Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Peter.
I think what Bern means, is that trying to get countries like Africa, with support from other nations, to address the problems they have, with regard to famine, poverty etc, is one issue.
How we deal with immigration in this country is another issue.
Clearly throwing money at countries like Africa, is not working and not helping those that need it.
I cannot believe that in this day and age, pharmaceutical and fuel companies are not voluntary coming forward to help with the overseas issues like lack of medicinesl and poverty.
Not with cash aid but with drugs and development.
It is gross that their need for profit is put above their social morals.
That is not me being a lefty or me against profit. These issues could be solved by the big companies and the reward they would get would be tremendous.
Many people are right in saying this country cannot afford more financial aid. That does not mean we should simply turn our backs on both issues. Getting the correct aid to these Countries will in time reduce what is happening now with immigration in this country.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
"Addressing the cultural issues that prevent the African nations from developing properly is a priority, but should be separated from the other domestic agenda".
Means: Other countries have different priorities and different beliefs and ways of doing things. It is inappropriate and would not achieve anything other than violence if we went in and tried to get them to do things our way. If we genuinely want to protect and support ordinary people ensuring safe drinking water, safety from violence, and a means to make a living and not depend on other nations for hand outs we have to take into account those less developed cultures. That cannot be done if it is tied to our own agenda of self interest and fiscal caution.
Is that better?
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Thanks Ross. It is always worth taking a look around a topic to seek the stuff hidden under the mattress!
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Ross.
Very interesting.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Thank you Bern, that is much better and makes a lot of sense. Your original paragraph could have been written by a local authority diversity officer.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
What can I tell you......
I had to do a media blurb about a "situation" in a secure establishment recently, and having always been advised to keep it as succinct as possible did just that. It sounded almost the same as my Diversity Officer post there. Old habits etc etc etc etc
mental note on paper: must try harder.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 1....# 5...# 31.
After a week of misinformation,manipulation by Cabinet Ministers,Media and bandwagon passengers we have...............
by Courtesy of Independent......Leading Article....( precis )
A shamefull spinning of the facts on immigration.
The only surprising thing about the number of immigrants claiming benefit is that the figure is so low.Even more cheering that a mere 2 % of the claims are illegal.
Out of `the` 370,000 recipients fewer than 7,500 are bogus.......hardly more than a distant statistical murmur in the `context` of the 5.5 million people supported by the state.
The more shocking is the misrepresentation both by Cabinet Ministers and the Media.
More than half of the foreign nationals have taken up citizenship,worked,paid taxes and come here legally but to listen to the Employment Minister one would be forgiven for concluding otherwise.
Grayling by releasing his crunched figures and giving such prominance to so tiny problem is scaremongering.
Mr.Grayling should be ashamed of such disingenuousness.
Government must,ofcourse, apply statistical rigour to immigration and wefare numbers and clap down on benefit fraud but to skew reporting of so proportionately negligible a number for the roar of applause from Britains overdeveloped anti-immigration lobby is inexcusable...............there is more evidence of inflaming extremism.............
Damian Green has caused anxiety by planning to slash immigration when British companies need to fill jobs Britons are unwilling to fill.
Apart from Vince Cable broadside on this issue the Lib/Dems hae been almost entirely quiet.
Without decent opposition the unashamedly xenophobic anti-immigration lobby will continue its own over-simplified terminology.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Immigration over the last 60 years has turned Britain into one of the most tolerant, inclusive, well-adjusted societies on earth. Opponents of immigration seize upon egregious examples of abuse and crime by foreigners to prove their points but by and large people of overseas origin are just as honest and hard-working as the white British. Stories such as the subject of this thread are calculated by the media to inflame the Alf Garnetts among us and sell newspapers.
Without immigration we would have no Indian, Chinese or Italian restaurants and no kebab shops. Immigrants add to the culture of their host nations; if foreigners willing to clean toilets for minimum wage displace indigenous workers then there is a message which is not being heard.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
well said although I must admit I am not that keen on kebabs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I'm not sure it has made us that tolerant Peter, in many instances, very intolerant.
If people from overseas are taking low-paid jobs that our own indigenous people won't, then why are we paying them (our own lazty lot) to sit on their backsides ?
I agree that many immigrants add a lot to our society, but many don't and we should have stricter rules for entry - on language, skills, income, dependance and jobs.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
post 68 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well said boyo and you peter (although you only had to say it once lol)
immigration will always be one that the tories use to scare monger.
on roger's point of the lazy people(or gits as he calls them)
many are unable to work for a number of varying reason's but those that are able
should have to.
i think the criteria, and checks should be more thorough but it is a very difficult one as you can see from the latest govt proposals, they are likely to hit cancer sufferers and a lot of others.
a very difficult situation
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I'm only talking about the lazy lot (not gits !) Keith, not those unable to work for genuine reasons and these we should support.
Roger
The trouble is, many people can't tell the difference.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
Of course immigration has brought a lot of good to this country - no-one would dispute that.
Not everyone who fails to take the leap of faith that immigration is an undiluted force for good is however a racist bigot. Indeed many are getting fed up with being portrayed as such, even if only by implication, or being shot at from a position of assumed unassailable moral supremacy by leftist bien pensants. Neither do they take kindly to condescending suggestions that they are thick or incapable of grasping the issues!
It actually takes more moral courage in my opinion to adopt the cautionary stance on immigration because you know full well that at some point someone will conjure an allusion to the Far Right and throw it at you.
Why is it that anyone who out of no more sinister motive than having a heart for his/her country/town/region/whatever gets this treatment?
I remember the furious debates during the Blair years when anyone trying to point out the elephant in the room, that immigration was getting out of control, would be shot down in the aforementioned way. Archly superior radio phone-in hosts, no doubt secure in their leafy upmarket enclaves, would patronise anyone who phoned in who had a working class accent and whose views differed from their own on-message complacency. Let us not forget that the Labour Party itself admitted that it got it wrong about immigration, after so many warning voices had been howled down. Talking of complacency, that administration arrogantly dismissed claims that allowing free movement of Poles on EU accession would lead to a mass influx into the UK, on the grounds that when Spain and Portugal entered the EU the predicted mass migration failed to materialise. So what happened? The biggest peacetime migration in Europe since World war Two, that's what.
I repeat that immigration is necessary and brings, er, benefits to this country but to make sweeping simplistic statements like "immigration is good" is naive and too sweeping. I can name one massive negative - the way that Dover's reputation was trashed for a generation after the influx of the late 1990s.
Moreover I have long suspected that a lot of people are intimidated into being "on message"on the immigration issue and end up arguing the opposite of what they really feel because they think it's de rigeur to do so, often attacking people who are voicing views they secretly agree with.
Personally, I long ago lost patience with the hypocrisy and point-scoring that invariably infects the immigration debate.
Finally, as has been pointed out above, we are a small overcrowded island - England is the most densely settled country in Europe. I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously not be concerned on a basic animal level about the relentless increase in this density.
And to get back tot he original point, whether the Telegraph's figures are correct or not, pace Ross' link, we have been debating on on the assumption that they were. We live in an economy that is labelled global - whatever that means. If expat Brits have the right to claim benefits in all other developed countries (you would hardly expect it in a Third World nation) then I would not have a problem with the issue under discussion. But do they? I suspect not, which is plainly wrong and unfair.
Remind me, because I have obviously forgotten, who said "immigration is [all] good"? What I have heard almost universally on this thread is, indeed, a measured approach that acknowledges the good stuff but says "hang on, there's also a bit of other stuff too." The divergence of opinion only really occurs when someone says something like "send em all back" or similar. The way to find a route forwards is to discuss, not to cut off discussion. It is when the basic humanity of "immigrants" is reduced by petty generalisation that the conversation becomes difficult. It is when people fall for the tabloid-esque rants and stereotyping that I become angry. Looking all around the question is, clearly, the only way to see it intact.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
well thought out and eloquent post from andrew, the second paragraph struck a chord.
it has long been the case that immigration is a taboo subject in our country and anyone that brings up the subject will get classed as a bigot.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
My own view is that yes we should have a balanced view, but there are issues that need addressing.
with regard to who did or dint get it wrong whether the labour party did or not it doesnt realy matter the tories to said they would sort it but it has got worse.
we have always had immigration
and in the labour years and before many problems were created which hardly helped the situation.
i recall and will repeat my time on the county council just before a local and and immigrant were stabbed.
i called a meeting attended by the local MP, leading lights on the district and county councils, also invited the agencies which included migrant helpline(who refused to attend)
the labour mp at the time
the
kcc labour group
the
labour group ddc
police
and others
all tried to advise me not to hold a public meeting.
i told them all not only would i be hiolding the meeting i will also be all the more determined to make sure it happened.
and i did so, which answered a lot of the questions and a meeting with the home secretary in dover.
and soon after the dispersal policy
yes we should challenge
but like bern says
hearing things like;
send them all home
send them in a ship and sink it
comments i hear every day wll hardly move this issue on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
so why were the great and the good against a public meeting keith?
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
Thanks Howard for your comment on my post. I do try to be balamced in my views on the subject.