UKIP v BNP, no difference.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:16 pm

Some long-term European immigrants to Britain could be told to leave the country if UKIP gets into government and takes Britain out of the EU, the party’s candidate in the Rochester by-election has suggested.

Mark Reckless, the former Conservative MP, whose defection triggered the by-election, said that EU migrants who had lived in the UK for a long time would be considered “sympathetically” but others would only be allowed to stay for a transitional period.
His remarks, during an ITV debate in the constiutancy, were challenged by the Labour candidate, Naushabah Khan.
“Where would you stop, Mark? My family are migrants, are we going to say they need to go back as well?” she asked Mr Reckless.
Mr Reckless failed to answer her question but added: “What we would want to do is to look at new people coming in ‎and apply a consistent Australian-style points system, and the same to people coming from Europe as we do to those coming from say the Commonwealth, from Australia, Africa, India, the Caribbean, we shouldn't have a discriminatory system which favours Europeans against people from outside."
Mr Reckless made his initial comments when he was challenged to spell out what would happen to a Polish plumber if Ukip had its way and Britain left the EU.
Loading gallery

“I think in the near term we’d have to have a transitional period, and I think we should probably allow people who are currently here to have a work permit at least for a fixed period,” he said.
Asked again whether this would mean a Polish plumber and his family could be deported, Reckless said: “People who have been here a long time and integrated in that way I think we’d want to look sympathetically at.”
He stressed that Ukip’s focus was on how to control numbers of new migrants and creating a system that did not discriminate in favour of EU migrants against non-EU migrants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rochester-byelection-mark-reckless-warns-longterm-eu-migrants-could-be-told-to-leave-britain-if-ukip-gets-into-government-9869712.html

by Eilzel Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:32 pm

The only difference is presentation, and UKIPs presentation has suckered a fair few more people than BNP managed.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:41 pm

Eilzel wrote:The only difference is presentation, and UKIPs presentation has suckered a fair few more people than BNP managed

Hi Eilzel

I think it is blatantly clear after the second question as to whether this would also mean non-EU immigrants, that they would make many people leave.
Clearly the party is based on a ugly repungent immigration policy, no doubt one that they claim is fair, a smoke screen but one clearly, that will be based upon skin colour and cultures that they view as acceptable.

A fairer immigration system my arse.
It would be "welcome to Britains Berlin wall."

Thank goodness they will never entertain the hope of power and to be honest I am sick and tired of the ugly talk around discrmination, it is all you ever here. To the point societies do not look for the best way forward to integrate but look for reasons to go backwards by pandering to selfish xenophobes.

by stardesk Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:47 pm

Afternoon folks. Brasidas, I don't think the migrants issue is xenphobic. Surely it is more to do with curtailing the number of migrants, whatever race, from coming here. Please be realistic, this is only a small country and we can't keep taking them in by the thousands. Europeans are coming here in droves every day because they see us as a soft touch with money handouts, free food banks and lord knows what else. Some people have said our men don't want to work and migrants fill the spaces, well there's an easy solution, if our own people refuse a job offered the then stop all benefits. Housing is another factor: Councils are having to build more and more estates to house a growing population. It's getting so bad that food-fields are being used for building, as well as some Green sites. If we curtail migrants then there will be more houses available for our own young people who are looking for somewhere to live.

I'm not being biased, racial or prejudiced but realistic, looking at the situation with an open mind.

by nicko Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:20 pm

Star, you put your concerns very concisely, unfortunately, some will never understand your, and others worries, they will put you into that special box reserved for Racists, BNP idiots and anyone else who thinks we are a Country as big as America with room for all. Just to make it clear I think anyone who has a legitimate right to be in this country should stay here, any that don't should go back where they came from. All immigration to this country should be stopped except for those with skills that are useful. I repeat, ALL here lawfully will remain.

by nicko Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:26 pm

PS I would like to make clear, skilled workers WHATEVER their colour!!

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:36 pm

stardesk wrote:Afternoon folks. Brasidas, I don't think the migrants issue is xenphobic. Surely it is more to do with curtailing the number of migrants, whatever race, from coming here. Please be realistic, this is only a small country and we can't keep taking them in by the thousands. Europeans are coming here in droves every day because they see us as a soft touch with money handouts, free food banks and lord knows what else. Some people have said our men don't want to work and migrants fill the spaces, well there's an easy solution, if our own people refuse a job offered the then stop all benefits. Housing is another factor: Councils are having to build more and more estates to house a growing population. It's getting so bad that food-fields are being used for building, as well as some Green sites. If we curtail migrants then there will be more houses available for our own young people who are looking for somewhere to live.

I'm not being biased, racial or prejudiced but realistic, looking at the situation with an open mind.

But the problem is Stardesk, telling people who have lived here and made there lives to leave is not about restricting immigration, of which I do not back restricting either, as the view point behind such a view is nothing more than people being selfish to sharing a land they themelves were only lucky enough to be born into.
I know you are not prejudiced, but the very fact that over 50% of UKIP supporters who were polled back the view to persuade immigrants and thier children born here to leave, which is born very much from racial and xenophobic views. The very fact that these same people of which was also polled, believed that Brits should be able to migrate within the EU to work. It shows the complete hypocrisy and views of UKIP supporters, where its okay to work in the EU if you are British, but for the door to remain shut to Britain for other EU migrants.

The very fact this ugliness, as it is very ugly to allow a society to view immigration with a view to fear, is promoting the view that humans cannot live along side each other, based off an illusion that we are different to the point of Non-compatibility, which is nonsense, as any human has the capability to get along. There are genuine people concerned about the levels of immigration, but again all are born from a selfish stand point of wanting to only look after people born to land, which there is an imaginary boundary set to. The reality is with as seen a sizeable amount of UKIP supporters who clearly are being pandered to from nothing more than their xenopobia. There is again no reason that people cannot get along and you do not deal with a problerm, by pushing this away, but by dealing with why there can be tension by resolving issues.

The claim to soft touch is complete nonsense also because those taking advantage on benefits is so small it is embarressing for some to even claim to use this as a means to deny EU immigration, where in fact vastly more are in employment. Where again in fact as stated before it was becuase of a poor lazy culture of some in thic country by those who were claiming benefits being better off, which created the influx of immigration in the first place. Many industries were crying out for people to fill gaps and as seen there was a benefit culture here where many were not willing to take on these roles. These same people are the ones today moaning about immigration, all of which the system and they created.

So yes the immigration debate is based very much on xenophobix and selfishness, all of which I find that a society acting this way is not going forward, but very much backward.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:44 pm

nicko wrote:Star, you put your concerns very concisely, unfortunately, some will never understand your, and others worries, they will put you into that special box reserved for Racists, BNP idiots and anyone else who thinks we are a Country as big as America with room for all. Just to make it clear I think anyone who has a legitimate right to be in this country should stay here, any that don't should go back where they came from. All immigration to this country should be stopped except for those with skills that are useful. I repeat, ALL here lawfully will remain.

You are missing the point, this is about sending back people who do have a right to be here, having worked here and are lawful. To the point this which you seem unable to grasp can mean anyone being sent back based on a completely appalling system, where the goal posts are so wide, it would be used to remove countless people a party stipulates it does not like.

So maybe you can make me understand, how it is morally or ethically right to be selfish to deny people to live abnd share the land you live on, but do not own? How is it morally or ethically right to wish to deny people to share the land, based on your needs and not everyones needs, including theirs? Your only claim, something mythical concept called birth right. .

by eddie Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:41 pm

stardesk wrote:Afternoon folks. Brasidas, I don't think the migrants issue is xenphobic. Surely it is more to do with curtailing the number of migrants, whatever race, from coming here. Please be realistic, this is only a small country and we can't keep taking them in by the thousands. Europeans are coming here in droves every day because they see us as a soft touch with money handouts, free food banks and lord knows what else. Some people have said our men don't want to work and migrants fill the spaces, well there's an easy solution, if our own people refuse a job offered the then stop all benefits. Housing is another factor: Councils are having to build more and more estates to house a growing population. It's getting so bad that food-fields are being used for building, as well as some Green sites. If we curtail migrants then there will be more houses available for our own young people who are looking for somewhere to live.

I'm not being biased, racial or prejudiced but realistic, looking at the situation with an open mind.

Absolutely spot on star.
I hate that we can't be worried about over-crowding and losing our Englishness without being called racist.

The truth is, unless one is in an area that is totally affected by immigration then one will never, ever, understand the very real worries that some of us have.

by Cass Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:48 pm

eddie wrote:
stardesk wrote:Afternoon folks. Brasidas, I don't think the migrants issue is xenphobic. Surely it is more to do with curtailing the number of migrants, whatever race, from coming here. Please be realistic, this is only a small country and we can't keep taking them in by the thousands. Europeans are coming here in droves every day because they see us as a soft touch with money handouts, free food banks and lord knows what else. Some people have said our men don't want to work and migrants fill the spaces, well there's an easy solution, if our own people refuse a job offered the then stop all benefits. Housing is another factor: Councils are having to build more and more estates to house a growing population. It's getting so bad that food-fields are being used for building, as well as some Green sites. If we curtail migrants then there will be more houses available for our own young people who are looking for somewhere to live.

I'm not being biased, racial or prejudiced but realistic, looking at the situation with an open mind.

Absolutely spot on star.
I hate that we can't be worried about over-crowding and losing our Englishness without being called racist.

The truth is, unless one is in an area that is totally affected by immigration then one will never, ever, understand the very real worries that some of us have.

so tell me Eds - how do you define Englishness? what are the components? you yourself mentioned in another thread that you have French Corsican grandparents (I have German English scots-Irish and Scandinavian) so how does that tie in with Englishness?

seriously not trying to cause a rumpus - (ive always been on record as saying both Usa and Uk need immigration reform and control) just genuine question. x

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:53 pm

Eddie it is also an illusion we are over crowded, being as only 7% of this country is urbanized, where in fact I did grow up in London, one of the most ethinically diverse cities there is going. Where again also it is the most tolerant to immigration. Where I still often visit family and friends.

So if I come from the most populated and diverse area, how is it, I certainly do not view London as overcrowded? What is Englishness, other than many ancient Brits adopting the name and adapting the cultures of many ethnic groups of people?

If Englishness represents being a club that denies others to join based on selfishness, one that seeks to abuse nationalism through again an illusion based on skin colours and languages, then it is not a club I think many would like to call themselves a member of. To me it is a club that is diverse, that is way abovbe many others in its diversity.

If we are led by what can only amount to selfish views we hold who can share a land we have no rights to claim is our own, then there is something fundementally wrong with the world.

by eddie Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:07 pm

Cass wrote:
eddie wrote:
stardesk wrote:Afternoon folks. Brasidas, I don't think the migrants issue is xenphobic. Surely it is more to do with curtailing the number of migrants, whatever race, from coming here. Please be realistic, this is only a small country and we can't keep taking them in by the thousands. Europeans are coming here in droves every day because they see us as a soft touch with money handouts, free food banks and lord knows what else. Some people have said our men don't want to work and migrants fill the spaces, well there's an easy solution, if our own people refuse a job offered the then stop all benefits. Housing is another factor: Councils are having to build more and more estates to house a growing population. It's getting so bad that food-fields are being used for building, as well as some Green sites. If we curtail migrants then there will be more houses available for our own young people who are looking for somewhere to live.

I'm not being biased, racial or prejudiced but realistic, looking at the situation with an open mind.

Absolutely spot on star.
I hate that we can't be worried about over-crowding and losing our Englishness without being called racist.

The truth is, unless one is in an area that is totally affected by immigration then one will never, ever, understand the very real worries that some of us have.

so tell me Eds - how do you define Englishness? what are the components? you yourself mentioned in another thread that you have French Corsican grandparents (I have German English scots-Irish and Scandinavian) so how does that tie in with Englishness?

seriously not trying to cause a rumpus - (ive always been on record as saying both Usa and Uk need immigration reform and control) just genuine question. x

Haha hiya Cass I don't mean marching around and munching on Yorkist puds saying "cod blimey Guv!" I mean things like teaching our history in school (which they do but not enough) and making more of a celebration of st George's day (in a primary school round here they made big deal out of Ede but st George's day got no mention!)

Also, ensuring there are enough houses - don't you think the majority should go to English people - (that includes any colour born and bred here btw) instead of people who have just arrived??

I wouldn't dream of going to another country and expect to be served above and over the people who had been born there!!!

by eddie Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:08 pm

Brasidas wrote:Eddie it is also an illusion we are over crowded, being as only 7% of this country is urbanized, where in fact I did grow up in London, one of the most ethinically diverse cities there is going. Where again also it is the most tolerant to immigration. Where I still often visit family and friends.

So if I come from the most populated and diverse area, how is it, I certainly do not view London as overcrowded? What is Englishness, other than many ancient Brits adopting the name and adapting the cultures of many ethnic groups of people?

If Englishness represents being a club that denies others to join based on selfishness, one that seeks to abuse nationalism through again an illusion based on skin colours and languages, then it is not a club I think many would like to call themselves a member of. To me it is a club that is diverse, that is way abovbe many others in its diversity.

If we are led by what can only amount to selfish views we hold who can share a land we have no rights to claim is our own, then there is something fundementally wrong with the world.

Didge I'm sorry, but some places here on the uk - and Essex where I live - are immensely over-crowded!
You cannot tell me differently until you have lived it. Sorry x

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:21 pm

eddie wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Eddie it is also an illusion we are over crowded, being as only 7% of this country is urbanized, where in fact I did grow up in London, one of the most ethinically diverse cities there is going. Where again also it is the most tolerant to immigration. Where I still often visit family and friends.

So if I come from the most populated and diverse area, how is it, I certainly do not view London as overcrowded? What is Englishness, other than many ancient Brits adopting the name and adapting the cultures of many ethnic groups of people?

If Englishness represents being a club that denies others to join based on selfishness, one that seeks to abuse nationalism through again an illusion based on skin colours and languages, then it is not a club I think many would like to call themselves a member of. To me it is a club that is diverse, that is way abovbe many others in its diversity.

If we are led by what can only amount to selfish views we hold who can share a land we have no rights to claim is our own, then there is something fundementally wrong with the world.

Didge I'm sorry, but some places here on the uk - and Essex where I live - are immensely over-crowded!
You cannot tell me differently until you have lived it. Sorry x

Yes I can, Malta is crowded, Gaza is overcrowded, Essex is not crowded in any comparison.
I have traveled extensively and lived in London myself for years when it was worse than today. Where there was too many high rise tower residential blocks, making it over crowded, of which many have been pulled down. I can understand the tubes, buses and trains being packed, that is due to infrastructure, but it never bothered me, it was part of London life.

These are just in my eyes excuses and London is only one part of the UK, where again only 7% is urbanized, I think some here need to actually take a trip to where it is crowded, and then they might understand how much space they really have.

Sorry.x

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:32 pm

eddie wrote:
Cass wrote:

so tell me Eds - how do you define Englishness? what are the components? you yourself mentioned in another thread that you have French Corsican grandparents (I have German English scots-Irish and Scandinavian) so how does that tie in with Englishness?

seriously not trying to cause a rumpus - (ive always been on record as saying both Usa and Uk need immigration reform and control) just genuine question. x

Haha hiya Cass I don't mean marching around and munching on Yorkist puds saying "cod blimey Guv!" I mean things like teaching our history in school (which they do but not enough) and making more of a celebration of st George's day (in a primary school round here they made big deal out of Ede but st George's day got no mention!)

Also, ensuring there are enough houses - don't you think the majority should go to English people - (that includes any colour born and bred here btw) instead of people who have just arrived??

I wouldn't dream of going to another country and expect to be served above and over the people who had been born there!!!

History is taught, the problem is the lack of interest in history itself, which most of which is also down to parents teaching the history of this nation itself. The lack of knowledge of history I have seen by people our own generations, shows there is a vast lack of interest in history itself.

St George day would be good, but the problem is in this country of having two identities, one British the other English, it divides the identity, where to much belief has been placed on Britishness and not Englishness.

Again your argument is based around birth right and not that we are humans. Houses should go to those who most need them, not off some illusion on birth right. Would you give your house to the first born or share it between both? You see when you apply the same logic to most things we do in daily life, we would never advocate the same, yet when it comes to sharing this country, people believe they can deny others, off no given right we have. I mean basically you want to advantage English people not off anything they have done, but just because they were lucky to be born onto a land. To me it is such s false concept.

If people want to celebrate a religious holiday, that is up to the, why should that been denied because we are utterly awful at celebrating our own? Lets face some home truths here, we can celebrate St George's day, but many people are not bothered to.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:33 pm

This country took in more migrants last year than any other EU countries.
190,000, predominantly from India, Pakistan and Nigeria. that's as well as all those who entered from other EU countries.
We are full. There is no money to provide the infrastructure needed to support these large numbers of immigrants.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:39 pm

Nems wrote:This country took in more migrants last year than any other EU countries.
190,000, predominantly from India, Pakistan and Nigeria. that's as well as all those who entered from other EU countries.
We are full. There is no money to provide the infrastructure needed to support these large numbers of immigrants.

Gaza is full, the UK is 7% urbanized, that is not even a quarter full.
So what if we took in many students that cam here to pay high course fees and enjoy one of the best education systems in the world. So what if people want to come here and have a new life, just as millions of Brits have done over the last few decades starting a new life elsewhere, they all have a right.
Just because you are born to a land Nems, none of which you created the situation you have benefited off, means you have a right to deny others.

These views are views which just do not use with our own friends and family, we share, but when it comes to sharing a land only 7% urbanized people become extremely selfish and wish to deny others. It is nothing more than complete double standards, sorry.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:44 pm

Sorry but nobody can even begin to tell me what it is like to be overcrowded, when I grew up in a maisonette, with at one point, 13 of us living in this and it was some of the best times of my life.
5 boys sharing a room, it was a laugh a minute, and even though we may have fought at times, it created a strong bond between us all, one none of us would have changed even given the chance.

by nicko Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:53 pm

Didge, 7% is total rubbish, it would not be if spread all over the country but it's not. Some towns in the east are as much as 40- 60 in migrants favour [ remember my uncle ] you should do, you said he was lying out of his arse,and he lives there. you are not allways right mate, remember you argued blind crime was going down,we now know they were fiddling the figures,. not reporting certain crimes. Sorry didge ijust can't believe you. That is just my opinion mate.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:05 pm

nicko wrote:Didge, 7% is total rubbish, it would not be if spread all over the country but it's not. Some towns in the east are as much as 40- 60 in migrants favour [ remember my uncle ] you should do, you said he was lying out of his arse,and he lives there. you are not allways right mate, remember you argued blind crime was going down,we now know they were fiddling the figures,. not reporting certain crimes. Sorry didge ijust can't believe you. That is just my opinion mate.

Er no it is not rubbish.

Five hundred experts analysed vast quantities of data and produced what they claim is the first coherent body of evidence about the state of Britain's natural environment.

Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

As debated, your relative was wrong, on every level about Boston, which proves very much so how the perception of many people in this country is not only poor but clearly based on the poor fuel inflamed media stories they read. Not only that what is wrong with living among people that speak a first language different to your own?
Nothing, these are again poor arguments used, when it might do some people some good to actually learn some other cultures and learn some other languages. They have this really lame view about the English language with even worse demanding that people speak it all the time, and this is when they are anywhere in the world.
On every level the views not to share take the view of one of fear, that the world population is getting bigger so lets close the doors, and ignore the problem, which will not solve the problem in any shape or form. It is again people viewing selfishly, that again being born to a land wrongly makes them feel they can deny other sharing the land of this planet. .
Crime has gone down year on year, on most aspects, that is a fact.
Just because the Police have not reported some, still adding this to the ones that were recorded still shows it is down, not up, plus you have other measures showing it has continued to fall.

It really disappoints me when people use the most feeble inaccurate arguments to try and deny others living and sharing this land .

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:08 pm

Latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that, for the offences it covers, there were an estimated 7.1 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 16 and over) in England and Wales for the year ending June 2014. This represents a 16% decrease compared with the previous year’s survey, and is the lowest estimate since the survey began in 1981.

The CSEW covers a broad range of victim based crimes and includes crimes which do not come to the attention of the police. Decreases were evident for all major crime types compared with the previous year; violence saw a 23% fall, criminal damage fell by 20%, and theft offences decreased by 12%.

In contrast, police recorded crime shows no overall change from the previous year, with 3.7 million offences recorded in the year ending June 2014. Prior to this, police recorded crime figures have shown year on year reductions since 2003/04.

The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording is likely to have prompted improved compliance with national standards in some police forces, leading to more crimes being recorded. This is thought to have particularly affected the police recorded figures for violence against the person (up 11%) and public order offences (up 6%).
The number of police recorded shoplifting offences showed a 5% increase compared with the previous year. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this rise is more likely to be a result of a genuine increase in crime rather than any change in recording practice.
There was also an increase in the volume of fraud recorded (8% year on year), though it is difficult to judge to what extent that reflected an improvement in recording practices, an increase in public reports or a rise in actual criminality. It is thought that levels of fraud are thought to be substantially under-reported and thus these figures simply provide a measure of such offences brought to the attention of the authorities.
Sexual offences recorded by the police saw a 21% rise from the previous year and continues the pattern seen in recent publications. Current, rather than historic, offences account for the majority of the increase in sexual offences (73% within the last 12 months). Despite these recent increases, it is known that sexual offences are subject to a high degree of under-reporting.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-june-2014/stb-crime-stats--year-ending-june-2014.html

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:10 pm

In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.

Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%.

Their conclusion?

In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is…

… 2.27%

Over crowded my arse.

by eddie Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:28 pm

Brasidas wrote:Sorry but nobody can even begin to tell me what it is like to be overcrowded, when I grew up in a maisonette, with at one point, 13 of us living in this and it was some of the best times of my life.
5 boys sharing a room, it was a laugh a minute, and even though we may have fought at times, it created a strong bond between us all, one none of us would have changed even given the chance.

Although I know you mean every word and it does sound lovely, it's not a very good comparison as to what we are taking about.

Didge, so many people who leave school now can't jobs! That's because there aren't any!
Come on, surely you can see that at some point you have to shut the gates somewhat.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:35 pm

eddie wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Sorry but nobody can even begin to tell me what it is like to be overcrowded, when I grew up in a maisonette, with at one point, 13 of us living in this and it was some of the best times of my life.
5 boys sharing a room, it was a laugh a minute, and even though we may have fought at times, it created a strong bond between us all, one none of us would have changed even given the chance.

Although I know you mean every word and it does sound lovely, it's not a very good comparison as to what we are taking about.

Didge, so many people who leave school now can't jobs! That's because there aren't any!
Come on, surely you can see that at some point you have to shut the gates somewhat.

Yes this is true that people are leaving schools not finding work, but is that because of immigration or the system Eddie?
Again this mass influx of people was created by an element of the British population being work shy (or more like lazy), knowing they were better off on benefits than working, which created the need for employers to seek people else where to fill job vacancies, and yet the immigrants are blamed for this, for actually coming here to work from the EU. That is wrong on every level.

No I do not see at some point you have to shut the gates. Is that really a solution Eddie?
On every level that is just attempting to provide a short term solution to a global problem, it would never hope to achieve solving the problem itself, which again is a view born from "I am alright Jack, fuck everyone else".
Seriously it is a flawed concept, we do not look at the real problems, which is the system itself an how to tackle the rising populations of the world. If every nation on this earth Eddie took the approach of just looking after themselves, then there would be global economic meltdown, followed by mass rioting and starvation, as this country has never been able to sustain itself on its on resources for years now.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:45 pm

By the way it was a better comparison, have you shared a house with one toilet bathroom Eddie, there being 13 of you using this one facility? How many around a dinner table? Enough chairs to sit on?
That is crowded, so I find it poor when people make views they are crowded when as seen they have not even lived in a crowded situation. Spending a couple of house on a train or tube each day, is far removed from actually living this daily 24/7.

You make the most of the situation, so again I find the views to crowded, completely and utterly false, based around the fact this nation is hardly even urbanized. It shows again the poor perceptions people have.

by eddie Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:20 pm

Didge I do take on board all your comments, I truly so, as I am very torn at times, between your arguments and my own (as it were)
I have no problem with other cultures as you know. Could I turn away a needy family because of over-crowding? NO I could not.

But.

There is a shortage of jobs and houses due to the country being over-crowded, which is why in the fifties and sixties and seventies and even the eighties to a point, there was more of everything to go round.

There's only one reason for that: over crowding and too many people coming in.

Do I care if my child gets less than someone else's, someone who wasn't born here? Yes I bloody care!

There's a real,shortage of housing in my area didge and it's no coincidence that we have had a massive, hugely massive influx of Eastern Europeans.

So no, I have never shared a bathroom with 13 people, but you don't live my life either, in all due respect.

I'm torn. I see your points and I agree with them.
But I see my surroundings and my children's future...and I worry.

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:36 pm

eddie wrote:Didge I do take on board all your comments, I truly so, as I am very torn at times, between your arguments and my own (as it were)
I have no problem with other cultures as you know. Could I turn away a needy family because of over-crowding? NO I could not.

But.

There is a shortage of jobs and houses due to the country being over-crowded, which is why in the fifties and sixties and seventies and even the eighties to a point, there was more of everything to go round.
That is no a reason to deny others, we go back to the elitist view point of birth right Eddie, that is no reason to deny others the opportunity for jobs

There's only one reason for that: over crowding and too many people coming in.
It is not the country being over crowded, but the system not accommodating for the people, which is to blame, and we can certainly build more infrastructure as there is plenty of space to do so

Do I care if my child gets less than someone else's, someone who wasn't born here? Yes I bloody care!
How will they get less? They have the same chances as everyone else, in fact they are far more advantaged over many other people from other nations, none of which any of us here created, we ere just again lucky enough to be born here, where we think we should be given preference over others. To me that is wrong on every level. The vast majority of parents want the best for the children and all should be given a chance, not some denied because they were not born here, even though they are working paying into the system

There's a real,shortage of housing in my area didge and it's no coincidence that we have had a massive, hugely massive influx of Eastern Europeans.
There has been a shortage of housing for yeas because most were sold off to council tenants, showing you are again looking at the wrong reasons for the problem Eddie. It was consecutive Governments who have not reacted to the problem of when the vast majority of these houses were sold off. It helped many people obtain owning properties but left a vast shortage on housing. That is not the Eastern European faults and they are entitled to cheaper housing also, because they come here to work. Seriously, if you go off the fact some people have never even bothered to work, should they thus be last in the que as they have paid less into the system than even many EU immigrants? How about children Eddie, the contribution of parents is even less to pay, than it is for childless people. If you want to go down the road of levels of input and even worse on birth right, you would then have to thus do so on levels of input, which would placed those in most need at the bottom of the que. You want to allow people solely on birth right alone to have housing over others who actually work? Is that really fair? I do not think so, it should go to those who most need

So no, I have never shared a bathroom with 13 people, but you don't live my life either, in all due respect.

I'm torn. I see your points and I agree with them.
But I see my surroundings and my children's future...and I worry.

Yes it should be a future that the world works together in Eddie. I see no reason not to allow people to work here and the need of migrants if=s going to be even greater as this population ages, where by 2050, a quarter of the population will be over 65 and we will not have enough to cater and look after such an older population. It is not just about our children Eddie, but countless others too. Many do not see the bigger picture, where the world is only centered on what directly affects them. Again we have to get passed centuries old illusions where people think they have more rights over someone else based on birth right, it should be based on needs, and birth right is not one of them

by jaceylacey Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:44 pm

Brasidas wrote:
eddie wrote:

Didge I'm sorry, but some places here on the uk - and Essex where I live - are immensely over-crowded!
You cannot tell me differently until you have lived it. Sorry x

Yes I can, Malta is crowded, Gaza is overcrowded, Essex is not crowded in any comparison.
I have traveled extensively and lived in London myself for years when it was worse than today. Where there was too many high rise tower residential blocks, making it over crowded, of which many have been pulled down. I can understand the tubes, buses and trains being packed, that is due to infrastructure, but it never bothered me, it was part of London life.

These are just in my eyes excuses and London is only one part of the UK, where again only 7% is urbanized, I think some here need to actually take a trip to where it is crowded, and then they might understand how much space they really have.

Sorry.x

We are not in Malta, the Middle East or anywhere else. I too lived in London and moved to Essex because of mass immigration. I do not want my current home town to end up the same.

As for us being not overcrowded if that is the case why are there so many people on the waiting lists for homes? Why are there not enough jobs, hospital places or school places.

Sorry but you are way out with your argument.

by nicko Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:46 pm

by Guest Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:51 pm

jaceylacey wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Yes I can, Malta is crowded, Gaza is overcrowded, Essex is not crowded in any comparison.
I have traveled extensively and lived in London myself for years when it was worse than today. Where there was too many high rise tower residential blocks, making it over crowded, of which many have been pulled down. I can understand the tubes, buses and trains being packed, that is due to infrastructure, but it never bothered me, it was part of London life.

These are just in my eyes excuses and London is only one part of the UK, where again only 7% is urbanized, I think some here need to actually take a trip to where it is crowded, and then they might understand how much space they really have.

Sorry.x

We are not in Malta, the Middle East or anywhere else. I too lived in London and moved to Essex because of mass immigration. I do not want my current home town to end up the same.

As for us being not overcrowded if that is the case why are there so many people on the waiting lists for homes? Why are there not enough jobs, hospital places or school places.

Sorry but you are way out with your argument.

You are though on one piece of land called the UK, which you seem to have decided you now own, when you do not. You like many people are just born luckily into a society which you have advantaged from.
Waiting lists is again down to the system, which has already been explained, where again the population is still going to grow and you need houses for all people. Again what places you above somebody else would be based on need and birth right is not a moral or ethical need.
So I m afraid you are ethically and morally wrong in your argument because this is one planet where we should all pool together resources, of which this country cannot sustain itself without outside help.
Your view point is based on helping your self and not the world and thus any view you provide will be ethically and morally wrong.

by jaceylacey Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:57 pm

Brasidas wrote:
jaceylacey wrote:

We are not in Malta, the Middle East or anywhere else. I too lived in London and moved to Essex because of mass immigration. I do not want my current home town to end up the same.

As for us being not overcrowded if that is the case why are there so many people on the waiting lists for homes? Why are there not enough jobs, hospital places or school places.

Sorry but you are way out with your argument.

You are though on one piece of land called the UK, which you seem to have decided you now own, when you do not. You like many people are just born luckily into a society which you have advantaged from.
Waiting lists is again down to the system, which has already been explained, where again the population is still going to grow and you need houses for all people. Again what places you above somebody else would be based on need and birth right is not a moral or ethical need.
So I m afraid you are ethically and morally wrong in your argument because this is one planet where we should all pool together resources, of which this country cannot sustain itself without outside help.
Your view point is based on helping your self and not the world and thus any view you provide will be ethically and morally wrong.

On another thread you are complaining about the British Empire invading other countries. So do we have a right to share the world or not?

by Guest Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:04 pm

jaceylacey wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

You are though on one piece of land called the UK, which you seem to have decided you now own, when you do not. You like many people are just born luckily into a society which you have advantaged from.
Waiting lists is again down to the system, which has already been explained, where again the population is still going to grow and you need houses for all people. Again what places you above somebody else would be based on need and birth right is not a moral or ethical need.
So I m afraid you are ethically and morally wrong in your argument because this is one planet where we should all pool together resources, of which this country cannot sustain itself without outside help.
Your view point is based on helping your self and not the world and thus any view you provide will be ethically and morally wrong.

On another thread you are complaining about the British Empire invading other countries. So do we have a right to share the world or not?

I am not complaining about it, but pointing out this is an event in history. Much of which this country did gain from, so much so, it helped industrialized this nation to the point where a few innovative people helped advance this nation. None of which would have happened without colonial conquests.
That does not mean I am denying anyone but pointing out where your advantaged situation arose from, showing how some poorly perceive a view point people make, where they are attempting to deny others.
So if there is no ethical or moral view to use an elitist view to deny others based on birth right, then it should go to those who need most, not some illusion that people live by.
So I never stated you do not have a right to share the world and if people took the stance here not to share, this country would be screwed.

by Irn Bru Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:39 pm

London is a wonderful city and given that it used to be the largest port in the world it is no surprise that it is the most international city in the world. The Royal Group of Docks in the East end were massive with ships arriving and leaving there with cargoes from all over the world. Here's a short video of what it was like back in the 60s..

I flew into London City Airport a few years ago only to find that the runway for the airport is in fact right down the middle of the docks which are empty now with not a ship in sight.

UKIP v BNP, no difference. 9k=

by stardesk Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:16 pm

Anyone seen the news today? UKIP have won the Rochester by election by a considerable figure, once a strong Tory seat. I think a place like that demonstrates how we Brits are now thinking and reacting to our country's state of overloading.

Whislt we must applaud Brasidus' altruistic attitude towards all men,
and how we migrated all over the world, we are taliking about the state of our country in the here and now. The country and indigenous people surely cannot accomodate any more migrants.

by Guest Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:51 pm

stardesk wrote:Anyone seen the news today? UKIP have won the Rochester by election by a considerable figure, once a strong Tory seat. I think a place like that demonstrates how we Brits are now thinking and reacting to our country's state of overloading.

Whislt we must applaud Brasidus' altruistic attitude towards all men,
and how we migrated all over the world, we are taliking about the state of our country in the here and now. The country and indigenous people surely cannot accomodate any more migrants.

HI Stardesk

Again we are talking about the whole human race. This is the whole problem with views point today. People are going off a view, an old view, which will not solve the problem of the rising population in the world, or even in this country. To set limitations will only ever be a short term fix and is thus not solving the problem. It does not solve the problem with the system, which has failed people by not creating the infrastructure needed.
Einstein once said:

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

He is right, the same thinking created this problem, being blind to real problems, within the world itself
This country created the problem, based off selfishness, from those who refused to go and take a job when there was employers crying out for work. Did so selfishly off the belief the country should pay for them in benefits. Not understanding that every action has consequences. This does not also resolve any tension there is in some communities between those indigenous and foreign born with limits on immigration. In fact all the views to greatly control immigration fail on every single factor accept one, appeasing the mob. As that is what it feels like this is coming down to, mob rule. where people are pandering to those who wish to stoke up and increase the divide between people in this country, It is predicted that the population will peak around 2100 and start to gradually decline. In that time, one quarter of people will be over 65 in this country. We will thus need to continue with immigration levels, of which the vast majority of immigrants are young, thus resolving the need of more people to help the elderly. Not only this, great yet again another problem within many industries, where they will not be able to fill their vacancies and then the economy suffers..

There is so many things to consider, but we have to plan for how to deal with the population rise up until around 2100. It is no good again thinking only of this nation, because again if every nation took this approach, we would all be fucked. We are on the brink at the moment and to base views of views we have used before, selfishness, you will see vastly more problems appear, making many more people unhappy, all for the sake of appeasing some people and not working out instead how to learn where integration does work.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:33 am

Do we have a right to national identity?

Do we have a right to and need for national security?

Do we have a right to control our borders?

Do we have a right to choose who we allow into our country, to allow skilled workers in to fulfil specific skill shortages when needed and to deny others who are not needed here?

Do we have a right (and above all a responsibility to the British public) to deny foreign criminals from entering this country?

Do we live in a democracy where the will of the British people controls the national parliament and national policy?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107

The answer to all these questions is undeniably yes, and the will of the people is unmistakably clear as shown in last link.

So why do we have such a problem with these clear and simple things being implemented by our elected representatives in our national parliament???

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:21 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Do we have a right to national identity?
Irrelevant to whether people can move to a land

Do we have a right to and need for national security?
Irrelevant to whether people can move to a land where you use unfounded fear

Do we have a right to control our borders?
Irrelevant to whether people can move to a land because this is based on you now proclaiming you own the land and you are one person, again a selfish view point

Do we have a right to choose who we allow into our country, to allow skilled workers in to fulfil specific skill shortages when needed and to deny others who are not needed here?
No you do not, by the same reasoning, is now based on a discriminating view point where some people maybe lucky to be born elsewhere

Do we have a right (and above all a responsibility to the British public) to deny foreign criminals from entering this country?
We already do deny foreign criminals, if they are known, so that is a very idiotic point

Do we live in a democracy where the will of the British people controls the national parliament and national policy?
Democracy does not mean the people will decide the right view, ignorance as seen in history has led people to follow hate. We do not even really have democracy, as each decision would be voted on by the people, so you may want to understand what democracy is

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107

The answer to all these questions is undeniably yes, and the will of the people is unmistakably clear as shown in last link.
Incorrect as seen above they are based on the selfish needs of one individual yourself, neglecting the fact you have no ethical and moral right to deny people

So why do we have such a problem with these clear and simple things being implemented by our elected representatives in our national parliament???

Most of these measures are in place which is not even what the argument is making your view point very redundant.

Try again

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:35 pm

Spoken like a true 'progressive'.....

Only allowing the people to have a say when it I in line with the agenda, otherwise the people are ignored.

This is why people are no longer voting for the establishment parties lib lab con, who are all following the same agenda.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:56 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Spoken like a true 'progressive'.....

Only allowing the people to have a say when it I in line with the agenda, otherwise the people are ignored.

This is why people are no longer voting for the establishment parties lib lab con, who are all following the same agenda.

Spoken like a true person still living in the iron age, where your views are steeped in immoral an unethical views. Which seek to divide people and not unite them.
If it was not for progression, which saw to facilities to educate all children, you would not be educated and unable to read this reply.
Your party is very much like the establishment. They back down to public opinion on deep held views they have, basically manipulating voters into believing they will just give up on main principle views they have like for example the recent U-Turn on repatriation.
People are beginning to unwrap the lies UKIP are poorly trying to hide.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:35 pm

Have another read of my questions and your answers.....

Tell us what 'democracy' means?

The lies have been exposed alright!!!

The lies of the lib lab con cosy alliance who pretend to be democratic while all working against the will of the British people and following an alternative agenda!!!

The will of the people must be obeyed or else there will be an uprising, a revolution to regain control!

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:56 pm

True democracy would be allowing for everyone to vote on everything.

The fact is UKIP have been exposed to be lying and thus their selling point of being honest and different has also been exposed as a lie.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:29 pm

Lib lab con have been exposed to be liars who don't represent the views of the people but are pursuing an alternative agenda.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:33 pm

So have UKIP, so you are supporting something which is at odds with your ow views.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:38 pm

UKIP are representing my views just fine....

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:42 pm

Yet keep making U-Turns on them, those exposing them as liars and not honest, thus going against your argument on other parties.

You cannot have it both ways, you either have to concede that UKIP is no different to other parties as seen by the evidence proving they lie and make U-turns or you have to concede your principle on parties being different and honest, as UKIP have failed at that.

It is either one or the other

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:44 pm

Your accusation of u turns is false.

And you base the rest of your argument on this false premise.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:56 pm

No its not flalse, they have made U-turns on flat rate of tax, U-turn on repatriation which clearly Reckless strongly believed in, and one of the reasons he defected to UKIP.
That proves dishonesty an lies, through where they enticed him to defect. Or they are not lying to him and only lying to the public about dropping the view on repatriation in an attempt to fool people into still voting for them.

Again you cannot have it either way, they either lied to Reckless or they are now lying to the voters.
That is dishonesty being exposed.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:57 pm

Catch you later.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:33 pm

The flat rate tax was an idea that was floated, explored and dropped.

None of what you say is UKIP policy.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:30 pm

No it was part of their previous manifesto and was promoted in a by-election last year on leaflets.

Thus a complete U-Turn.

Again I notice you avoid the points I made which proved they are lying, as you cannot have it both ways.

Right catch you later.

by Sponsored content