides, prices could be lower, wages are too, so it's not very effective to migrate to low-wage/price countries. Chinese, indeed earn very little money, and they obviously pay less to just live. Domestic luxuries are priced accordingly too.
I'm not sure what you're saying here; what I'm saying is that even if you factor in the difference in the price of living, there are countries that a are poorer and richer than others. A loaf of bread might cost less in Russia, but your average American can still buy more loaves.
Wrexasaur wrote:You could look at it that way for sure. I would not go so far as to call it unfair, mainly because business has always worked in this fashion; only recently have people been getting "fair pay for fair work". You can look back over the last century alone, and see how drastically things have changed.
Regardless of these changes though, large companies have adapted accordingly. In construction, labor goes for about 10$/hour, at least for a simple job, or a stady job (20$ is nice, but half the work is most definitely not). If someone hired a migrant worker for less than that, I would say that those people, are in fact the real problem. It has less to do with competition in the field, and more to do with a lot of consumers not giving so much as a flying feck, as long as they save a lot of money in the process.
But workers are consumers as well. If a farmer gets less money, but people buying food are paying less, than is it a good thing or a bad thing over all? (You'd have to see how much money was gained and lost. Usually when this kind of thing happens, though, it's a net gain.)
Herohammernostalgia wrote:Or, they could do the hard, but far better job and at least fix it in the European Union as a whole, and later, the UN too! It would solve so many problems...
The EU is a very long project in which the rich nations (France, Germany, UK, Holland, etc.) give money to the poor nations (Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc) much of which is invested in infrastructure, boosts their economy and stops them being poor. The Germans have also been contributing to the development of what used to be East Germany.
You'll notice that Ireland and Spain, (Greece and Portugal not so much) have been immensely boosted over the past few decades, and one hopes might now be ready to contribute to the task of funding the development of more recent accession countries like Romania and Poland.
@Killkrazy - Do I remember correctly that the points system is a relatively recent development? It'll be intersting to see how that pans out. It probably would have made sense to have had it in place before Poland etc. joined the union. D'oh!
How does everyone feel about 'President Blair'? Do you feel as full of dread as I do?
I don't want to 'keep out Poles'! I was afraid that it wouldn't prefer free movement between EU states, though.
Just read the UK Border Agency site - it said that migrants from recently-joined EU member-states still have to apply for permission to live in the UK. Interesting.
Albatross wrote:I suggest you stop reading Guardian articles... ...read a newspaper.
You really are the master of mixed messages aren't you. There's no value in an extended accusation/denial cycle. I'll pop back in if it gets interesting.
BTW: you forgot to refute the accusation of trolling.
Orkeo wrote:But workers are consumers as well. If a farmer gets less money, but people buying food are paying less, than is it a good thing or a bad thing over all? (You'd have to see how much money was gained and lost. Usually when this kind of thing happens, though, it's a net gain.)
The Farmers are not doing anything wrong when it comes down to it, and when you compare the number of farmers (I.E. jobs) to the number of people saving money, there is really no "moral" contest left. At any rate, the major issues are clearly with corporations like Monsanto, that are merely trying to GMO monocrop themselves into world power, which is basically where they are at now.
I would love to call some of my ideas about Monsantos plans science-fiction, but they would clearly work, and Monsanto would clearly take any option that benefited them beyond any moral ultimatum.
Well, I wasn't specifically referring to farmers. Just saying in general, making less in wages may not make you worse off if things become less expensive.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, I wasn't specifically referring to farmers. Just saying in general, making less in wages may not make you worse off if things become less expensive.
Agreed in general, I think I interpreted your post in the wrong way.
When goods universally stay cheap (nothing really goes backwards on the whole of it), wages don't "need" to go up much further. In the age of milk/gas doubling in cost over the past few years, while wages have stayed at a basic standstill; there is a verifiable problem in the way goods and services are flowing through the economy. As far as I can tell, marketing is getting bigger and bigger, with more and more money being poured into it, while the quality of the most basic of goods (soda for example) has gone down in general.
When was the last time you saw a can of soda for 50 cents? I had to be in elementary school the last time I saw that.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Dollar Tree was actually selling 4-packs of Stars and Stripes cola for $1 not too long ago. They were the big cans too, I was impressed.
I hate the kids size containers... what. the. feth. is. this. crap....
People like to say that Americans are overfed, and etc... which is pretty much true in a lot of cases. But seriously though, what the hell am I supposed to do with this thing? Am I on a plane? Do you have a real reason to be getting these things? Are you in the habit of throwing the last third of a regular sized bottle of water out?
They have to be designed for kids, because it just makes no sense at all otherwise... none. nadda. zilch. dont. buy. these.
These bottles, have single-handedly destroyed any good people have brought about by recycling. They are the anti-recycling bottle.
The packaging industry thanks you... profusely, and in many different ways. Like, for instance... more bottles.
Albatross wrote:I don't want to 'keep out Poles'! I was afraid that it wouldn't prefer free movement between EU states, though.
Just read the UK Border Agency site - it said that migrants from recently-joined EU member-states still have to apply for permission to live in the UK. Interesting.
That is another recently created rule. I don't know how 'legal' or effective it is. Perhaps they have to apply but permission is automatically granted. Perhaps it is simply waiting for someone to bring a suit, then the EU Court will crack down on the UK for violating the general EU rules.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Isn't it natural that flexibility in where you're willing to work/live will result in being able to pursue the most amount of wealth? I mean, if you really like staying where you are, then you may value that over a chance for more money; but that's just the choice you often have to make. It's the same as me being, say, offered a job in California. I don't particularly want to move there, so that would factor into my decision of taking it.
I agree with you, but in this ^ case, you don't have a language barrier. Few people in European countries, except the Nordic countries and the Low Countries, speak any foreign languages (and if so, it's usually just English and maybe French and/or German). It takes more effort to have good job opportunities in countries without mandatory English lessons in school. It works both ways, it's hard to work with someone who doesn't understand what you're saying. Sure, if someone really wants/needs to, he/she should make the attempt, learn the lingo, make the trip.
@Spiggott - I tried to bring this whole sorry affair to a close 2 pages ago! You made a nice job of twisting my words, though. Bravo.
@Killkrazy - I don't don't see the point of a points system if EU citizens are allowed to move freely between states. Part of the immigration problems we've had recently stem from the fact that the gov't underestimated the number of incoming economic migrants from new eastern-european member-states, isn't it? Thoughts?
Should anyone be allowed into to live in the UK, whether from the EU, the Congo or the secret bases on the Moon if they can't give a quick synopsis of "Confessions of a Window Cleaner" starring Robin Askwith in 100 words or less? Perhaps that should be on an immigration questionnaire.
Albatross wrote:@Spiggott - I tried to bring this whole sorry affair to a close 2 pages ago! You made a nice job of twisting my words, though. Bravo.
@Killkrazy - I don't don't see the point of a points system if EU citizens are allowed to move freely between states. Part of the immigration problems we've had recently stem from the fact that the gov't underestimated the number of incoming economic migrants from new eastern-european member-states, isn't it? Thoughts?
As far as I am aware, the points system is applied to foreigners from places like the USA or Japan, who don't have the legal right to live and work in the UK already. By showing they have sufficient qualifications to get a good job, they are given a working visa.
It's mainly for the benefit of the government being able to say they are doing something about immigration, since companies actively seeking foreign staff because British staff are under-qualified are naturally going to seek well qualified staff anyway.
While the government may well have underestimated the influx from eastern Europe, it is questionable how much that is a cause of any problems. For example, Kentish fruit farmers had trouble recruiting enough pickers this summer. Where were our 3 million native unemployed then? Polish workers have been returning home in droves, thanks to the decline in the value of the £.
On another tack, many cases of complaints about council housing being given to immigrants turn out to be wrong, when the facts are investigated closely. They are generated as much out of fear of outsiders as out of rational causes.
So the assumption is that "Immigration is a problem" without investigation into how, why, or how to address it, let alone if it is true, or how much of it to allow, on what basis.
@Killkrazy - I personally think it's a population thing. If a country has one of the highest immigration rates in europe and a relatively small geographical area - is it wrong to be concerned? I'm not offering any solutions, but we shouldn't be afraid of the debate. I think the fact that I raised a few concerns based on my own personal experience, and was pretty much branded a racist speaks volumes. A racist witch-hunt won't do us any favours - that plays into the hands of fascists like the BNP.
What about all the lazy, degenerate, useless people from those places? You have to accurately represent all parts of a population.
Not really looking to fall out with anyone over Nick fething Griffin.
I think you will find that the lumpen-proles love a good squabble. 
