FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Opening Borders
Opening Borders
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any absolute is likely to be a daft position. I'm actually in favour in moving towards reduced immigration. While states have vastly different ways of doing taxes, state support, housing, I can't see how how free immigration works. I was on the edge with FoM. Economic migration has lower risks, and the eu was homogenous enough to avoid some add arbitrage. I would agree there are areas that may have suppressed wages. But immigration is a drug we need a plan to ween ourselves off at some point. Fully supportive of that view. But it needs a long-term plan. Especially if we want to continue at current rates of state support. And given an aging population creates even higher state support need. That probably will take this subject off topic. I've list track who needs to approve such deviations. "Apparently that's me 
You're free to deviate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any absolute is likely to be a daft position. I'm actually in favour in moving towards reduced immigration. While states have vastly different ways of doing taxes, state support, housing, I can't see how how free immigration works. I was on the edge with FoM. Economic migration has lower risks, and the eu was homogenous enough to avoid some add arbitrage. I would agree there are areas that may have suppressed wages. But immigration is a drug we need a plan to ween ourselves off at some point. Fully supportive of that view. But it needs a long-term plan. Especially if we want to continue at current rates of state support. And given an aging population creates even higher state support need. That probably will take this subject off topic. I've list track who needs to approve such deviations. "Increasing ageing population requires more immigration or increasing birth rates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Open the borders fully?? Yeah go for it, as long as its reciprocated worldwide. " Agreed. Will never happen, but should be the ultimate aim of mankind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Open the borders fully?? Yeah go for it, as long as its reciprocated worldwide. Agreed. Will never happen, but should be the ultimate aim of mankind. " Did we just agree on something??? Fuck that. Close the borders now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Open the borders fully?? Yeah go for it, as long as its reciprocated worldwide. Agreed. Will never happen, but should be the ultimate aim of mankind. Did we just agree on something??? Fuck that. Close the borders now "Am off for a lie down | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had open borders when part of Europe and I would say the majority of people would now accept it worked well (not all and there will be the exception that goes against what I said) it wasn't perfect however as we left Europe the wages being paid across Europe where stabilising per industry. I personally would like a far more diverse culture, I do think different cultures bring so much positivity to our life's in general, in general in the key sentence. World open borders would not work, unfortunately there is far too wide a gap between some poor people and rich people, the migration would cause havoc and potentially war. " Any such project would take decades to implement - using the EU as an example, Poland joined with vast wealth disparity both on a personal and national level (hence the vast number of polish migration) but as Poland reaped the benefits of membership, they became wealthier, the disparity reduced and Poland’s economy grew beyond belief - which in turn saw a reduction in migration as more poles stayed home because they no longer had the need to work abroad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe has an open border policy, with tent cities of vagrants. " How has homelessness in the U.K. fared in the last 13 years under Tory rule? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe has an open border policy, with tent cities of vagrants. " Is this true? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Capitalism says "you don't need state help, work hard, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, do whatever it takes. Oh but don't come to countries where wages are higher. We don't like that" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Capitalism says "you don't need state help, work hard, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, do whatever it takes. Oh but don't come to countries where wages are higher. We don't like that"" Indeed. There is a nasty undercurrent of protectionism about many economic models which espouse free-markets, frictionless trade, freedom of movement, etc. Only up to a point. Then the gloves are off. I am not aware of any country that essentially says, "Sell what you like here, from anywhere in the world. We won't stop you". There's always a catch and some form of imposition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Social welfare and open borders don't go hand in hand. We can remove social welfare and keep the border open so that anyone can come in and work and look after themselves." Exactly, borders are there for a reason. The people within borders expect defence of their borders, services, standards of law and chances to thrive. That would not happen if every border was scrapped. There would be mass migration leading to areas of the globe only inhabited by those who are the poorest and most vulnerable. Taxes can’t be taken, services can’t be built on a shifting population. Borderless will happen, but not in the way a rose tinted socialist hippy would like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Exactly, borders are there for a reason. " Yes. Border are for control. They control the native population as well as transient ones. I did not consent to this control. " The people within borders expect defence of their borders, services, standards of law and chances to thrive. " I expect these things without borders. The border is irrelevant. " That would not happen if every border was scrapped. There would be mass migration leading to areas of the globe only inhabited by those who are the poorest and most vulnerable. Taxes can’t be taken, services can’t be built on a shifting population. Borderless will happen, but not in the way a rose tinted socialist hippy would like." Which further conjectures and underpins my argument that borders are for control of human beings. For segregating rich countries from poor ones. For keeping the rich rich, and the poor poor. They facilitate exploitation. The poor are kept "over there" and have little to no chance of mobility, meanwhile the rich exploit their predicament with poverty-level wages. It's geographical feudalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every border, everywhere, open. Borders just...foolish and pointless." Nope I can say that the culture clashes that open borders would cause here. We are better off keeping with controlled borders. Imagine good ole UK people telling what us Americans what is the difference between right and wrong. Don't be dumb . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads," most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ?" . In addition to the points already mentioned immigration puts pressure on housing costs and removes the incentive to mechanise and become more efficient. It is estimated that house cost up to 13 % more because of immigration. The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ?" Yes, migrants that are applying for specialist roles will be what you are referring to. This is why there is a lot of frustration, the mixing of migrant into one set, when it clear different types exist! One invited and one not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ?. In addition to the points already mentioned immigration puts pressure on housing costs and removes the incentive to mechanise and become more efficient. It is estimated that house cost up to 13 % more because of immigration. The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases ." Assume you do not include controlled (visa) migration to fill skills gaps or allow foreign students to study in UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Exactly, borders are there for a reason. Yes. Border are for control. They control the native population as well as transient ones. I did not consent to this control. " You do consent every day of your life even though you think you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases ." The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do consent every day of your life even though you think you don't." So I can just breeze through passport control without a passport then ? Cool beans. That's what I consent and expect. Anything else is an impediment and infringement on my personal freedom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. " we have huge population problem, have you seen the NHS, lack of housing, state pensions, people living longer and all the other things you bang the drum for? Conveniently it is only a problem when you want it to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do consent every day of your life even though you think you don't. So I can just breeze through passport control without a passport then ? Cool beans. That's what I consent and expect. Anything else is an impediment and infringement on my personal freedom." No you can't and yet you do as you consent. You pay your taxes, you abide by the law, well I expect you do. You are a consenting adult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. " We have a 'you can't build there' problem. It's a bit disingenuous to say the UK is only 5% urban. Whilst that figures is 'accurate enough', it definitely doesn't give the whole picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ?" I'm not referring to tax. I mean disposable income after tax. In my experience, economic migrants repatriate surplus funds to their country of origin. That cash is removed from the UK economic cycle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. we have huge population problem, have you seen the NHS, lack of housing, state pensions, people living longer and all the other things you bang the drum for? Conveniently it is only a problem when you want it to be. " No, we could handle a far greater population if we built for it. More workers, more taxes, more wealth creation, better pension provision. And ageing workforce, reduced immigration presents issues with care and pensions etc. The world’s population needs reducing gif the good of the planet - no argument about that - it’s the balancing act of gradually reducing numbers whilst not destroying economies and lives in the process that is difficult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ? I'm not referring to tax. I mean disposable income after tax. In my experience, economic migrants repatriate surplus funds to their country of origin. That cash is removed from the UK economic cycle." ah okay. As school roofs, potholes and nhs waiting lists need tax. Still interesting to have a view on how much. As they are spending some here and without that spend, that's less money in the economy. Is getting 50pc of some wage worse than 100pc of none... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ? I'm not referring to tax. I mean disposable income after tax. In my experience, economic migrants repatriate surplus funds to their country of origin. That cash is removed from the UK economic cycle.ah okay. As school roofs, potholes and nhs waiting lists need tax. Still interesting to have a view on how much. As they are spending some here and without that spend, that's less money in the economy. Is getting 50pc of some wage worse than 100pc of none... " Yes, and tax revenues are linked to a stongly performing economy. Better still, would be to pay reasonable wages and fill jobs from within. Then we have 100pc wages being churned in the economy AND no benefits being paid to claimants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ? I'm not referring to tax. I mean disposable income after tax. In my experience, economic migrants repatriate surplus funds to their country of origin. That cash is removed from the UK economic cycle.ah okay. As school roofs, potholes and nhs waiting lists need tax. Still interesting to have a view on how much. As they are spending some here and without that spend, that's less money in the economy. Is getting 50pc of some wage worse than 100pc of none... Yes, and tax revenues are linked to a stongly performing economy. Better still, would be to pay reasonable wages and fill jobs from within. Then we have 100pc wages being churned in the economy AND no benefits being paid to claimants." but that would cause inflation...
Also, we are at fairly high employment rates... Are people claiming benefits because some jobs are not paying what they perceive as being sufficient? But foreign workers will (and be able to send money home).
That's interesting
I thought post brexit the bar for visas was meant to be higher. Most seem to be fairly well paid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes?" Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to Wwrwanda)What an excellent post " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda)" Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong." That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. " I can see how that applies to the Ukrainians but why could that not apply to Syrians, for example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. " Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. " Why can Ukrainians adapt to the U.K. better than someone from Somalia, Yemen etc? Explain the thought process behind this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. I can see how that applies to the Ukrainians but why could that not apply to Syrians, for example?" Because Ukraine is a European country. It's only natural that European countries prioritise another European country more. It's also culturally easy for Ukrainians to integrate in Western Europe. For the same reason, Pakistan would prioritise Afghan refugees over Ukrainian refugees. India would take more refugees from Tibet and Sri Lanka compared to Ukraine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. I can see how that applies to the Ukrainians but why could that not apply to Syrians, for example? Because Ukraine is a European country. It's only natural that European countries prioritise another European country more. It's also culturally easy for Ukrainians to integrate in Western Europe. For the same reason, Pakistan would prioritise Afghan refugees over Ukrainian refugees. India would take more refugees from Tibet and Sri Lanka compared to Ukraine." So presumably someone from the U.K can’t adapt and integrate into non-European nations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Why can Ukrainians adapt to the U.K. better than someone from Somalia, Yemen etc? Explain the thought process behind this? " One major factor is religion. Their values while similar to Western Europe, at least do not result in massive conflicts like the ones happening with immigrants from other countries you mentioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. " And regarding the men staying and women and children leaving, are you implying that in middle eastern and african countries that the men always leave and dont stay to fight? If so, then who was fighting those civil wars? Lmao I remember back in 2010-15 there were loads of libyans in Manchester. Come 2020 (year after the arab spring) almost all of my libyan friends disappeared. They’d left their safety and homes in the UK to go to libya where they died fighting against ISIS… unfortunately this incident killed off the majority of my childhood friends. Whoever told you these men are running is telling you a very big and non sensical lie! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have." Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. And regarding the men staying and women and children leaving, are you implying that in middle eastern and african countries that the men always leave and dont stay to fight? If so, then who was fighting those civil wars? Lmao I remember back in 2010-15 there were loads of libyans in Manchester. Come 2020 (year after the arab spring) almost all of my libyan friends disappeared. They’d left their safety and homes in the UK to go to libya where they died fighting against ISIS… unfortunately this incident killed off the majority of my childhood friends. Whoever told you these men are running is telling you a very big and non sensical lie!" I didn't say men always leave. I said most people arriving here are men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Why can Ukrainians adapt to the U.K. better than someone from Somalia, Yemen etc? Explain the thought process behind this? One major factor is religion. Their values while similar to Western Europe, at least do not result in massive conflicts like the ones happening with immigrants from other countries you mentioned." ‘Their values?’ What, a whole religion tarred as one? Wait til we tell you about Catholicism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Why can Ukrainians adapt to the U.K. better than someone from Somalia, Yemen etc? Explain the thought process behind this? One major factor is religion. Their values while similar to Western Europe, at least do not result in massive conflicts like the ones happening with immigrants from other countries you mentioned. ‘Their values?’ What, a whole religion tarred as one? Wait til we tell you about Catholicism. " Sure we can argue about the actual values about each sect of every religion. In the end it boils down to how the people practice the religion. It's been a long time since various Western European countries have taken numerous Ukrainian refugees. How many massive conflicts have you heard about them integrating with the societies here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in"." He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? " Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics." Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. " Despite being told that they were welcome in the community and indeed the school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? " Lets do it! Funnily enough Suella Braverman said Pakistani men in this country have some sort of fetish issue which makes them r@pe white women and create grooming gangs. First lets clear up grooming gang. Its really easy to do because theyve given the oldest industry in the world a new name to make it look like a brand new issue. Grooming gangs are pimps. They are pimps. Lol But the most important part. The home office released data on exactly which ethnicities are committing sex related crimes. Low and behold pakistani men make up one of the smallest percentages. The largest percentage is white men. Middle aged white men to be specific. So assuming all immigrants are bad and become abusive teachers etc etc, i will now assume that you as a white man are a pedophile and rapist. Seems fair to me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? " Not really. I am talking about what is happening in the country. We have defacto blasphemy laws with a very small Islamic population. What do you think the state of the country will be if we have more immigration from countries where lots of people believe that criticism of the religion should be considered a crime deserving death penalty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? Lets do it! Funnily enough Suella Braverman said Pakistani men in this country have some sort of fetish issue which makes them r@pe white women and create grooming gangs. First lets clear up grooming gang. Its really easy to do because theyve given the oldest industry in the world a new name to make it look like a brand new issue. Grooming gangs are pimps. They are pimps. Lol But the most important part. The home office released data on exactly which ethnicities are committing sex related crimes. Low and behold pakistani men make up one of the smallest percentages. The largest percentage is white men. Middle aged white men to be specific. So assuming all immigrants are bad and become abusive teachers etc etc, i will now assume that you as a white man are a pedophile and rapist. Seems fair to me "No one talked about grooming gangs here. I am talking specifically about right of people to criticise and mock any religion. We don't have the right in UK anymore because, your life will be under threat once you do it and the police will do nothing to protect you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. We have a 'you can't build there' problem. It's a bit disingenuous to say the UK is only 5% urban. Whilst that figures is 'accurate enough', it definitely doesn't give the whole picture. " And we only have 5% of largest woodland left the rest has been cut down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. we have huge population problem, have you seen the NHS, lack of housing, state pensions, people living longer and all the other things you bang the drum for? Conveniently it is only a problem when you want it to be. No, we could handle a far greater population if we built for it. More workers, more taxes, more wealth creation, better pension provision. And ageing workforce, reduced immigration presents issues with care and pensions etc. The world’s population needs reducing gif the good of the planet - no argument about that - it’s the balancing act of gradually reducing numbers whilst not destroying economies and lives in the process that is difficult. " We need to build you say we now need a new city the size off Liverpool every year to keep up its OK adding to small towns but it needs new infrastructure in the old towns that are now so much bigger then when built. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? " Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? Lets do it! Funnily enough Suella Braverman said Pakistani men in this country have some sort of fetish issue which makes them r@pe white women and create grooming gangs. First lets clear up grooming gang. Its really easy to do because theyve given the oldest industry in the world a new name to make it look like a brand new issue. Grooming gangs are pimps. They are pimps. Lol But the most important part. The home office released data on exactly which ethnicities are committing sex related crimes. Low and behold pakistani men make up one of the smallest percentages. The largest percentage is white men. Middle aged white men to be specific. So assuming all immigrants are bad and become abusive teachers etc etc, i will now assume that you as a white man are a pedophile and rapist. Seems fair to me
No one talked about grooming gangs here. I am talking specifically about right of people to criticise and mock any religion. We don't have the right in UK anymore because, your life will be under threat once you do it and the police will do nothing to protect you."I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? Not really. I am talking about what is happening in the country. We have defacto blasphemy laws with a very small Islamic population. What do you think the state of the country will be if we have more immigration from countries where lots of people believe that criticism of the religion should be considered a crime deserving death penalty?" I think the law of the land will remain. People on the street thankfully don’t make laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really. I am talking about what is happening in the country. We have defacto blasphemy laws with a very small Islamic population. What do you think the state of the country will be if we have more immigration from countries where lots of people believe that criticism of the religion should be considered a crime deserving death penalty? I think the law of the land will remain. People on the street thankfully don’t make laws." Two issues here. UK doesn't technically have a law of land. At least the US has a written constitution and the first amendment guarantees people's right to expression. UK doesn't have one. The second being people on streets are already making laws. There is no law written to ban book burning. But the police have effectively implemented a ban for "public peace". The last time a few of them burned the book, they were arrested. When the kid from Wakefield dropped the book, it was recorded as a hate incident just to satisfy the religious nutters because the police were scared of violence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence." Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin." I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion "They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy. Straight out of the lefts playbook | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook "Actually It was me getting confused between players who espouse similar views. My bad. Sincere apologies. But the point remains that slurring a whole race or religion based upon the acts of a minority is a wankers game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech." It was a guy in a comedy club on social media, he was mocking religions (several). Because religion is not free from people legitimately posing opinion, humour or criticism. We don’t live in a place state. And who mentioned violence? Freedom of speech is not carte Blanche to say anything you like without reprisal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech." Nobody (sensible) has ever claimed that criticism of a religion or god is hate speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes?" Well for a lot of the people behind bankrolling the Brexit campaign, that was their plan. Remember "The Minford Plan" ? It was put forward by the economist Patrick Minford and it basically suggested a complete deregulation of all of Britain's border controls, and things like safety standards for goods, animal welfare for meat and livestock imports and exports, immigration, labour protections and pretty much anything else you can think of. Basically open Britain's borders to competition from any and all foreign goods, services, and labour and leave it up to market forces to sort everything out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook
Actually It was me getting confused between players who espouse similar views. My bad. Sincere apologies.
But the point remains that slurring a whole race or religion based upon the acts of a minority is a wankers game. "Is that the same point in that we shouldn't be racially profiling people? But you did, didn't you?
Spectacular fail on that one I'm afraid mate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook
Actually It was me getting confused between players who espouse similar views. My bad. Sincere apologies.
But the point remains that slurring a whole race or religion based upon the acts of a minority is a wankers game.
Is that the same point in that we shouldn't be racially profiling people?
But you did, didn't you?
Spectacular fail on that one I'm afraid mate. "Getting confused between two posters isn’t racial profiling I’m afraid. Fancy taking on the point about slurring a whole race/religion based upon the acts of a minority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook
Actually It was me getting confused between players who espouse similar views. My bad. Sincere apologies.
But the point remains that slurring a whole race or religion based upon the acts of a minority is a wankers game.
Is that the same point in that we shouldn't be racially profiling people?
But you did, didn't you?
Spectacular fail on that one I'm afraid mate.
Getting confused between two posters isn’t racial profiling I’m afraid.
Fancy taking on the point about slurring a whole race/religion based upon the acts of a minority?"Fancy taking on the point that you took his views and assumed he was a 'middle aged white male'? That's racial profiling. There was absolutely no one else involved in the conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech. It was a guy in a comedy club on social media, he was mocking religions (several). Because religion is not free from people legitimately posing opinion, humour or criticism. We don’t live in a place state. And who mentioned violence? Freedom of speech is not carte Blanche to say anything you like without reprisal. " Please give the link to the social media. It's not joke about the religion itself that's dangerous. It's usually the joke against the God. In this case, the reprisal for making fun of certain Gods is violence. The police have also practically made it illegal. These kind of reprisals do not fall under freedom of speech. The Wakefield incident was exactly that! A hate incident was filed for damaging a book. A woman was forced to beg for forgiveness in front of a group of "religious leaders". These are issues which "liberals" have to take seriously. Yet their silence around the issue was deafening. Shows that they don't give a flying fuck about liberal values. All they cared about was identity politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech. It was a guy in a comedy club on social media, he was mocking religions (several). Because religion is not free from people legitimately posing opinion, humour or criticism. We don’t live in a place state. And who mentioned violence? Freedom of speech is not carte Blanche to say anything you like without reprisal. Please give the link to the social media. It's not joke about the religion itself that's dangerous. It's usually the joke against the God. In this case, the reprisal for making fun of certain Gods is violence. The police have also practically made it illegal. These kind of reprisals do not fall under freedom of speech. The Wakefield incident was exactly that! A hate incident was filed for damaging a book. A woman was forced to beg for forgiveness in front of a group of "religious leaders". These are issues which "liberals" have to take seriously. Yet their silence around the issue was deafening. Shows that they don't give a flying fuck about liberal values. All they cared about was identity politics." The police chief superintendent at that meeting which I saw on the telly, looked and acted like a sissy cuck, I know I have trained a few in my time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech. It was a guy in a comedy club on social media, he was mocking religions (several). Because religion is not free from people legitimately posing opinion, humour or criticism. We don’t live in a place state. And who mentioned violence? Freedom of speech is not carte Blanche to say anything you like without reprisal. Please give the link to the social media. It's not joke about the religion itself that's dangerous. It's usually the joke against the God. In this case, the reprisal for making fun of certain Gods is violence. The police have also practically made it illegal. These kind of reprisals do not fall under freedom of speech. The Wakefield incident was exactly that! A hate incident was filed for damaging a book. A woman was forced to beg for forgiveness in front of a group of "religious leaders". These are issues which "liberals" have to take seriously. Yet their silence around the issue was deafening. Shows that they don't give a flying fuck about liberal values. All they cared about was identity politics. The police chief superintendent at that meeting which I saw on the telly, looked and acted like a sissy cuck, I know I have trained a few in my time." I was screaming at the screen when I saw that - "WTF are you doing? It's your job to protect people from death threats!! Instead you are sitting and watching a mother of an autistic kid beg for forgiveness to some randos?"
And then I saw the West Yorkshire police on the news again on the "Lesbian nana" incident. It all makes sense now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook
Actually It was me getting confused between players who espouse similar views. My bad. Sincere apologies.
But the point remains that slurring a whole race or religion based upon the acts of a minority is a wankers game.
Is that the same point in that we shouldn't be racially profiling people?
But you did, didn't you?
Spectacular fail on that one I'm afraid mate.
Getting confused between two posters isn’t racial profiling I’m afraid.
Fancy taking on the point about slurring a whole race/religion based upon the acts of a minority?
Fancy taking on the point that you took his views and assumed he was a 'middle aged white male'?
That's racial profiling.
There was absolutely no one else involved in the conversation."I’m not sure if you’re aware, but many people have contributed to this thread, including today. I got confused between two posters, and apologised for it. So take your invented ‘racial profiling’, and stick it up your Harris. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech. It was a guy in a comedy club on social media, he was mocking religions (several). Because religion is not free from people legitimately posing opinion, humour or criticism. We don’t live in a place state. And who mentioned violence? Freedom of speech is not carte Blanche to say anything you like without reprisal. Please give the link to the social media. It's not joke about the religion itself that's dangerous. It's usually the joke against the God. In this case, the reprisal for making fun of certain Gods is violence. The police have also practically made it illegal. These kind of reprisals do not fall under freedom of speech. The Wakefield incident was exactly that! A hate incident was filed for damaging a book. A woman was forced to beg for forgiveness in front of a group of "religious leaders". These are issues which "liberals" have to take seriously. Yet their silence around the issue was deafening. Shows that they don't give a flying fuck about liberal values. All they cared about was identity politics. The police chief superintendent at that meeting which I saw on the telly, looked and acted like a sissy cuck, I know I have trained a few in my time." Well often people turn out to be the product of their training | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who's the middle aged white male? It's certainly not the poster you were replying to... I believe he's of Indian origin. I have my brown bums on display in my profile picture, yet I am called a white dude because I criticised one religion
They don't care. They think because you have the views that you do, it's cloaked xenophobia, therefore you're probably a middle aged white guy.
Straight out of the lefts playbook
Actually It was me getting confused between players who espouse similar views. My bad. Sincere apologies.
But the point remains that slurring a whole race or religion based upon the acts of a minority is a wankers game.
Is that the same point in that we shouldn't be racially profiling people?
But you did, didn't you?
Spectacular fail on that one I'm afraid mate.
Getting confused between two posters isn’t racial profiling I’m afraid.
Fancy taking on the point about slurring a whole race/religion based upon the acts of a minority?
Fancy taking on the point that you took his views and assumed he was a 'middle aged white male'?
That's racial profiling.
There was absolutely no one else involved in the conversation.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but many people have contributed to this thread, including today. I got confused between two posters, and apologised for it.
So take your invented ‘racial profiling’, and stick it up your Harris. "
Getting angry and telling people to 'shove it' again. It's usually what happens when you get found out.
Fuck me, complaining about something whilst doing the same thing, the irony
BTW, he didn't slur a 'whole race', religion, yes, race, no.
He's entitled to have whatever thoughts he likes on any religion he chooses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? " I know it has been mentioned, you really got this wrong, but my oh my, this is a perfect example of the left wing focus being on the person not the topic when trying to “win”, rather than discuss. You could go back and reply to the post, it could be an interesting conversation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had a closing one, thought I’d add an opposing view. Should open our borders fully let everyone in, any country and do away with backlog and just let people in to work and pay taxes? Would absolutely love to but to effectively create a world with no borders where people can freely come and go as they wish would probably require some sort of new “global council”. These people will need to organise refugees into the right places for them whenever a catastrophe which caused mass migration occurs. Eg if all of syrias refugees only came to the uk for the last decade then right now we probably would have to give up scotland or whales to them as their population of refugees is so unbelievably high! But if they were evenly spread out across a number of countries it would be much easier for each society to integrate them as they wait for the war to end. Someone will need to organise this and we must ensure no bias, prejudice, racism, islamophobia etc come in to play with any decision making. (Eg ukrainians are able to move to an eu country but black/arab refugees are being sent to rwanda) Your post reminds me of something I thought about recently. When Russia invaded Ukraine, within a matter of days/weeks the UK had in place a scheme to allow Ukrainians to come to the UK to escape the war. When war broke out in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (etc) there was...nothing? Sure someone better informed/better memory can correct that if wrong. That is true and for valid reasons. Ukrainians can easily adapt in UK or other Western European countries compared to people from Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. Ukrainian refugees were mostly women and children. Most men are still fighting. This means the women and children plan to go back to their country when the war is over. Maybe 20-30 years ago we could have been in a position where we say people from african and middle eastern countries cant adapt to living in the west but since then we've had waves of refugees come in from those exact countries that you’re worried about. Thanks to this we can look at the past and make a better prediction for the future… And what does the past show? These same communities have nicely fit in to the British society. Think of every single immigrant you've ever dealt with. From uber drivers, to food delivery, cooking, cleaning etc etc. These immigrants have literally come here and created industries that didn't exist before! And not only have they done an excellent job of integrating into society but they now make a very decent contribution to this countries economy. To a point where if England were to remove all immigrants, this country would probably shut down! So im sorry to tell you but thats not true. Syrians, Somalis and anyone else around the world have already proven that they will fit in to British society just as well, if not better, than the Ukrainian refugees have. Nicely fit? In case you don't know, UK has defacto blasphemy laws. A teacher in Batley who made a drawing is still living in hiding. Not sure how you can consider this as "nicely fitting in". He was permitted to return to his role with the blessing of the local Islamic community wasn’t he? Didn’t they refer to it as a ‘painful incident’ for which the teacher ‘has nothing to worry about’? Last I checked, the teacher and his family were living in hiding for two years. And then there is the Wakefield school incident, where an autistic child who dropped the holy book got death threats. His mother had to ask for forgiveness in front of a huge crowd of "religious leaders" while wearing a headcover with the police was watching. So no, they are not "nicely fitting in" with UK. UK is nicely bending over to them. The fact that people who call themselves liberals these days didn't open their mouth about these incidents shows how far they have fallen into the drainage named identity politics. Are you judging an entire race/religion based upon a handful of individual cases? Because you’re a middle aged white male - should we judge you based upon the actions of some of those? I know it has been mentioned, you really got this wrong, but my oh my, this is a perfect example of the left wing focus being on the person not the topic when trying to “win”, rather than discuss. You could go back and reply to the post, it could be an interesting conversation" I asked a person if they were judging a whole religion/race based upon a few examples. That’s a valid question, is it not? Especially since the poster has posed a few isolated examples of what he fears the nation would become were we to allow increased immigration from that part of the world. Should we judge all Brits by a few bad apples in Marbella or at a World Cup? Or all Irish by a few republican terrorists? Why is it ok to judge an entire religion based upon extremist examples? Do we do the same for Catholicism or Buddhism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This whole branch of the conversation came from the ridiculous notion that somehow Ukrainians can better assimilate to the U.K than non European nations. I suppose that’s why we’ve had so few migrants from India and the Caribbean historically. " Why do you generalise it to all non-European nations?
Have you ever seen Carribeans sending death threats to people who don't follow their ideologies? Have you seen Ukrainians asking people to beg for forgiveness because they were offended by something someone said? Have you seen Hindus asking for a beef ban because they worship cows as God?
When people from different cultures intermingled, there will always be cultural conflicts. The question is how you resolve them. Most people just realise that they are in a different country where they can't expect the people to follow their own values. But the conflict between Western liberalism and Islamic values haven't turned out that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech." Check out family guy. All sorts of comedy jokes but they get away with it because they make fun every single religion. Theres a huge difference between criticising a religion and offending people. Muslims love the quran so disrespecting it angers them to a point where they will sometimes commit violent acts. In regards to criticising the religion its actually a big thing in the muslim community to watch religious debates. Muslim scholars vs christiam/hindu/jewish etc etc. they criticise the religion a lot in these debates and always seem to walk away unscathed. If you want to see it with your own eyes go to hyde parks speakers corner. You’ll see people openly criticising islam and being surrounded by muslims who dont lay a finger on them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This whole branch of the conversation came from the ridiculous notion that somehow Ukrainians can better assimilate to the U.K than non European nations. I suppose that’s why we’ve had so few migrants from India and the Caribbean historically. Why do you generalise it to all non-European nations?
Have you ever seen Carribeans sending death threats to people who don't follow their ideologies? Have you seen Ukrainians asking people to beg for forgiveness because they were offended by something someone said? Have you seen Hindus asking for a beef ban because they worship cows as God?
When people from different cultures intermingled, there will always be cultural conflicts. The question is how you resolve them. Most people just realise that they are in a different country where they can't expect the people to follow their own values. But the conflict between Western liberalism and Islamic values haven't turned out that way."I generalise that way because you’re the one who started by saying Ukrainians settle easier here because they’re fellow Europeans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided." Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society" Interesting detail which mentioned about the tagging it makes great sense, if you have no documentation you are tracked maybe a weekly sign in perhaps and requiring permission to travel and reporting to an office. Perhaps we have missed something, maybe the way of controlling immigration isn’t stopping it, but allowing it and controlling the migrant themselves when they are here. We have the technology now, it’s not too difficult to implement. Would probably save billions of pounds, boost the economy, and the taxes they provide feed into the system to build houses, train doctors and nurses, boost our public services. Maybe some fresh thinking is what is needed, people have been saying the same thing over and over again and it hasn’t worked one bit. Instead of seeing it as crisis, maybe we should see it as an opportunity, is that what you are saying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided." It sounds a reasonable idea but would tagging be allowed by the court's. It may be against their rights- just a guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence. Which comedian and when did that happen? Did he mock the religion or the God? Freedom of speech means freedom from violent consequence. If someone excising his freedom of speech results in fear of his life, it's not freedom. And criticising a religion or god is not hate speech. Check out family guy. All sorts of comedy jokes but they get away with it because they make fun every single religion. Theres a huge difference between criticising a religion and offending people. Muslims love the quran so disrespecting it angers them to a point where they will sometimes commit violent acts. In regards to criticising the religion its actually a big thing in the muslim community to watch religious debates. Muslim scholars vs christiam/hindu/jewish etc etc. they criticise the religion a lot in these debates and always seem to walk away unscathed. If you want to see it with your own eyes go to hyde parks speakers corner. You’ll see people openly criticising islam and being surrounded by muslims who dont lay a finger on them." You talk about family guy. Then go read about South Park, the episode which got censored because if its joke about Islam. Mockery of religion and God even if it offends Muslims, is not hate speech. They have the right to get offended. But they don't have the right to indulge in violence. It's not like other religious people don't love the God. We have all agreed that it's wrong to respond to mockery of God with violence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This now appears to have strayed into religion... I vote to put this to the test. 2 people, 2 books, burn both the books and see what happens "Can we vote on which books? I say 50 Shades of Grey and any forthcoming autobiography of Boris Johnson | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This now appears to have strayed into religion... I vote to put this to the test. 2 people, 2 books, burn both the books and see what happens
Can we vote on which books? I say 50 Shades of Grey and any forthcoming autobiography of Boris Johnson "For the purposes of this experiment its set books, you know the ones
I've still never read 50 shades, the movie was shit. I'd be interested in reading Boris' autobiography though, a second hand copy, don't wanna pay him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The UK is already densely populated. We should hardly be encouraging further increases . The U.K is approximately 5% urban. We don’t have a population problem, we have a population distribution problem. we have huge population problem, have you seen the NHS, lack of housing, state pensions, people living longer and all the other things you bang the drum for? Conveniently it is only a problem when you want it to be. No, we could handle a far greater population if we built for it. More workers, more taxes, more wealth creation, better pension provision. And ageing workforce, reduced immigration presents issues with care and pensions etc. The world’s population needs reducing gif the good of the planet - no argument about that - it’s the balancing act of gradually reducing numbers whilst not destroying economies and lives in the process that is difficult. We need to build you say we now need a new city the size off Liverpool every year to keep up its OK adding to small towns but it needs new infrastructure in the old towns that are now so much bigger then when built. " the UK is a physically small country compared to most others , we have a higher population density than most other European country's , we have many problems with infrastructure, housing & healthcare , the country can take in a few refugees when necessary but large scale immigration makes most of our problems worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I literally watched a comedian last night mocking Islam. Christianity too. As far as I’m aware he’s under no more threat than you or I. Of course if you’re talking about actual hate speech, then that’s rightly a criminal offence. Freedom of speech has never been freedom from consequence." Actual hate speech is also not a crime. Unless you use it in a directed manner with the intention of causing harassment, alarm, or distress. Saying "I hate those brown skinned Elbonians, they're all criminals, and you should hate them too" is 'hate speech', and it isn't against the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society" It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. " The social problems that you assume would come with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it." The social problems that have already come with it - Defacto blasphemy laws in UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. The social problems that have already come with it - Defacto blasphemy laws in UK" Since we don’t have blasphemy in common law in the U.K, religion is fair game. Any violent act in response should be punished as such. Of course it begs the question of why someone would go out of their way to attack a particular religion to begin with. I’m an atheist and think everyone’s sky-turnips are equally ridiculous - but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect their beliefs and right to believe in said sky-turnips. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it." If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. " I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. " You are not following the thread although being a major part of it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. You are not following the thread although being a major part of it..." I’m following it, though it’s admittedly a bit frustrating when people read things you’ve not said, refuse to answer questions, or claim they didn’t say things that they did, admittedly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. The social problems that have already come with it - Defacto blasphemy laws in UK Since we don’t have blasphemy in common law in the U.K, religion is fair game. Any violent act in response should be punished as such. Of course it begs the question of why someone would go out of their way to attack a particular religion to begin with. I’m an atheist and think everyone’s sky-turnips are equally ridiculous - but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect their beliefs and right to believe in said sky-turnips. " You say they should be punished. But it doesn't happen in practice because of how law enforcement works here. Atheists have been mocking religious figureheads for decades. It is a product of enlightenment era thinking. No one batted an eye, until recently | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. " And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. " So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. " How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the original OP post for me yes open boarders but any one coming gets £2k max and an NI number if there is no documentation then a tag for 2 years as well track and trace. And before the complaints I'm now tanked sa work so it's not one sided. Yeah this has gone slightly off topic! lets get back to the original topic lol interesting idea here. makes a great way of making sure those settling controbute to society It's not off topic. When it comes to border policies, countries have to think about two aspects - Economic and social. The discussion we had about religion was the social problems which would come with it. The economic problem is a whole different thing. The social problems that you assume would come with it. If you can't accept or appreciate the possibility of disruption by people to people from different backgrounds and beliefs, you have closed down the conversation because you are discussing your imagined world. History is littered with examples of this very problem, denying it or implying the other person has assumed it, is wrong. I do accept that some folks cause disruption. Who doesn’t accept that? I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. " 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from overloading healthcare, education etc, you have to remember that most economic migrants send their surplus cash home. So it is not re-invested in UK goods and services creating jobs, business, profit. Essentially our national wealth is exported to enrich oner countries. If that's what we want, fine, but then don't complain about 2 year waits in NHS, no roofs over schools and potholed roads,most analysis I've seen have migrants as being more tax positive than brits. Have you seen something different or is this a guess ? I'm not referring to tax. I mean disposable income after tax. In my experience, economic migrants repatriate surplus funds to their country of origin. That cash is removed from the UK economic cycle.ah okay. As school roofs, potholes and nhs waiting lists need tax. Still interesting to have a view on how much. As they are spending some here and without that spend, that's less money in the economy. Is getting 50pc of some wage worse than 100pc of none... Yes, and tax revenues are linked to a stongly performing economy. Better still, would be to pay reasonable wages and fill jobs from within. Then we have 100pc wages being churned in the economy AND no benefits being paid to claimants.but that would cause inflation...
Also, we are at fairly high employment rates... Are people claiming benefits because some jobs are not paying what they perceive as being sufficient? But foreign workers will (and be able to send money home).
That's interesting
I thought post brexit the bar for visas was meant to be higher. Most seem to be fairly well paid. "Yes, we are blessed with hight employment rates. As for why a rump of people subside on benefits, I have no idea. It is likely a complex mix of factors like poor health, education (lack of), laziness, habit, fraud, you name it. But out benefits bill is eye-watering, and something needs to be done to understand the issues and come up with solutions that don't involve just flinging the doors open to immigration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This now appears to have strayed into religion... I vote to put this to the test. 2 people, 2 books, burn both the books and see what happens
Can we vote on which books? I say 50 Shades of Grey and any forthcoming autobiography of Boris Johnson
For the purposes of this experiment its set books, you know the ones
I've still never read 50 shades, the movie was shit. I'd be interested in reading Boris' autobiography though, a second hand copy, don't wanna pay him "Yeah I know you know I know
Never read 50 shades either only an extract. Unbelievably badly written. But I blame it for the huge influx of single men on the swinging scene who all think they are Christian Grey while 100% missing the point!
An autobiography would be as trustworthy and accurate as the man himself. A true work of fiction! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. " Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This now appears to have strayed into religion... I vote to put this to the test. 2 people, 2 books, burn both the books and see what happens
Can we vote on which books? I say 50 Shades of Grey and any forthcoming autobiography of Boris Johnson
For the purposes of this experiment its set books, you know the ones
I've still never read 50 shades, the movie was shit. I'd be interested in reading Boris' autobiography though, a second hand copy, don't wanna pay him
Yeah I know you know I know
Never read 50 shades either only an extract. Unbelievably badly written. But I blame it for the huge influx of single men on the swinging scene who all think they are Christian Grey while 100% missing the point!
An autobiography would be as trustworthy and accurate as the man himself. A true work of fiction!"Who knows what?
I'd probably agree with you on the correlation between fucking idiots and 50 shades
Don't you think a Boris' book would be a funny read at least? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer." "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This now appears to have strayed into religion... I vote to put this to the test. 2 people, 2 books, burn both the books and see what happens
Can we vote on which books? I say 50 Shades of Grey and any forthcoming autobiography of Boris Johnson
For the purposes of this experiment its set books, you know the ones
I've still never read 50 shades, the movie was shit. I'd be interested in reading Boris' autobiography though, a second hand copy, don't wanna pay him
Yeah I know you know I know
Never read 50 shades either only an extract. Unbelievably badly written. But I blame it for the huge influx of single men on the swinging scene who all think they are Christian Grey while 100% missing the point!
An autobiography would be as trustworthy and accurate as the man himself. A true work of fiction!
Who knows what?
I'd probably agree with you on the correlation between fucking idiots and 50 shades
Don't you think a Boris' book would be a funny read at least?"You know I know which books were actually being referred to. 50 Shades and Mr Grey wannabes (who neither understand BDSM or are billionaires) has been the bane of the swinger community. It overshadows all the decent genuine guys out there who do understand! Re Johnson. Actually yes it would be a funny read. Much as I cannot stand the man, I can at least acknowledge he is pretty witty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boarders are a man made construct, designed not to keep others out but us all within the boarder in." Getting worried about all these surfers and residential schools. Seem to be getting a lot of flack | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer." I agree that in our democracy a smallish group can have a disproportionate effect. Its odd like that. But I don't see that migration would create a reasonably significant majority. That's a long way off... And also assumes then new migrants have identical views. There's an interesting point on how liberals need to be tolerant of ppl with views that aren't aligned. We are there at the moment. As you say, (some) Christians (and other westerners) have views closer to (some) Muslims. Maybe we aren't so different.
Or there are more differences within cultures than between. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer." Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it?." Do you think everyone born in Britain has the same views on those issues, and only immigrants feel differently? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. " Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence?" I’m speaking in broad terms, there’s actually no need to speak of religion at all - extremists take many forms, political, hooligans, myriad others, all dangerous and none restricted to any one region, colour or creed. I just happen to think it’s not helpful to tar everyone with the same brush as the biggest scumbags in the world just because they share a homeland or anything else unrelated to beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence? I’m speaking in broad terms, there’s actually no need to speak of religion at all - extremists take many forms, political, hooligans, myriad others, all dangerous and none restricted to any one region, colour or creed. I just happen to think it’s not helpful to tar everyone with the same brush as the biggest scumbags in the world just because they share a homeland or anything else unrelated to beliefs." You're not speaking in broad terms. You've dialled down to race on more than one occasion in this thread. I'll stick with the question I've asked as a counter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? " Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imagine saying ‘we don’t want British migrants, look what they did when we hosted the World Cup, and how they form their own enclaves in Spain’ That would be unfair to the majority of brits, right? " If Spain has problems with British immigrants, it's totally fair for them to complain about it and even block immigration from Britain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not." Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer.I agree that in our democracy a smallish group can have a disproportionate effect. Its odd like that. But I don't see that migration would create a reasonably significant majority. That's a long way off... And also assumes then new migrants have identical views. There's an interesting point on how liberals need to be tolerant of ppl with views that aren't aligned. We are there at the moment. As you say, (some) Christians (and other westerners) have views closer to (some) Muslims. Maybe we aren't so different.
Or there are more differences within cultures than between. "I used believe that it won't have any significant effect. But not anymore. UK is not a direct democracy like Switzerland. We have a representative democracy where it's easy for one reasonable size of group even if they are not in a majority to push through legislations. All it needs is an "I don't care either way" attitude from the remaining MPs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.." Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence? I’m speaking in broad terms, there’s actually no need to speak of religion at all - extremists take many forms, political, hooligans, myriad others, all dangerous and none restricted to any one region, colour or creed. I just happen to think it’s not helpful to tar everyone with the same brush as the biggest scumbags in the world just because they share a homeland or anything else unrelated to beliefs. You're not speaking in broad terms. You've dialled down to race on more than one occasion in this thread. I'll stick with the question I've asked as a counter. " I’ve dialled down to nothing, I’m pinning down a poster on what his problem with migrants (except for white European ones), and religion seems to be a sizeable factor in his judgment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? " So your judgement is based upon the actions of a small minority, correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? So your judgement is based upon the actions of a small minority, correct? " I explained it in my long post above. Violent action by a small majority which is a big problem in the society already. If a small minority were just scoffed about it, that wouldn't be a problem. They are angry enough to actually threaten violence. And then there is the problem of democratic non violent action by many that could result in blasphemy laws even being encoded in the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence? I’m speaking in broad terms, there’s actually no need to speak of religion at all - extremists take many forms, political, hooligans, myriad others, all dangerous and none restricted to any one region, colour or creed. I just happen to think it’s not helpful to tar everyone with the same brush as the biggest scumbags in the world just because they share a homeland or anything else unrelated to beliefs. You're not speaking in broad terms. You've dialled down to race on more than one occasion in this thread. I'll stick with the question I've asked as a counter. I’ve dialled down to nothing, I’m pinning down a poster on what his problem with migrants (except for white European ones), and religion seems to be a sizeable factor in his judgment. " You've dialled down to nothing but really really struggle to stop mentioning 'white'? Get a grip of yourself mate. You're showing yourself up. You should've given up when you racially profiled the guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? So your judgement is based upon the actions of a small minority, correct? I explained it in my long post above. Violent action by a small majority which is a big problem in the society already. If a small minority were just scoffed about it, that wouldn't be a problem. They are angry enough to actually threaten violence. And then there is the problem of democratic non violent action by many that could result in blasphemy laws even being encoded in the law. " But your response to that minority is to say ‘no more are welcome’ when the vast majority prove every day that they can adapt and assimilate to British society seamlessly. It’s just a nonsense and bigoted stance that punishes good, innocent people for the actions of a few. Glad we got there in the end. Go well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence? I’m speaking in broad terms, there’s actually no need to speak of religion at all - extremists take many forms, political, hooligans, myriad others, all dangerous and none restricted to any one region, colour or creed. I just happen to think it’s not helpful to tar everyone with the same brush as the biggest scumbags in the world just because they share a homeland or anything else unrelated to beliefs. You're not speaking in broad terms. You've dialled down to race on more than one occasion in this thread. I'll stick with the question I've asked as a counter. I’ve dialled down to nothing, I’m pinning down a poster on what his problem with migrants (except for white European ones), and religion seems to be a sizeable factor in his judgment. You've dialled down to nothing but really really struggle to stop mentioning 'white'? Get a grip of yourself mate. You're showing yourself up. You should've given up when you racially profiled the guy. " I’m gonna say this as politely as I can, because frankly you’re acting like an arse, again. Don’t engage with me further on this topic. You’re trolling, lying and talking abject bollocks, whilst defending a bigot. Have a great day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m pointing out that because a minority of folks cause disruption, we shouldn’t tar everyone of the same faith/race etc with the same brush. It’s really not that hard to understand. And I never said everyone does it. The problem is that you only need few violent people to enforce such laws. So we have a localised policing problem rather than an immigration problem, right? I’d agree with that - but that’s what slashing police numbers does. How many police would you need? Over time, when you get more and more people, even having twenty percent of people having backward views around blasphemy will be a problem. For example, the labour MP Naz Shah openly tweeted once about making it illegal to paint that picture because obviously her constituents would want that. Because UK doesn't have a written constitution that protects freedom of expression, it would become more of a political problem and not just a policing problem. 20% of people? That would be 13.5million hardline people in the U.K. We presently have around 3 million Muslims in the U.K, of which a tiny tiny percentage would be ‘extremists’ (I’d hazard a guess at less than 1% of that 3million). You’re taking extremes and presenting them as the norm, which is unhelpful, and frankly an outrageous way to talk. Let me make it clear to you. There is a small percentage of the population who believe it's ok to send death threats to people who insult their beliefs. Even having 1% population who think like that makes the society hostile. That's why we have defacto blasphemy laws because police are scared of violent response. Even additional police aren't going to help. It's not like France have less police. Police won't be by your side all the time. Charlie Hebdo victims and the teacher who got beheaded aren't coming back. Keeping the violent people aside, lots of people would actually be happy to have written blasphemy laws. Doing that democratically will be perfectly legal. MPs like Naz Shah are symptoms for significant number of people holding such views. Are liberals ok with having written blasphemy laws in the country? If anything, the liberals should be scared more than conservatives on this issue. What percentage of Islamic population do you think are pro-LGBT. We already had protests in Birmingham against LGBT education when the liberals were busy cancelling JK Rowling on the internet. One recent funny story is that Christian conservatived and Muslims in Canada actually got friendly and protested against LGBT education and burning pride flags. Guardian published an article about the issue crying about how they feel betrayed by Muslims. It was a hilarious read. It's not like they weren't warned. Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. Ok let’s take your new figure of 1% What percentage of White British folk have extremist views? Or are racist? Or violent? More or less than 1%? Or what about other races and religions? I don’t know why I’m bothering because it’s clear that you don’t understand a very simple point. I stand by my use of bigotry. You’ve demonstrated it repeatedly. Again you're conflating race with religion. They aren't the same thing. A more equivalent question would be, How many British Christians have extremists views, and will defend them with violence? I’m speaking in broad terms, there’s actually no need to speak of religion at all - extremists take many forms, political, hooligans, myriad others, all dangerous and none restricted to any one region, colour or creed. I just happen to think it’s not helpful to tar everyone with the same brush as the biggest scumbags in the world just because they share a homeland or anything else unrelated to beliefs. You're not speaking in broad terms. You've dialled down to race on more than one occasion in this thread. I'll stick with the question I've asked as a counter. I’ve dialled down to nothing, I’m pinning down a poster on what his problem with migrants (except for white European ones), and religion seems to be a sizeable factor in his judgment. You've dialled down to nothing but really really struggle to stop mentioning 'white'? Get a grip of yourself mate. You're showing yourself up. You should've given up when you racially profiled the guy. I’m gonna say this as politely as I can, because frankly you’re acting like an arse, again. Don’t engage with me further on this topic. You’re trolling, lying and talking abject bollocks, whilst defending a bigot. Have a great day. " Did you resort to insults again? That's not like you. Ever. You're free to ignore anything I write. I'll engage with whoever I like in an open forum. You want a conversation to be private, then take it private. Would you like me to scroll back and point out your own words where you bring race into it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? " "Their actions" I think that's the issue, it's making a judgement based on the actions of some, for the whole. We don't have blasphemy laws, I had to Google to be sure. But it was abolished in 2008, and Scotland caught up in 2021. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? So your judgement is based upon the actions of a small minority, correct? I explained it in my long post above. Violent action by a small majority which is a big problem in the society already. If a small minority were just scoffed about it, that wouldn't be a problem. They are angry enough to actually threaten violence. And then there is the problem of democratic non violent action by many that could result in blasphemy laws even being encoded in the law. But your response to that minority is to say ‘no more are welcome’ when the vast majority prove every day that they can adapt and assimilate to British society seamlessly. It’s just a nonsense and bigoted stance that punishes good, innocent people for the actions of a few. Glad we got there in the end. Go well." As I said in a different post, if we have a written constitution that says right to expression will be protected, the problem wouldn't be that bad. As an outspoken atheist who likes making jokes about religious figures, even a small minority having this problem puts my own life in danger. So yes, I will be against it. If you think that's bigoted, keep thinking. You have the right to do so. And I have the right to not give a damn about what you think. After all, the word bigot has lost all its meaning anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? "Their actions" I think that's the issue, it's making a judgement based on the actions of some, for the whole. We don't have blasphemy laws, I had to Google to be sure. But it was abolished in 2008, and Scotland caught up in 2021. " When the George Floyd incident happened, everyone was complaining about "those white people". When is it ok to blame an entire group for the act of a few individuals? As for blasphemy laws, please read the posts above. We don't have written blasphemy laws. But it's applicable in practice. If someone burns the book, he will get arrested by the police for inciting violence. If someone draws the picture, he has to live in hiding. Batley teacher, Wakefield school incident, please read all about them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? "Their actions" I think that's the issue, it's making a judgement based on the actions of some, for the whole. We don't have blasphemy laws, I had to Google to be sure. But it was abolished in 2008, and Scotland caught up in 2021. When the George Floyd incident happened, everyone was complaining about "those white people". When is it ok to blame an entire group for the act of a few individuals? " Never, those people were as wrong as you are. In my opinion. " As for blasphemy laws, please read the posts above. We don't have written blasphemy laws. But it's applicable in practice. If someone burns the book, he will get arrested by the police for inciting violence. If someone draws the picture, he has to live in hiding. Batley teacher, Wakefield school incident, please read all about them." Your burning book example, I assume you're referring to the Koran? If someone did this, it's not likely to be just a random act, depends on the context if it becomes a hate based incident or not. It's not the same as burning a copy of Thomas The Tank Engine. If read about the Batley school incident, will it tell me there are existing blasphemy laws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? "Their actions" I think that's the issue, it's making a judgement based on the actions of some, for the whole. We don't have blasphemy laws, I had to Google to be sure. But it was abolished in 2008, and Scotland caught up in 2021. When the George Floyd incident happened, everyone was complaining about "those white people". When is it ok to blame an entire group for the act of a few individuals? Never, those people were as wrong as you are. In my opinion. As for blasphemy laws, please read the posts above. We don't have written blasphemy laws. But it's applicable in practice. If someone burns the book, he will get arrested by the police for inciting violence. If someone draws the picture, he has to live in hiding. Batley teacher, Wakefield school incident, please read all about them. Your burning book example, I assume you're referring to the Koran? If someone did this, it's not likely to be just a random act, depends on the context if it becomes a hate based incident or not. It's not the same as burning a copy of Thomas The Tank Engine. If read about the Batley school incident, will it tell me there are existing blasphemy laws? " Why does one book deserve special status? In my opinion, it's just another book of religious drivel and there is nothing wrong in burning it. There is a reason why Denmark and Sweden are fighting hard against any attempt to ban book burnings. As for the Batley incident, the teacher who showed the picture has been living in hiding for two years. If anyone who does it has to live in hiding for doing it, we have blasphemy laws in practice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? "Their actions" I think that's the issue, it's making a judgement based on the actions of some, for the whole. We don't have blasphemy laws, I had to Google to be sure. But it was abolished in 2008, and Scotland caught up in 2021. When the George Floyd incident happened, everyone was complaining about "those white people". When is it ok to blame an entire group for the act of a few individuals? Never, those people were as wrong as you are. In my opinion. As for blasphemy laws, please read the posts above. We don't have written blasphemy laws. But it's applicable in practice. If someone burns the book, he will get arrested by the police for inciting violence. If someone draws the picture, he has to live in hiding. Batley teacher, Wakefield school incident, please read all about them. Your burning book example, I assume you're referring to the Koran? If someone did this, it's not likely to be just a random act, depends on the context if it becomes a hate based incident or not. It's not the same as burning a copy of Thomas The Tank Engine. If read about the Batley school incident, will it tell me there are existing blasphemy laws? Why does one book deserve special status? In my opinion, it's just another book of religious drivel and there is nothing wrong in burning it. There is a reason why Denmark and Sweden are fighting hard against any attempt to ban book burnings. As for the Batley incident, the teacher who showed the picture has been living in hiding for two years. If anyone who does it has to live in hiding for doing it, we have blasphemy laws in practice. " The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway back to topic, my point is simple. We live in a democracy where a reasonably significant majority of people with certain views can have impact on laws. With open borders, you are inviting people who have significantly different views on issues like free speech, LGBT, etc. We are already seeing the effects of it. Are the people who want open borders totall fine with it? You don't have to answer. I already saw your comment about bigotry which is the usual fallback argument for the leftists who don't have an answer. "Bigoty" is the argument for "leftists who don't have an answer" to why you're confused about Muslims? Such a bizarre claim. Why can't we just judge people on their actions instead of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc? Religions are ideologies at the end of the day and it affects their actions. Gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are not. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs. Freedom of religion is pretty important. Not sure why you'd want to judge people based on their religion and not based on their actions.. Religion is a set of beliefs. That being spiritual doesn't matter. It teaches them how to live life and it affects their actions. Anyway, my judgement here is purely based on actions. The Wakefield incident is a result of their actions. The Batley teacher hiding is a result of their actions. UK has blasphemy laws in practice and I am concerned about it. What's wrong about it? "Their actions" I think that's the issue, it's making a judgement based on the actions of some, for the whole. We don't have blasphemy laws, I had to Google to be sure. But it was abolished in 2008, and Scotland caught up in 2021. When the George Floyd incident happened, everyone was complaining about "those white people". When is it ok to blame an entire group for the act of a few individuals? Never, those people were as wrong as you are. In my opinion. As for blasphemy laws, please read the posts above. We don't have written blasphemy laws. But it's applicable in practice. If someone burns the book, he will get arrested by the police for inciting violence. If someone draws the picture, he has to live in hiding. Batley teacher, Wakefield school incident, please read all about them. Your burning book example, I assume you're referring to the Koran? If someone did this, it's not likely to be just a random act, depends on the context if it becomes a hate based incident or not. It's not the same as burning a copy of Thomas The Tank Engine. If read about the Batley school incident, will it tell me there are existing blasphemy laws? Why does one book deserve special status? In my opinion, it's just another book of religious drivel and there is nothing wrong in burning it. There is a reason why Denmark and Sweden are fighting hard against any attempt to ban book burnings. As for the Batley incident, the teacher who showed the picture has been living in hiding for two years. If anyone who does it has to live in hiding for doing it, we have blasphemy laws in practice. The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. " There is the story of Rasmus Paludan who has effectively been banned from the UK because the authorities are scared of backlash. As far as I'm aware all he did was threaten to burn a book. That book has been given special status whether you agree or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. " The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. " What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law." There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself." I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. " This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance." My argument is simple. If you cannot do something in a country without your life being threatened and going into hiding OR being taken any action on by government or other political institutions, I don't have the right to do that. I personally prefer my freedom of expression even if it offends someone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance. My argument is simple. If you cannot do something in a country without your life being threatened and going into hiding OR being taken any action on by government or other political institutions, I don't have the right to do that. I personally prefer my freedom of expression even if it offends someone. " Fine. But blaming Muslim immigrants seems like the wrong place to direct your ire. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. " . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. " . Only a fool wouls not worry about a small section of extremists and planes being blown out of the Sky. Just look at the security we have at every single airport because of these extremists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. " Have you ever looked into Christian fundamentalism? Or any other religion than Islam? It’s a rhetorical question. Of course you haven’t, or you’d not have attempted to make the point you just did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. " Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"?" Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. " So we're saying, we shouldn't judge people by their religion? That's going to explode some people's minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. So we're saying, we shouldn't judge people by their religion? That's going to explode some people's minds. " It’s crazy isn’t it? A wild notion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. " No one 'lumped them all together' This took a turn because the poster said Ukrainians could integrate better, presumably because they have similar values (biggest religion in Ukraine is Othodox Chritstianity), than Muslims would be able to. You've twisted and twisted an twisted, that's why we're now here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. No one 'lumped them all together' This took a turn because the poster said Ukrainians could integrate better, presumably because they have similar values (biggest religion in Ukraine is Othodox Chritstianity), than Muslims would be able to. You've twisted and twisted a twisted, that's why we're now here." And given our rich history of successfully welcoming non Christian, non-Europeans to the U.K who go on to integrate and assimilate, and indeed enrich our nation, the original claim was, and is utter bollocks. We’re here because a bigot wants to pretend that all Muslims are a threat, and another one wants to back him up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. " It looks like the point never entered your head. There are so many issues different people can agree to disagree and still live together. But violence cannot be handled that way. I never said all Muslims are violent. But a small proportion are and it has affected individual liberty in the country. Not sure why it's so hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. No one 'lumped them all together' This took a turn because the poster said Ukrainians could integrate better, presumably because they have similar values (biggest religion in Ukraine is Othodox Chritstianity), than Muslims would be able to. You've twisted and twisted a twisted, that's why we're now here. And given our rich history of successfully welcoming non Christian, non-Europeans to the U.K who go on to integrate and assimilate, and indeed enrich our nation, the original claim was, and is utter bollocks. We’re here because a bigot wants to pretend that all Muslims are a threat, and another one wants to back him up. " See the thing is... Every single time someone disagrees with you, you resort to insults. It actually says more about you than the people you attack. You keep telling yourself you're the tolerant one (kiss) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance. My argument is simple. If you cannot do something in a country without your life being threatened and going into hiding OR being taken any action on by government or other political institutions, I don't have the right to do that. I personally prefer my freedom of expression even if it offends someone. Fine. But blaming Muslim immigrants seems like the wrong place to direct your ire." As far I can see, this problem is only with the Muslim immigrants in this country. When I was in India, I blamed both Hindus and Muslims for same reasons. The reason why most Europeans didn't care about this issue for a long time is because they were never subjected to religious oppression for at least a couple of generations now. It's been long since Christianity had control over the state. So most people have no clue about how religious oppression actually looks like and how terrible it is. I come from a country which is fairly secular but still there are certain regions where religious people(both Hindus and Muslims) use religion as a tool to take away other people's rights. So I have valid reasons to be concerned about a society bending over to religious zealots. In UK, it has already happened with Islam. And the country sleep walked into this situation because no one realised that this was a concern until it's too late. Rest of Europe is also seeing this problem only now. Sweden and Denmark are rightfully fighting back by allowing book burnings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance. My argument is simple. If you cannot do something in a country without your life being threatened and going into hiding OR being taken any action on by government or other political institutions, I don't have the right to do that. I personally prefer my freedom of expression even if it offends someone. Fine. But blaming Muslim immigrants seems like the wrong place to direct your ire. As far I can see, this problem is only with the Muslim immigrants in this country. When I was in India, I blamed both Hindus and Muslims for same reasons. The reason why most Europeans didn't care about this issue for a long time is because they were never subjected to religious oppression for at least a couple of generations now. It's been long since Christianity had control over the state. So most people have no clue about how religious oppression actually looks like and how terrible it is. I come from a country which is fairly secular but still there are certain regions where religious people(both Hindus and Muslims) use religion as a tool to take away other people's rights. So I have valid reasons to be concerned about a society bending over to religious zealots. In UK, it has already happened with Islam. And the country sleep walked into this situation because no one realised that this was a concern until it's too late. Rest of Europe is also seeing this problem only now. Sweden and Denmark are rightfully fighting back by allowing book burnings. " "As far I can see, this problem is only with the Muslim immigrants in this country" This says more about you than it says about the situation. Personally I have no problems with Muslim people as individuals or as a concept. If you want to judge them all based on the actions of one or two individuals, you will probably receive critisism about your views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. No one 'lumped them all together' This took a turn because the poster said Ukrainians could integrate better, presumably because they have similar values (biggest religion in Ukraine is Othodox Chritstianity), than Muslims would be able to. You've twisted and twisted a twisted, that's why we're now here. And given our rich history of successfully welcoming non Christian, non-Europeans to the U.K who go on to integrate and assimilate, and indeed enrich our nation, the original claim was, and is utter bollocks. We’re here because a bigot wants to pretend that all Muslims are a threat, and another one wants to back him up. See the thing is... Every single time someone disagrees with you, you resort to insults. It actually says more about you than the people you attack. You keep telling yourself you're the tolerant one (kiss)" Nope. Just checked for insults in that post. None found. A few truths, but no insults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance. My argument is simple. If you cannot do something in a country without your life being threatened and going into hiding OR being taken any action on by government or other political institutions, I don't have the right to do that. I personally prefer my freedom of expression even if it offends someone. Fine. But blaming Muslim immigrants seems like the wrong place to direct your ire. As far I can see, this problem is only with the Muslim immigrants in this country. When I was in India, I blamed both Hindus and Muslims for same reasons. The reason why most Europeans didn't care about this issue for a long time is because they were never subjected to religious oppression for at least a couple of generations now. It's been long since Christianity had control over the state. So most people have no clue about how religious oppression actually looks like and how terrible it is. I come from a country which is fairly secular but still there are certain regions where religious people(both Hindus and Muslims) use religion as a tool to take away other people's rights. So I have valid reasons to be concerned about a society bending over to religious zealots. In UK, it has already happened with Islam. And the country sleep walked into this situation because no one realised that this was a concern until it's too late. Rest of Europe is also seeing this problem only now. Sweden and Denmark are rightfully fighting back by allowing book burnings. " May I ask why anyone would want to burn any religious book? Other than narcissistic showmanship, or blatant dickheadedness, of course. Who is ‘allowing book burnings’ a good thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The book shouldn't deserve special status. That's why I mentioned context. For example, if Tommy Robinson is burning it. Or if it's burned at an EDL protest. It adds context. Burning the book is sending a message. I strongly disagree with your assertion about having blasphemy laws in practice. Those people who are threatening the life of the teacher, are breaking the law, not upholding it. The problem with laws like this based on books is that you are essentially letting police make arbitrary decisions on what's right and what's wrong. In practice, the book burning is banned for anyone. Even if an ex-Muslim who is gay and left religion because of the oppression wants to show his angst, it would be banned because the police do not want to put up with the violence that would ensue. This is why I admire the first amendment in the US. One of the best political laws ever. It's just a book. If someone wants to get offended and go on a rampage, the one who goes on the rampage is the one committing crime. The Batley incident, no one was arrested for sending death threats. Even if they were arrested, the teacher cannot live in peace after that because his life is always under threat. That's why I am saying the country is practically living under blasphemy laws even though it's not written anywhere. What laws based on books? We have laws based on hate speech. It's for the courts to decide. This incident sounds like a failing in the police. Not some unofficial law. There are laws around inciting violence which are being misused by police to ban any burning of the book, no matter what the intent is. I explained it clearly above. Same with hate speech law. Check the Wakefield incident. An autistic kid dropping the book was recorded as a hate incident. It's easy to blame the police. What could the police do about it? Arresting everyone who sent death threats would be a start though they didn't do that. But is that enough? Could the teacher really live in peace after that? Read about what happened to everyone who translated the Satanic verses in different countries and of course Rushdie himself. I feel like we're going round in circles. I don't think you'll be convinced that there aren't any laws on blasphemy. And I don't think I'll be convinced there are. I can't see myself becoming prejudice against Muslims. And I can't see you changing your stance. My argument is simple. If you cannot do something in a country without your life being threatened and going into hiding OR being taken any action on by government or other political institutions, I don't have the right to do that. I personally prefer my freedom of expression even if it offends someone. Fine. But blaming Muslim immigrants seems like the wrong place to direct your ire. As far I can see, this problem is only with the Muslim immigrants in this country. When I was in India, I blamed both Hindus and Muslims for same reasons. The reason why most Europeans didn't care about this issue for a long time is because they were never subjected to religious oppression for at least a couple of generations now. It's been long since Christianity had control over the state. So most people have no clue about how religious oppression actually looks like and how terrible it is. I come from a country which is fairly secular but still there are certain regions where religious people(both Hindus and Muslims) use religion as a tool to take away other people's rights. So I have valid reasons to be concerned about a society bending over to religious zealots. In UK, it has already happened with Islam. And the country sleep walked into this situation because no one realised that this was a concern until it's too late. Rest of Europe is also seeing this problem only now. Sweden and Denmark are rightfully fighting back by allowing book burnings. May I ask why anyone would want to burn any religious book? Other than narcissistic showmanship, or blatant dickheadedness, of course. Who is ‘allowing book burnings’ a good thing?" Some people want to focus on, judge and offend 1.7 billion humans based on the actions of a few individuals. Sad times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are worried about the effect of foreigners in general in the country, we should be really worried about the number of twats. Because while some foreigners are twats, all twats are twats. This in a nutshell is it. Why am I going to worry about a tiny tiny percentage of extremists from other countries, when we have far more dangerous people in parliament now, who have actual power? If you fall for the anti-immigrant stories then you’re doing Yaxley-Lennon’s job for him. I’d rather all extremists, be they radical Islam, EDL or anything else, just be ignored and not given the time of day. That way the decent people can all carry on living happily together. . Maybe you need to do a little further investigation into some of these extremists . Incidents such as 7/11 , the Manchester Arena bombings , the underground bombs and intimidation of those who do not believe with their religious beliefs is hardly something we should overlook . Christianity is far more tolerant than the views expressed by some of these non Christian organisations. I cannot remember any Christian organisation blowing planes out of the Sky and killing circa 3000 people. Have you heard of a Christian organisation called "The Catholic Church"? Like all religions, they have some odious bad apples, and a majority of good, decent people. Islam is no different, nor is Buddhism or indeed atheism. My new *ahem* friend is from Colombia, she’s a genuine, god fearing Catholic. Weird dynamic as an atheist but that’s me digressing. She’s appalled by some of the acts done in the name of Catholicism just as the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by the acts of their extremist cells. It’s lazy to lump everyone in together. No one 'lumped them all together' This took a turn because the poster said Ukrainians could integrate better, presumably because they have similar values (biggest religion in Ukraine is Othodox Chritstianity), than Muslims would be able to. You've twisted and twisted a twisted, that's why we're now here. And given our rich history of successfully welcoming non Christian, non-Europeans to the U.K who go on to integrate and assimilate, and indeed enrich our nation, the original claim was, and is utter bollocks. We’re here because a bigot wants to pretend that all Muslims are a threat, and another one wants to back him up. See the thing is... Every single time someone disagrees with you, you resort to insults. It actually says more about you than the people you attack. You keep telling yourself you're the tolerant one (kiss) Nope. Just checked for insults in that post. None found. A few truths, but no insults." Calling people bigots because they disagree with you isn't insulting? Do you know the definition of bigot? As I said previously you should've given up on this thread a long time ago, problem is you ego doesn't allow you to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
