K
Kathy
Guest
You mean it's not all true, Lee?
I must start buying it regularly to see if I agree.
How Many Foreigners Live There?
- Thread starter BrianH
- Start date
I must start buying it regularly to see if I agree.
A
Ardross
Guest
Who are the Daily Mail tendency, Ardross?
You didn't dare bitch about The Daily Mail on Ted's forum did you when Ray H mentioned he read something in it? I bet you feel "safer" to bitch on this forum though don't you surrounded by your "mates". How long until it is followed by the David Cameron jibe.
Pathetic. [/b][/quote]What are you talking about ? You are turning into a parody of yourself .
I have , like Krizon, had frequent spats on FF about the incredibly intolerant views posted in their Anything Goes section - they are a hopeless case( though full of likeable people whose views you just have to pass over) so i don't bother any more . I think Krizon has actually stopped posting over there .
h34r:
K
Kathy
Guest
Mine was an observation, Ardross. Don't worry, I'm not the only one to notice your double standards.
K
Kathy
Guest
The Daily Mail came up with some cracking quotes this year, albeit they are clearly all lies.
GORDON BROWN – The Next Prime Minister?
'My wife is from middle England, so I can relate to it' (Gordon Brown, The Mail on Sunday, 18 June 2006).
'It would be an absolute f*cking disaster if Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and I will do everything in my power to f*cking stop him' (A Government Minister, cited by Nick Robinson BBC Political Editor, reported to be John Hutton [Daily Mail, 9 September 2006], BBC Radio 4, Today, 8 September 2006).
Tax Burden
1998. 'I am not going to go for proposals that mean more tax and more spending' (Gordon Brown, Daily Mail, 31 July 1998).
ID Cards
2003. 'These figures [for ID cards] don’t add up. If it is approved like this you and other Ministers will have to pay heavily from your own budgets. You must realise that' (Gordon Brown, The Mail on Sunday, 9 November 2003).
GORDON BROWN – The Next Prime Minister?
'My wife is from middle England, so I can relate to it' (Gordon Brown, The Mail on Sunday, 18 June 2006).
'It would be an absolute f*cking disaster if Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and I will do everything in my power to f*cking stop him' (A Government Minister, cited by Nick Robinson BBC Political Editor, reported to be John Hutton [Daily Mail, 9 September 2006], BBC Radio 4, Today, 8 September 2006).
Tax Burden
1998. 'I am not going to go for proposals that mean more tax and more spending' (Gordon Brown, Daily Mail, 31 July 1998).
ID Cards
2003. 'These figures [for ID cards] don’t add up. If it is approved like this you and other Ministers will have to pay heavily from your own budgets. You must realise that' (Gordon Brown, The Mail on Sunday, 9 November 2003).
I haven't posted on Final Furlong for many months, although Ted said I'd always be welcomed back (but not by one or two, I think!). The tenor of FF is different to TH on several fronts. It's more blokey, far more punting-oriented, and while there are some cracking folks on there, fortunately they're on here, too! If I found myself visiting someone who didn't share my outlook on what I consider important issues to me, I wouldn't visit them any more. No big falling-out, just the acknowledgment that we were never going to get along, and that it's better to visit where you're more welcome than not, and find more like-minded people than not.
Which is why I'm leaving here...
:lol: tee-hee! Only joking!
Which is why I'm leaving here...
:lol: tee-hee! Only joking!
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
Debate for me is airing views and giving reasons for the thinking but, some cannot respect others views and cannot understand or appreciate that others can differ from theirs.
Suppose it is life though
Can there be a no go zone in 2007 for certain topics such as, religion, politics, fox hunting and Rooster Booster
Suppose it is life though
Can there be a no go zone in 2007 for certain topics such as, religion, politics, fox hunting and Rooster Booster
Ted
At the Start
If you've got 500 ducks, but you say that 475 of them are chickens, you might say that only 5% of your birds are ducks.
There will always be a few people who will believe you, but the people who know the difference between chickens and ducks will tell you you're talking total bollocks.
There will always be a few people who will believe you, but the people who know the difference between chickens and ducks will tell you you're talking total bollocks.
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
I suspect there is an analogy in there Ted but tis 10.20pm here and I'm soon to be away to my sack
K
Kathy
Guest
:blink: Ted, have you possibly overdosed on your flu remedy this evening?Originally posted by Ted@Dec 21 2006, 10:11 PM
If you've got 500 ducks, but you say that 475 of them are chickens, you might say that only 5% of your birds are ducks.
There will always be a few people who will believe you, but the people who know the difference between chickens and ducks will tell you you're talking total bollocks.
Ted
At the Start
My point is Kathy, that we give all our foreigners British citizenship, so now we can claim that they aren't foreign.
Having a look at the 'Who Do You Think You Are?' series on tv, which was fascinating, it seems that most of us are made from foreigners. Most of us have families which aren't purely English - 'British' is just a political construct, it's not a race of people. Depending on where our ancestors lived at the time of which invasion of these islands was taking place, many of us have Nordic or Italian ancestors. There are so many differences between being Scottish, or being Welsh, or being English, that 'being British' is a nonsense in any case.
Ted, you forget that we 'British' invaded huge chunks of the world and foisted our culture, religion, manners, and often our sperm upon the invaded nations. The natives didn't have much say in the matter, or, if they did, they were usually shot for their pains. We've messed up the bloodlines of a fair few countries' inhabitants, frequently by force, but at least this time round it's consensual.
Ted, you forget that we 'British' invaded huge chunks of the world and foisted our culture, religion, manners, and often our sperm upon the invaded nations. The natives didn't have much say in the matter, or, if they did, they were usually shot for their pains. We've messed up the bloodlines of a fair few countries' inhabitants, frequently by force, but at least this time round it's consensual.
Ted
At the Start
But it's not is it?
I don't recall the British public being asked if they wanted this invasion.
I don't recall the British public being asked if they wanted this invasion.
Look at the stats which Brian's provided, Ted - invasion? I'm afraid the problem is still that people WILL confuse the different types of incomers: economic migrants, immigrants, and asylum seekers. The latter's dropped a lot now to the UK, as parts of the world have either calmed down or been put under some sort of restraint. That tens of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing to Jordan doesn't concern the UK figures.
Within the category of economic migrant, you have people coming here to work, usually for a specific purpose or time. They're often seasonal workers who come to work in the catering/seaside/agricultural areas and depart home when they're work is done. Just the same as the thousands of British who depart to do exactly the same thing out of the UK - you mightn't realise that a huge amount of Dutch tulip-picking is done by fair English hands, yet the Dutch haven't yet lynched any of us for doing so, nor the French for helping out in the lavender fields, or any of the other countries which welcome people from these shores to work.
You also have workers from other Eastern Europe coming here for one, two, maybe a few years to work in usually crap jobs (street cleaning, litter-picking, 'facilities' cleaners, etc.) because even doing those jobs they earn four times more than they do with their University qualifications back home in Poland or the Ukraine. When they've amassed the money they want (and paid taxes on it, too) they may well return home to start up businesses and keep themselves and their families in much better conditions than could be managed on national rates of pay. A young Polish man aged 22, working in our local convenience store (and with excellent English language skills) earns just £4.65 an hour, not a job many of us on this forum would covet, I imagine, but twice what he could earn at home. He plans to spend 'a few years' here with his fiancee, also earning similarly, and then they can return to Poland, buy a very nice house, and be financially secure to either buy their own business or further their educations. You have any problems with that?
Immigration - that is, people who are admitted to reside permanently in the UK, are different. They'll be owning homes or businesses (and generating jobs in the process), taking out mortgages, paying Council tax, sending kids to schools and generating jobs indirectly by doing all of this. For example, suppose 25,000 people enter the UK to reside here permanently? They want homes: that means they either rent (money to UK landlords and more tax for the IR), or they buy (money to UK lenders and often to UK builders, money on furnishings to UK shops); they want a car or two (more money for the UK's show rooms), they may open a shop (rates paid to the Council, possibly generating a few local jobs) or any other business; they may have children (family shopping bills go to UK shops and stores, and schools get filled and not closed), and so on.
What is the problem with any of this?
And to answer your question - did we ask if the countries we invaded minded most awfully that we did so? Do you think any government CONSULTS its population on who to let in and who to keep out?
Within the category of economic migrant, you have people coming here to work, usually for a specific purpose or time. They're often seasonal workers who come to work in the catering/seaside/agricultural areas and depart home when they're work is done. Just the same as the thousands of British who depart to do exactly the same thing out of the UK - you mightn't realise that a huge amount of Dutch tulip-picking is done by fair English hands, yet the Dutch haven't yet lynched any of us for doing so, nor the French for helping out in the lavender fields, or any of the other countries which welcome people from these shores to work.
You also have workers from other Eastern Europe coming here for one, two, maybe a few years to work in usually crap jobs (street cleaning, litter-picking, 'facilities' cleaners, etc.) because even doing those jobs they earn four times more than they do with their University qualifications back home in Poland or the Ukraine. When they've amassed the money they want (and paid taxes on it, too) they may well return home to start up businesses and keep themselves and their families in much better conditions than could be managed on national rates of pay. A young Polish man aged 22, working in our local convenience store (and with excellent English language skills) earns just £4.65 an hour, not a job many of us on this forum would covet, I imagine, but twice what he could earn at home. He plans to spend 'a few years' here with his fiancee, also earning similarly, and then they can return to Poland, buy a very nice house, and be financially secure to either buy their own business or further their educations. You have any problems with that?
Immigration - that is, people who are admitted to reside permanently in the UK, are different. They'll be owning homes or businesses (and generating jobs in the process), taking out mortgages, paying Council tax, sending kids to schools and generating jobs indirectly by doing all of this. For example, suppose 25,000 people enter the UK to reside here permanently? They want homes: that means they either rent (money to UK landlords and more tax for the IR), or they buy (money to UK lenders and often to UK builders, money on furnishings to UK shops); they want a car or two (more money for the UK's show rooms), they may open a shop (rates paid to the Council, possibly generating a few local jobs) or any other business; they may have children (family shopping bills go to UK shops and stores, and schools get filled and not closed), and so on.
What is the problem with any of this?
And to answer your question - did we ask if the countries we invaded minded most awfully that we did so? Do you think any government CONSULTS its population on who to let in and who to keep out?
It's the slight mis-use of the word "Invasion" that is most perplexing or inappropriate. My Government didn't ask me about their decision to assist in the invasion of Iraq. I joined about 1.5M people on the streets of London though to suggest to them it was a daft idea.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain to us precisely why you think Iraq has a burgeoning displaced peoples/ refugee crisis Ted?
Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain to us precisely why you think Iraq has a burgeoning displaced peoples/ refugee crisis Ted?
Ted
At the Start
Is that what I think Warbler?
To be honest, I've had this argument so many times in the past that I'm sick to death of it, and I really am not going to go through it all again on here.
Just as many of you couldn't possibly agree with the invasion of Iraq, I can't possibly agree with having multiculturism forced upon us.
I'm never going to change my view, but I repect the right of anyone who holds a totally opposite view, and I'm not about to get involved in a never ending argument with anyone who doesn't think I should be allowed to have my opinion.
I've been there and done that too many times before.
The only point I did want to make is that rightly or wrongly, I don't agree with the under 5% figure for the UK's foreign population, and I've given my reason why I don't agree.
I'm sorry to dissapoint those of you who would love a fiery debate on the subject, but I like the reply Ardross made earlier:
That's very fair comment, Ardross has a very good idea of what I think, and I have a very good idea of what he thinks.
We will never agree, but we won't fall out over it, and that's the best way to deal with it, just accept that we can't all agree about everything and move on to the next race.
Life's too short.
A
Ardross
Guest
Originally posted by Ted@Dec 22 2006, 01:55 AM
That's very fair comment, Ardross has a very good idea of what I think, and I have a very good idea of what he thinks.
We will never agree, but we won't fall out over it, and that's the best way to deal with it, just accept that we can't all agree about everything and move on to the next race.
Life's too short.
Exactly Ted ! Especially when your test match team has had a 4-0 stuffing at the hands of TH :lol:
BrianH
At the Start
Isn't it funny that people are inclined to agree with information plucked out of the air by tabloid editors to reinforce the editorial points they know that their readers want to hear but always want to refute statistics independently compiled by reputable professional bodies?
A
Ardross
Guest
:lol:
Ted
At the Start
The bait isn't going to be taken.
BrianH
At the Start
Damn!
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas
Provided that there is the economic demand, immigration and emigration is healthy and desirable.
History has demonstarted that economies benefit from attracting those with the skills to offer at the right price
The Polish plumber being a prime example
Multiculturalism is fine in a certain form. the worlds greatest cities (london and new york) would not be the places they are if they were simply mono-racial (is there such a word?).
The only danger with muliticulturalism is when consessions are made which are a threat or simply chip away at our fundamental human liberal democratic (and british) rights
History has demonstarted that economies benefit from attracting those with the skills to offer at the right price
The Polish plumber being a prime example
Multiculturalism is fine in a certain form. the worlds greatest cities (london and new york) would not be the places they are if they were simply mono-racial (is there such a word?).
The only danger with muliticulturalism is when consessions are made which are a threat or simply chip away at our fundamental human liberal democratic (and british) rights
I would like to ask, politely, "what the **** is multiculturalism?" - apart from a hideously unwieldy word which seems to imply much, yet mean nothing.
A 'multi-cultural' society, to my mind, is one where people with different social, religious and philosophical ethics live independently of each other, without attempting some sort of mixed goo, blending a bit of this and a bit of that in an attempt to arrive at a bland hybrid supposed to appease all, but in fact pleasing no-one.
Someone once described (now to point of tired cliche) the USA as a melting pot (of races, cultures, etc.), but this culinary analogy was changed by another observer to it being more like a salad: the mixture is pleasant enough, but the ingredients retain their individual flavours without compromising their origins.
Britain may be attempting some sort of melting pot, but this only works to the point of radical disagreement over an issue of cultural norms or religious differences. If politicians were less basely self-interested, we might get a grip on the situation far more satisfactorily if we regarded, say, our Hindu neighbours as having every right to observe their religious ethics regarding diet and inheritance, our Muslim work colleagues their right to break for prayers five times a day if they wish to, and our Christian cousin his or her right to wear a crucifix and stick the sign of the fish on the back of their car without facing ridicule or censure.
Nobody should require laws to be passed in order to simply get along with other people - that apparently we need them is a sad sign of the intolerance still plaguing this and other societies.
Ted, I take it that you never holiday outside the UK? If you do, be careful not to try and force your Britishness upon those 'foreigners' by demanding British beer and a plate of fish and chips, won't you? Oh! Of course, no need to - Spain's already overrun by cheap cafes and bars run by English people 'escaping' the UK! :lol: Not that the Spanish call it 'multiculturalism', I'm sure.
A 'multi-cultural' society, to my mind, is one where people with different social, religious and philosophical ethics live independently of each other, without attempting some sort of mixed goo, blending a bit of this and a bit of that in an attempt to arrive at a bland hybrid supposed to appease all, but in fact pleasing no-one.
Someone once described (now to point of tired cliche) the USA as a melting pot (of races, cultures, etc.), but this culinary analogy was changed by another observer to it being more like a salad: the mixture is pleasant enough, but the ingredients retain their individual flavours without compromising their origins.
Britain may be attempting some sort of melting pot, but this only works to the point of radical disagreement over an issue of cultural norms or religious differences. If politicians were less basely self-interested, we might get a grip on the situation far more satisfactorily if we regarded, say, our Hindu neighbours as having every right to observe their religious ethics regarding diet and inheritance, our Muslim work colleagues their right to break for prayers five times a day if they wish to, and our Christian cousin his or her right to wear a crucifix and stick the sign of the fish on the back of their car without facing ridicule or censure.
Nobody should require laws to be passed in order to simply get along with other people - that apparently we need them is a sad sign of the intolerance still plaguing this and other societies.
Ted, I take it that you never holiday outside the UK? If you do, be careful not to try and force your Britishness upon those 'foreigners' by demanding British beer and a plate of fish and chips, won't you? Oh! Of course, no need to - Spain's already overrun by cheap cafes and bars run by English people 'escaping' the UK! :lol: Not that the Spanish call it 'multiculturalism', I'm sure.
Provided its within the law (is hindu inheritance?) of this country, then fine...
But stepping outside the law of the land on the basis that its "my belief" or "my culture" isnt...
In the workplace its more complicated of course and will be part of the contract between employer and employee