FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UN blames UK politicians for Brexit hate crime spike
UN blames UK politicians for Brexit hate crime spike
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure." Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime?" Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. " Or making suggestions about second ammendment folks stopping Hilary.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. " Yes I know what mean and its not going to be easy to stop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. Or making suggestions about second ammendment folks stopping Hilary. "You have only mentioned Hilary because of Nigel Farage and his connection to Brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure." You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause? "Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report? "That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report? "No but you did post it on here to cause trouble some of us have got wise to you and don't bite others will do the same in time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report?
That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given .... "Wow...this isn't a very nice debate. There is an article...We could discuss it. There are some valid points made in it about pro-leavers not doing much to stop the anti-immigrant sentiment. I remember similar debates around the tea party in the US years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UN is the same body that sent a Brazilian 'expert' over to the UK to criticise our housing when Brazil has the biggest slums in the world. The roport quoted by the OP says: "....the EU referendum campaign had been marked by "divisive, anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric" and yet provides no quotes or sources for those comments. I wonder if the OP can provide such quotes and sources? We should also just quietly remember the UN was one of the bodies that joined in Project Fear and told us not to leave the EU ..... I think that puts it all in context." http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants There is a citation. Project fear indeed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Read your opening post OP. this is a COMFORTABLE truth. Who for you? I assume you meant UNCOMFORTABLE for some. Who exactly??" Don't bite its not worth it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report?
That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given ....
Wow...this isn't a very nice debate. There is an article...We could discuss it. There are some valid points made in it about pro-leavers not doing much to stop the anti-immigrant sentiment. I remember similar debates around the tea party in the US years ago."welcome to what has become the nasty part of the forums, where any divergence no matter how objectively its put or how impartial the source is to the new speak that is for some post the referendum result the only accepted narrative.. there is no debate other than to shout down the poster if they dare to not go with the narrative, and frankly its being allowed here but the same abuse by some on both sides would not be tolerated in the lounge.. its a bit tawdry and unbecoming and not fab.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report?
That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given ....
Wow...this isn't a very nice debate. There is an article...We could discuss it. There are some valid points made in it about pro-leavers not doing much to stop the anti-immigrant sentiment. I remember similar debates around the tea party in the US years ago.
welcome to what has become the nasty part of the forums, where any divergence no matter how objectively its put or how impartial the source is to the new speak that is for some post the referendum result the only accepted narrative..
there is no debate other than to shout down the poster if they dare to not go with the narrative, and frankly its being allowed here but the same abuse by some on both sides would not be tolerated in the lounge..
its a bit tawdry and unbecoming and not fab..
"Just had a quick read though the posts and failed to find any abuse could you point it out for me please. Thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report?
That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given ....
Wow...this isn't a very nice debate. There is an article...We could discuss it. There are some valid points made in it about pro-leavers not doing much to stop the anti-immigrant sentiment. I remember similar debates around the tea party in the US years ago.
welcome to what has become the nasty part of the forums, where any divergence no matter how objectively its put or how impartial the source is to the new speak that is for some post the referendum result the only accepted narrative..
there is no debate other than to shout down the poster if they dare to not go with the narrative, and frankly its being allowed here but the same abuse by some on both sides would not be tolerated in the lounge..
its a bit tawdry and unbecoming and not fab..
Just had a quick read though the posts and failed to find any abuse could you point it out for me please. Thank you"clearly I did not state this thread, feel free to take a trawl through the politics forum and they are sadly too evident.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report?
That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given ....
Wow...this isn't a very nice debate. There is an article...We could discuss it. There are some valid points made in it about pro-leavers not doing much to stop the anti-immigrant sentiment. I remember similar debates around the tea party in the US years ago.
welcome to what has become the nasty part of the forums, where any divergence no matter how objectively its put or how impartial the source is to the new speak that is for some post the referendum result the only accepted narrative..
there is no debate other than to shout down the poster if they dare to not go with the narrative, and frankly its being allowed here but the same abuse by some on both sides would not be tolerated in the lounge..
its a bit tawdry and unbecoming and not fab..
"According to some there are no impartial sources, not in the media, not in think tanks, not in international bodies, not in government bodies, not in quangos, not the police, not scientists, not farmers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty?" This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK? "Just pointing out that the UN has serious form for hysteria and hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Just pointing out that the UN has serious form for hysteria and hypocrisy. "Because you think someone from a poor country, regardless of their upbringing, training, education or experience can't report on poverty? Please can you explain the hypocrisy to me, because I can't see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You just can't let the racism thing go can you? You lose every damn argument you make about Brexit and so keep coming back with this crap. What part of 'no one in the Brexit campaign incited any racism or hatred' don't you quite understand? The fact that some morons used it as an 'excuse' is another discussion entirely. But seeing as you are looking for an argument try this: If we had not endured over 10 years of unfettered EU migration to the UK and all the stresses and strains that placed on our infrastructure, workforce, Housing, Health and Education services maybe, just maybe, those same morons would not have that bloody 'excuse'? Could that alternative not be the real cause?
Do you think I pressured the UN to write the report?
That has to be one of the dumbest answers you have ever given ....
Wow...this isn't a very nice debate. There is an article...We could discuss it. There are some valid points made in it about pro-leavers not doing much to stop the anti-immigrant sentiment. I remember similar debates around the tea party in the US years ago."I totally agree there is a place for a discussion but the OP repeatedly creates false negatives and especially the false 'racist' aspect of Brexit and some of us are rather fed up with it. So some people who voted leave have racist tendencies? I am sure many Remainers do as well. But there is absolutely no proof of who voted how and for why. everything is conjecture even in this UN report. To label Brexit as a campaign and those who voted to leave as 'racist' is to insult 17.4 million people and those of us who grafted for months to achieve this victory. I never saw ANY racist comments from anyone and I think its time all this crap was put where it belongs. In the bin.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK? "Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. " I take your point but can you please give an example of where any 'Vote Leave', 'G O' or 'Leave.EU' literature was in any way provocative or racist? I worked with Vote Leave for months. even before it became that name and I never saw ANY racist material anywhere. Even the posters that Farage was alleged to have put up for racist reasons were actually no such thing. Emotions did run high during that Referendum on both sides and that is a good thing but its over and done and Brexit won. Finished. All this crap from the OP is just another example of their sour grapes and why they are now known as 'Remoaners'... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. I take your point but can you please give an example of where any 'Vote Leave', 'G O' or 'Leave.EU' literature was in any way provocative or racist? I worked with Vote Leave for months. even before it became that name and I never saw ANY racist material anywhere. Even the posters that Farage was alleged to have put up for racist reasons were actually no such thing. Emotions did run high during that Referendum on both sides and that is a good thing but its over and done and Brexit won. Finished. All this crap from the OP is just another example of their sour grapes and why they are now known as 'Remoaners'..." I gave an example earlier in the thread in response to your question - the poster that Farage stood in front of where he made false insinuations that many, including myself, believed to be race driven.... I could also note the obvious racial comment made about Obama by Boris when he dared have an opinion about the debate. Of course the referendum is over - I get that (although no legal action has yet taken place to actually implement it....) but discussion about racial violence, or even the perception of it, as it relates to the referendum are clearly not over. It's isn't just fear baiting - which both sides engaged in during the referendum - its fact, as stated in the article the OP cited. What is so wrong about having a discussion about it? Why is any discourse on it deemed part of "project fear" and "remoaners". That's all just meaningless, incendiary soundbites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now."But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism "Proved wrong on what, and by whom? Just because people on a forum deny the truth and ignore the facts, doesn't mean it isn't true. Is there any organisation or body that you would believe and listen to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll try again without the aweful spelling errors... Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. I take your point but can you please give an example of where any 'Vote Leave', 'G O' or 'Leave.EU' literature was in any way provocative or racist? I worked with Vote Leave for months. even before it became that name and I never saw ANY racist material anywhere. Even the posters that Farage was alleged to have put up for racist reasons were actually no such thing. Emotions did run high during that Referendum on both sides and that is a good thing but its over and done and Brexit won. Finished. All this crap from the OP is just another example of their sour grapes and why they are now known as 'Remoaners'... I gave an example earlier in the thread in response to your question - the poster that Farage stood in front of where he made false insinuations that many, including myself, believed to be race driven.... I could also note the obvious racial comment made about Obama by Boris when he dared have an opinion about the debate. Of course the referendum is over - I get that (although no legal action has yet taken place to actually implement it....) but discussion about racial violence, or even the perception of it, as it relates to the referendum are clearly not over. It's isn't just fear baiting - which both sides engaged in during the referendum - its fact, as stated in the article the OP cited. What is so wrong about having a discussion about it? Why is any discourse on it deemed part of "project fear" and "remoaners". That's all just meaningless, incendiary soundbites." When the one individual keeps on and on and on droning on about the negatives and failures of Brexit and is proved wrong with facts, sources and figures on every topic raised you would think that people would learn or maybe just move on. Not this OP. They throw in the 'racist' jibe when they lose an argument or wish to divert attention from something knowing its an incendiary (to use your word) topic to many of us. Especially those of us who worked damned hard to win the 'Leave' vote. I can assure you none of us were in any way 'racist'. But that isn't good enough for the OP they then throw out the 'xenophobia' taunt in mid Thread when the 'racist' bullshit won't work. See above for a perfect example. I despise racism in any form. But I know its a changing thing. What is OK in 1950 is not OK now. I even adapted my language when something I said to a Scotsman here offended him to my great surprise and though there was no intention to cause any offence. The OPs are just sad argumentative people who give the impression they are trolling the Forum for an argument. And Brexit and racism are their chosen grounds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Proved wrong on what, and by whom? Just because people on a forum deny the truth and ignore the facts, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Is there any organisation or body that you would believe and listen to? "There isn't enough space to list where you have been proved wrong and all your 'experts' and 'forecasts' with you. In fact its easier to say what you got right. Yes the Pound fell in value by some 10% Trade Weighted but has since risen gradually. You search for the smallest crumb of failure of the UK like some needy little child looking for sweets. You are argumentative, manipulative and just looking for a fight in every Thread. You use the 'racist' and 'xenophobic' terms to cause offence and divert attention from your failed arguments on Brexit. We can all see what you are up to and I guess we should let you stew but I will not stand by and have people I grew to respect greatly and myself be called bloody racists by you or anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist. "So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do."What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth? "Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not being racist  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll try again without the aweful spelling errors... Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. I take your point but can you please give an example of where any 'Vote Leave', 'G O' or 'Leave.EU' literature was in any way provocative or racist? I worked with Vote Leave for months. even before it became that name and I never saw ANY racist material anywhere. Even the posters that Farage was alleged to have put up for racist reasons were actually no such thing. Emotions did run high during that Referendum on both sides and that is a good thing but its over and done and Brexit won. Finished. All this crap from the OP is just another example of their sour grapes and why they are now known as 'Remoaners'... I gave an example earlier in the thread in response to your question - the poster that Farage stood in front of where he made false insinuations that many, including myself, believed to be race driven.... I could also note the obvious racial comment made about Obama by Boris when he dared have an opinion about the debate. Of course the referendum is over - I get that (although no legal action has yet taken place to actually implement it....) but discussion about racial violence, or even the perception of it, as it relates to the referendum are clearly not over. It's isn't just fear baiting - which both sides engaged in during the referendum - its fact, as stated in the article the OP cited. What is so wrong about having a discussion about it? Why is any discourse on it deemed part of "project fear" and "remoaners". That's all just meaningless, incendiary soundbites. When the one individual keeps on and on and on droning on about the negatives and failures of Brexit and is proved wrong with facts, sources and figures on every topic raised you would think that people would learn or maybe just move on. Not this OP. They throw in the 'racist' jibe when they lose an argument or wish to divert attention from something knowing its an incendiary (to use your word) topic to many of us. Especially those of us who worked damned hard to win the 'Leave' vote. I can assure you none of us were in any way 'racist'. But that isn't good enough for the OP they then throw out the 'xenophobia' taunt in mid Thread when the 'racist' bullshit won't work. See above for a perfect example. I despise racism in any form. But I know its a changing thing. What is OK in 1950 is not OK now. I even adapted my language when something I said to a Scotsman here offended him to my great surprise and though there was no intention to cause any offence. The OPs are just sad argumentative people who give the impression they are trolling the Forum for an argument. And Brexit and racism are their chosen grounds." Ad hominem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth? "I take it you travel without a passport. Now will you answer the question? Who are the 'some' who will find this so called 'truth' uncomfortable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
I take it you travel without a passport.
Now will you answer the question? Who are the 'some' who will find this so called 'truth' uncomfortable?"Travelling with a passport is not the same as saying that someone can't do job because they come from Brazil! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not being racist "Discriminating against someone based on their country of birth is not called hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
I take it you travel without a passport.
Now will you answer the question? Who are the 'some' who will find this so called 'truth' uncomfortable?
Travelling with a passport is not the same as saying that someone can't do job because they come from Brazil! "isn't the need for a passport discriminating against someone because of their country of birth? Should the world do away with them? Now can you answer the question, who are the 'some'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
I take it you travel without a passport.
Now will you answer the question? Who are the 'some' who will find this so called 'truth' uncomfortable?
Travelling with a passport is not the same as saying that someone can't do job because they come from Brazil!
isn't the need for a passport discriminating against someone because of their country of birth? Should the world do away with them?
Now can you answer the question, who are the 'some'?"The "some" are the people denying the report, casting doubt on the reputation of the UN, even though the report supports numerous other sources. In the real world, this is how people determine the truth. When multiple, independent, reputable sources come to the same conclusion, then that's the truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure." You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime?" What crime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. " I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Proved wrong on what, and by whom? Just because people on a forum deny the truth and ignore the facts, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Is there any organisation or body that you would believe and listen to? "Every Brexit discussion for starters. Don't forget your hypocritical comments on Hinckley Point where you were caught out. But as usual as you have twisted something to suit yourself I will set you straight. The UN report doesn't say Brexiters were racist or respnsonsible for any hate crimes. It said politicians caused an atmosphere where it rose to the fore. The race/ hate crimes could have been by anyone, including remainers just like you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets use the example of a Polish man. If his car gets vandalised it is not petty crime by some dickhead but logged as a hate crime because he's a Pole. If same guy gets punched in a pub its not classed as assault because he's being a twat but because he's a Pole and its logged as a hate crime. If his house gets burgled, he wasn't being targeted for his shiny new laptop but because he's a Pole and its logged as a hate crime. and on and on it goes. The police are manipulating the figures to cover their incompetence and political agenda and some idiots are falling for it" That is so very true  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Proved wrong on what, and by whom? Just because people on a forum deny the truth and ignore the facts, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Is there any organisation or body that you would believe and listen to?
Every Brexit discussion for starters. Don't forget your hypocritical comments on Hinckley Point where you were caught out.
But as usual as you have twisted something to suit yourself I will set you straight. The UN report doesn't say Brexiters were racist or respnsonsible for any hate crimes. It said politicians caused an atmosphere where it rose to the fore. The race/ hate crimes could have been by anyone, including remainers just like you."My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets use the example of a Polish man. If his car gets vandalised it is not petty crime by some dickhead but logged as a hate crime because he's a Pole. If same guy gets punched in a pub its not classed as assault because he's being a twat but because he's a Pole and its logged as a hate crime. If his house gets burgled, he wasn't being targeted for his shiny new laptop but because he's a Pole and its logged as a hate crime. and on and on it goes. The police are manipulating the figures to cover their incompetence and political agenda and some idiots are falling for it" You might not like the fact that hate crimes are against the law, but they are. The police have said that there is a rise in hate crimes, the EHRC has said there is a rise in hate crimes, the UN has said there is a rise in hate crimes, but you just keep on denying it. As I said, reputable, independent sources coming to the same conclusion. People who are professionals in their field, are experienced, and have spent a lot of time researching, gathering evidence, hearing testimony etc have come to these conclusions, and you want to just dismiss it without being a professional in the field, without researching it, without gathering evidence or hearing testimony to support your claims simply because you dont like what they say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure." I'll take the bite of the OP. Glad they're blaming the politicians. Although some people seem to get defensive. The UN didn't blame the voters. To be fair I blame the politicians and media for the split in the country. It's not about racism it's about hate. People hating Corbynistas, Lefties, Tories, elders, the youths, people on benefits. I've seen a rise in hate or reactive comments in the forums here, in Facebook etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Proved wrong on what, and by whom? Just because people on a forum deny the truth and ignore the facts, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Is there any organisation or body that you would believe and listen to?
Every Brexit discussion for starters. Don't forget your hypocritical comments on Hinckley Point where you were caught out.
But as usual as you have twisted something to suit yourself I will set you straight. The UN report doesn't say Brexiters were racist or respnsonsible for any hate crimes. It said politicians caused an atmosphere where it rose to the fore. The race/ hate crimes could have been by anyone, including remainers just like you.
My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume.
The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? "On one thread you was saying Hinckley Point was not the best option while on another using it as example against Brexit. When I pulled you up on it you failed to respond while still chirping in elsewhere. Case closed on that one. I said you have twisted the article for you own purposes. Which you clearly have. Case 2 closed. Guilty on both counts your honour 
Take him down. Put him in solitary where he can't infect others with his preaching of hate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Just pointing out that the UN has serious form for hysteria and hypocrisy.
Because you think someone from a poor country, regardless of their upbringing, training, education or experience can't report on poverty? Please can you explain the hypocrisy to me, because I can't see it."There's non so blind as them that cannot see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. I'll take the bite of the OP. Glad they're blaming the politicians. Although some people seem to get defensive. The UN didn't blame the voters. To be fair I blame the politicians and media for the split in the country. It's not about racism it's about hate. People hating Corbynistas, Lefties, Tories, elders, the youths, people on benefits. I've seen a rise in hate or reactive comments in the forums here, in Facebook etc. " . That's because people have a default position in life, when the shit hits the fan they reboot to default... Call it nationalistic or xenophobia or racism or whatever else somebody wants to tell you it is... It's bollocks, people put up with all sorts of shit they dislike when things are going swimmingly, when it's not going so good they tend to rely on that default programming... I'm black, I'm Spanish, I'm Thai, I'm half Afghan Muslim Spanish Moroccan..... I'll tell you what it is.... It's bollocks that people buy into because people like to belong, oh look there's a fellow black person... We must be in common, surely, that's what society says... I'm black he's black.... Were black men.. Get a life, I'm from Irish decent I've met so many Irish people who are utter cunts... Ho be ho were all Irish together, it's those Brits that have ruined it for us, no it's fucking not, your a cunt, your Nigel fucking Farage by another name just disguising your failure by blaming others while finding something for your audience to latch onto.... If Ireland was so fucking great why have we all been leaving in fucking droves for 400 years?... Oh it was the famine, it was the English, it was the soldiers... Never the fact that it could be us! My MA and PA are religious fucking fruitcakes God bless them... Never their fault... They've been repressed into it!!! I'm so old and grumpy these days I've stopped giving a shit about who I offend.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth? "Answer The Bloody Question! Oh wait no you like twisting words so you get an angry reaction and then bottle it. The only hypocrite here is you .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says?" There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bring human would be easier without having to define yourself by a thousand things you were born to. Every time you define yourself, you'll feel the need to defend the defining because I can guarantee somebody or something you've defined yourself as will be a cunt!. I'd like to define myself as something other than human because quite frankly there's some who are just proper tits and I don't want to be associated with them.... Alas I'm a human but I'm not bothering with any of the other cultural racial religious defining bollocks as frankly alot of them are proper tits to " agree and fuck the UN while I'm at it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The "some" are the people denying the report, casting doubt on the reputation of the UN, even though the report supports numerous other sources. In the real world, this is how people determine the truth. When multiple, independent, reputable sources come to the same conclusion, then that's the truth." Do you really not understand why people aren't going to give credibility to messages delivered by hypocrites? The UN talking about racism is like Kim Jong Un giving a lecture on nuclear non-proliferation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not being racist
Discriminating against someone based on their country of birth is not called hypocrisy."I fully understand that Sherlock. I'll try and make it overly clear then. For someone to write a report on another countries problems when their own countries same problem is 100 times worse is hypocritical not discrimination You twist or totally leave out the crux of a point to meet your desire to get back to discrimination | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets use the example of a Polish man. If his car gets vandalised it is not petty crime by some dickhead but logged as a hate crime because he's a Pole. If same guy gets punched in a pub its not classed as assault because he's being a twat but because he's a Pole and its logged as a hate crime. If his house gets burgled, he wasn't being targeted for his shiny new laptop but because he's a Pole and its logged as a hate crime. and on and on it goes. The police are manipulating the figures to cover their incompetence and political agenda and some idiots are falling for it You might not like the fact that hate crimes are against the law, but they are. The police have said that there is a rise in hate crimes, the EHRC has said there is a rise in hate crimes, the UN has said there is a rise in hate crimes, but you just keep on denying it. As I said, reputable, independent sources coming to the same conclusion. People who are professionals in their field, are experienced, and have spent a lot of time researching, gathering evidence, hearing testimony etc have come to these conclusions, and you want to just dismiss it without being a professional in the field, without researching it, without gathering evidence or hearing testimony to support your claims simply because you dont like what they say." Of course I like the fact that hate crimes are against the law, again you try to twist things, I am just pointing out that some crimes are classed as hate crimes when they are not. On another point, do you need any evidence to report a hate crime now and does that accusation then appear in the hate crime figures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Proved wrong on what, and by whom? Just because people on a forum deny the truth and ignore the facts, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Is there any organisation or body that you would believe and listen to?
Every Brexit discussion for starters. Don't forget your hypocritical comments on Hinckley Point where you were caught out.
But as usual as you have twisted something to suit yourself I will set you straight. The UN report doesn't say Brexiters were racist or respnsonsible for any hate crimes. It said politicians caused an atmosphere where it rose to the fore. The race/ hate crimes could have been by anyone, including remainers just like you.
My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume.
The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says?
On one thread you was saying Hinckley Point was not the best option while on another using it as example against Brexit. When I pulled you up on it you failed to respond while still chirping in elsewhere. Case closed on that one.
I said you have twisted the article for you own purposes. Which you clearly have. Case 2 closed.
Guilty on both counts your honour
Take him down. Put him in solitary where he can't infect others with his preaching of hate."On one thread I said renewables were better than nuclear, on another thread about what would be different if the vote had gone the other way I mentioned HP. It's you who has assumed a value judgement on if that's a good or a bad thing, I just said that the delay wouldn't have happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not being racist
Discriminating against someone based on their country of birth is not called hypocrisy.
I fully understand that Sherlock.
I'll try and make it overly clear then.
For someone to write a report on another countries problems when their own countries same problem is 100 times worse is hypocritical not discrimination
You twist or totally leave out the crux of a point to meet your desire to get back to discrimination "Their job was to write a report on the UK, you are suggesting that they are not qualified to do that simply because of the country they were born. Does the report compare Britain and Brazil? Does the report say that Britain is poorer than Brazil, or that Brazil's urban planning is better than the UK's? I just want to be clear if you are attacking the substance of the report, or simply attacking the author because of their country of birth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again ...." You were previously denying that it had been delayed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it." Kept up to date enough to know that they also produced a report on ageist attacks by remainers in the UK following Brexit? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54406#.V8FI6TjTXHw Or did you fail to report that on the forums because you've made comments of an ageist nature about Brexiters? Welcome to the world of bigotry! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it. Kept up to date enough to know that they also produced a report on ageist attacks by remainers in the UK following Brexit? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54406#.V8FI6TjTXHw Or did you fail to report that on the forums because you've made comments of an ageist nature about Brexiters? Welcome to the world of bigotry! " I did see that report when I was looking at the report mentioned in the OP. But the ageism report wasn't reported in the media, so it seems more like you are digging for stories than I am. All I have said is that the polling data shows that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain. But as you will see in the other posts, many others of this forum say that's not true. So you will have to decide, is the polling data right or wrong? The report talks about people calling for older people to be stripped of their right to vote, but I personally haven't seen anything like that in the media or social media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure?" 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure? 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? " and you think people at college and university are much more than children? B - they progress to being stupid old people but may have learnt from the mistakes they made. thats why I said on the whole, not all, well obviously not all, some voted Remain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure? 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? and you think people at college and university are much more than children? B - they progress to being stupid old people but may have learnt from the mistakes they made. thats why I said on the whole, not all, well obviously not all, some voted Remain" People do learn from their mistakes but they normally draw the wrong conclusions in the process. I've lost count of the number of women who are on their 5th husband but the only lesson they've learnt is that "i pick assholes" or "all men are assholes". College people can't vote either, legally they are children anyway. I think University is where people's views might start to diverge from their parents, but Ironically only towards their new peer group. This is why university students show a massive left wing bias, which most thankfully grow out of later in life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it. Kept up to date enough to know that they also produced a report on ageist attacks by remainers in the UK following Brexit? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54406#.V8FI6TjTXHw Or did you fail to report that on the forums because you've made comments of an ageist nature about Brexiters? Welcome to the world of bigotry! I did see that report when I was looking at the report mentioned in the OP. But the ageism report wasn't reported in the media, so it seems more like you are digging for stories than I am. All I have said is that the polling data shows that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain. But as you will see in the other posts, many others of this forum say that's not true. So you will have to decide, is the polling data right or wrong? The report talks about people calling for older people to be stripped of their right to vote, but I personally haven't seen anything like that in the media or social media." Ah yes 'polling data'. So not actual reports from the vote paper itself then? Exactly my point! And yes that 'poll' that you make sound so definite and finite about who voted how was taken on the day after the vote from 5,455 people. Now we don't even know if they were voters or not either. So according to YOU 5,455 people exactly replicates the demographic makeup of 35 million voters? Its unreal ..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again .... You were previously denying that it had been delayed! " There you go with that twisting words trick. No I did not say that ever. I destroyed your point with facts and sources that it had been delayed by Brexit. Unless you can copy / paste something to the contrary of course. And I note you have still not answered my direct question as to whether you are calling me a racist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it. Kept up to date enough to know that they also produced a report on ageist attacks by remainers in the UK following Brexit? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54406#.V8FI6TjTXHw Or did you fail to report that on the forums because you've made comments of an ageist nature about Brexiters? Welcome to the world of bigotry! I did see that report when I was looking at the report mentioned in the OP. But the ageism report wasn't reported in the media, so it seems more like you are digging for stories than I am. All I have said is that the polling data shows that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain. But as you will see in the other posts, many others of this forum say that's not true. So you will have to decide, is the polling data right or wrong? The report talks about people calling for older people to be stripped of their right to vote, but I personally haven't seen anything like that in the media or social media. Ah yes 'polling data'. So not actual reports from the vote paper itself then? Exactly my point! And yes that 'poll' that you make sound so definite and finite about who voted how was taken on the day after the vote from 5,455 people. Now we don't even know if they were voters or not either. So according to YOU 5,455 people exactly replicates the demographic makeup of 35 million voters? Its unreal ..... "And what about the 1.1m polled by Vote Leave? Are you going to dismiss that as well? How do you feel that money you donated to Vote Leave being used for polling both before and after the referendum? You can keep on saying polling is useless, but people pay for it, people on both sides of this debate and many others. Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry." That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again .... You were previously denying that it had been delayed! There you go with that twisting words trick. No I did not say that ever. I destroyed your point with facts and sources that it had been delayed by Brexit. Unless you can copy / paste something to the contrary of course. And I note you have still not answered my direct question as to whether you are calling me a racist?" You didn't destroy anything, you just refused to accept the multiple articles, experts and professionals that disagreed with you. It was clear that you were denying that HP wasnt delayed, but I am glad that you have now U-turned on that and accept that HP has indeed been delayed. To say that someone is unqualified to write a report based solely on their country of birth is racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! " So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! " You quote a classic example of how the so called 'experts' and their 'forecasts' failed to see the biggest banking crisis thundering over the horizon. And now the same folks are 'forecasting' how a post Brexit Uk will look when no one has been here before. And didn't 'the Polls' do well 'forecasting' the result of the General Election? And at the EU Referendum itself? And even the bookies missed Leicester City winning the League! One thing is for sure we all, well those of us with eyes to see, have learned to ignore 'experts' and their 'forecasts'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure? 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? and you think people at college and university are much more than children? B - they progress to being stupid old people but may have learnt from the mistakes they made. thats why I said on the whole, not all, well obviously not all, some voted Remain People do learn from their mistakes but they normally draw the wrong conclusions in the process. I've lost count of the number of women who are on their 5th husband but the only lesson they've learnt is that "i pick assholes" or "all men are assholes". College people can't vote either, legally they are children anyway. I think University is where people's views might start to diverge from their parents, but Ironically only towards their new peer group. This is why university students show a massive left wing bias, which most thankfully grow out of later in life. " Agreed. And that's kinda the point I'm making about the way they apparently voted in the referendum. When they get a little wiser they will realise that they were wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. " You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again .... You were previously denying that it had been delayed! There you go with that twisting words trick. No I did not say that ever. I destroyed your point with facts and sources that it had been delayed by Brexit. Unless you can copy / paste something to the contrary of course. And I note you have still not answered my direct question as to whether you are calling me a racist? You didn't destroy anything, you just refused to accept the multiple articles, experts and professionals that disagreed with you. It was clear that you were denying that HP wasnt delayed, but I am glad that you have now U-turned on that and accept that HP has indeed been delayed. To say that someone is unqualified to write a report based solely on their country of birth is racist." Actually I was responding to YOUR quotes and so called experts. They were not disagreeing with me .. chicken / egg syndrome? You used out of date sources who were speaking before EDF had made their final commitment to it and before May delayed the final go ahead. At no point did I say it was not delayed so stop telling blatant lies. Again do please copy paste if you are so sure. Again no answer on racism just a twisting and turning on your own hook of stupidity, bias and lies. You started this whole Thread to continue to peddle your vicious and ignorant mantra that anyone who voted Leave is a racist / old / uneducated/ poor / Little Englander. And you have failed at every turn to prove any such thing. Maybe its time to just stop? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! You quote a classic example of how the so called 'experts' and their 'forecasts' failed to see the biggest banking crisis thundering over the horizon. And now the same folks are 'forecasting' how a post Brexit Uk will look when no one has been here before. And didn't 'the Polls' do well 'forecasting' the result of the General Election? And at the EU Referendum itself? And even the bookies missed Leicester City winning the League! One thing is for sure we all, well those of us with eyes to see, have learned to ignore 'experts' and their 'forecasts'." I'm afraid I have to pull you up on a point of logic, this is the intelligent part of the fab forum afterall. Bookies odds are not designed to forecast. They are designed to balance bets whilst skimming profit of the transactions. The Bookies didn't miss Leicester, some of them offered odds that they shouldn't have. For a better example, most Bookies were offering 1/4 on a remain vote on the eve of the election, which as a forecast implies a ~70% chance of a remain vote. However the bookies actually made more money from the leave vote, than they would if it had been remain. Which is their job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure? 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? and you think people at college and university are much more than children? B - they progress to being stupid old people but may have learnt from the mistakes they made. thats why I said on the whole, not all, well obviously not all, some voted Remain People do learn from their mistakes but they normally draw the wrong conclusions in the process. I've lost count of the number of women who are on their 5th husband but the only lesson they've learnt is that "i pick assholes" or "all men are assholes". College people can't vote either, legally they are children anyway. I think University is where people's views might start to diverge from their parents, but Ironically only towards their new peer group. This is why university students show a massive left wing bias, which most thankfully grow out of later in life. Agreed. And that's kinda the point I'm making about the way they apparently voted in the referendum. When they get a little wiser they will realise that they were wrong "Yeah but it's nice to dabble with a bit of leftism every now and then when you've got cash to burn. Without evil there could be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it. Kept up to date enough to know that they also produced a report on ageist attacks by remainers in the UK following Brexit? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54406#.V8FI6TjTXHw Or did you fail to report that on the forums because you've made comments of an ageist nature about Brexiters? Welcome to the world of bigotry! I did see that report when I was looking at the report mentioned in the OP. But the ageism report wasn't reported in the media, so it seems more like you are digging for stories than I am. All I have said is that the polling data shows that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain. But as you will see in the other posts, many others of this forum say that's not true. So you will have to decide, is the polling data right or wrong? The report talks about people calling for older people to be stripped of their right to vote, but I personally haven't seen anything like that in the media or social media. Ah yes 'polling data'. So not actual reports from the vote paper itself then? Exactly my point! And yes that 'poll' that you make sound so definite and finite about who voted how was taken on the day after the vote from 5,455 people. Now we don't even know if they were voters or not either. So according to YOU 5,455 people exactly replicates the demographic makeup of 35 million voters? Its unreal .....
And what about the 1.1m polled by Vote Leave? Are you going to dismiss that as well? How do you feel that money you donated to Vote Leave being used for polling both before and after the referendum?
You can keep on saying polling is useless, but people pay for it, people on both sides of this debate and many others. Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry."Correct me if I,m wrong but did,nt the polls say the day before the referendum that Remain would win by 4% seems they got that wrong too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again .... You were previously denying that it had been delayed! There you go with that twisting words trick. No I did not say that ever. I destroyed your point with facts and sources that it had been delayed by Brexit. Unless you can copy / paste something to the contrary of course. And I note you have still not answered my direct question as to whether you are calling me a racist? You didn't destroy anything, you just refused to accept the multiple articles, experts and professionals that disagreed with you. It was clear that you were denying that HP wasnt delayed, but I am glad that you have now U-turned on that and accept that HP has indeed been delayed. To say that someone is unqualified to write a report based solely on their country of birth is racist. Actually I was responding to YOUR quotes and so called experts. They were not disagreeing with me .. chicken / egg syndrome? You used out of date sources who were speaking before EDF had made their final commitment to it and before May delayed the final go ahead. At no point did I say it was not delayed so stop telling blatant lies. Again do please copy paste if you are so sure. Again no answer on racism just a twisting and turning on your own hook of stupidity, bias and lies. You started this whole Thread to continue to peddle your vicious and ignorant mantra that anyone who voted Leave is a racist / old / uneducated/ poor / Little Englander. And you have failed at every turn to prove any such thing. Maybe its time to just stop?" How can a source be out of date if they say its going to be delayed, and then it is delayed? Is this your new tactic? When an expert is proved right, you are going to say that its out of date? Twisting on my own hook of stupidity? I wonder if you could explain to the rest of the forum what other jobs Brazilians are unqualified for? Is it just Brazilians, or all South Americans that you think can't do certain jobs? If you can't see that saying someone cant do a job because of their country of birth is racist, then its not very surprising that you say you saw no racism at Vote Leave is it? Perhaps you just can't recognise it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP. Would this be the same UN whose "Brazilian" representative lectured the UK about poverty? This is a thread about racism, hatred and xenophobia in the UK, and you are suggesting that it shouldn't be listened to because it comes from the United Nations, which had an expert from Brazil write a report? Are you suggesting that this other report has no value simply because the main author is from Brazil? That is how you are going to prove that there isnt a problem with xenophobia in the UK?
Oh here we go with the distortion routine ...
NO ... My point was the UN has a tendency to have reports written by people with a particular agenda. And then find the reports are actually flawed. The relevance of the Brazilian aspect was, as you well bloody know, that she was from Brazil lecturing the UK about housing and poverty when her own country is one of the worst offenders. Plus her credentials were pretty much trashed afterwards. Maybe she should write a UN report on Brazilian poverty?
I made a clear connection but you have to drop in the word' xenophobia' to distort the discussion and cause argument.
Well you have got one now.
But her job was to write a report about UK poverty, not Brazilian poverty. To suggest that she shouldn't do her job because of the country she comes from is xenophobic/racist.
So are you calling me a racist? Yes or no. Simple one word answer will do.
What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not being racist " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure? 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? and you think people at college and university are much more than children? B - they progress to being stupid old people but may have learnt from the mistakes they made. thats why I said on the whole, not all, well obviously not all, some voted Remain People do learn from their mistakes but they normally draw the wrong conclusions in the process. I've lost count of the number of women who are on their 5th husband but the only lesson they've learnt is that "i pick assholes" or "all men are assholes". College people can't vote either, legally they are children anyway. I think University is where people's views might start to diverge from their parents, but Ironically only towards their new peer group. This is why university students show a massive left wing bias, which most thankfully grow out of later in life. Agreed. And that's kinda the point I'm making about the way they apparently voted in the referendum. When they get a little wiser they will realise that they were wrong
Yeah but it's nice to dabble with a bit of leftism every now and then when you've got cash to burn. Without evil there could be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes. "correction - other peoples cash to burn comrade | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! You quote a classic example of how the so called 'experts' and their 'forecasts' failed to see the biggest banking crisis thundering over the horizon. And now the same folks are 'forecasting' how a post Brexit Uk will look when no one has been here before. And didn't 'the Polls' do well 'forecasting' the result of the General Election? And at the EU Referendum itself? And even the bookies missed Leicester City winning the League! One thing is for sure we all, well those of us with eyes to see, have learned to ignore 'experts' and their 'forecasts'. I'm afraid I have to pull you up on a point of logic, this is the intelligent part of the fab forum afterall. Bookies odds are not designed to forecast. They are designed to balance bets whilst skimming profit of the transactions. The Bookies didn't miss Leicester, some of them offered odds that they shouldn't have. For a better example, most Bookies were offering 1/4 on a remain vote on the eve of the election, which as a forecast implies a ~70% chance of a remain vote. However the bookies actually made more money from the leave vote, than they would if it had been remain. Which is their job. " Fair point on Leicester. Always research even a throw away line
I deliberately didn't mention bookies and the vote because the punters were actually betting on a 'Leave' vote given the number of bets but more cash was put on 'Remain'. I am glad I am not a bookie have to say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Older voters on the whole have the wisdom to know what is right and the best interests of their children at heart. Interestingly my son's school held a mock referendum for the 12-16 year olds and the vote was 80%-20% to leave. Can anyone say that the young are not influenced by peer pressure? 1) This is why children can't vote 2) What do you think happens to stupid middle age people as they age? - a. They magically overturn a lifetime habbit, even though their intelligence peaked at 27 - b. They progress to become stupid old people? and you think people at college and university are much more than children? B - they progress to being stupid old people but may have learnt from the mistakes they made. thats why I said on the whole, not all, well obviously not all, some voted Remain People do learn from their mistakes but they normally draw the wrong conclusions in the process. I've lost count of the number of women who are on their 5th husband but the only lesson they've learnt is that "i pick assholes" or "all men are assholes". College people can't vote either, legally they are children anyway. I think University is where people's views might start to diverge from their parents, but Ironically only towards their new peer group. This is why university students show a massive left wing bias, which most thankfully grow out of later in life. Agreed. And that's kinda the point I'm making about the way they apparently voted in the referendum. When they get a little wiser they will realise that they were wrong
Yeah but it's nice to dabble with a bit of leftism every now and then when you've got cash to burn. Without evil there could be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes.
correction - other peoples cash to burn comrade " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You must have quite a boring life with nothing to do all day apart from trawling the Internet for anti-brexit articles. As I previously asked on another post, but you kept on avoiding an answer... "Once again, will you stop bleating about Brexit, or slagging off 'Brexiters', at every single opportunity you get?". Whatever your answer, we may not be on line until after Monday, so won't be able to respond until then, so see you after monday. I keep up to date with the news and this article was on the most read on the BBC NEWS website, and also all over the radio, so no it's not something that I go looking for. If it's important enough to be in the top 10 most read stories on the BBC, then it might be worth talking about on here, so I see no reason not to discuss it. As with the rest of the forum, if you don't like the thread, don't comment on it. Kept up to date enough to know that they also produced a report on ageist attacks by remainers in the UK following Brexit? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54406#.V8FI6TjTXHw Or did you fail to report that on the forums because you've made comments of an ageist nature about Brexiters? Welcome to the world of bigotry! I did see that report when I was looking at the report mentioned in the OP. But the ageism report wasn't reported in the media, so it seems more like you are digging for stories than I am. All I have said is that the polling data shows that older people tended to vote leave, and younger people tended to vote remain. But as you will see in the other posts, many others of this forum say that's not true. So you will have to decide, is the polling data right or wrong? The report talks about people calling for older people to be stripped of their right to vote, but I personally haven't seen anything like that in the media or social media." Actually, I wasn't digging, I was looking at the same report mentioned in the OP, the same as you apparently! The ageism report was written by a UN human rights expert, so if you are to believe that expert, then under 35s don't believe older people should have had a vote on Brexit, and as for other 'expert' reports, which you must believe as you bike what the experts say, those who voted leave are older, semi-skilled, and ill-educated. Ergo, for you to believe all this, that makes you ageist, and, as such, a bigot. QED. Again, funny for you to say that Brexit has led to hate crimes, etc, but not to say anything about young remainers and their hatred towards older voters. Especially when, as you so kindly pointed out, you read the two UN reports at the same time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My hypocritical points on Hinckley Point? The thread was about what would have happened if we had remained, I said that HP wouldn't have been delayed. Everyone knows it has been delayed, it's been all over the news all over the world, and yet people on here just say "it hasn't been delayed" and to you, that seems to be proof that I'm wrong! And of course the BBC, telegraph, independent, guardian, Forbes, NAO, etc. that I quoted, they must all be wrong too I assume. The title of the thread is blaming it on the politicians, so why have you assumed that I dont know that, or what the article says? There you go again twisting words. No one disagreed with your statement Hinckley Point had been delayed. What we pulled you up on and proved you so wrong on was your statement it was delayed by Brexit. Oops you forgot to mention that just now didn't you. Failed again .... You were previously denying that it had been delayed! There you go with that twisting words trick. No I did not say that ever. I destroyed your point with facts and sources that it had been delayed by Brexit. Unless you can copy / paste something to the contrary of course. And I note you have still not answered my direct question as to whether you are calling me a racist? You didn't destroy anything, you just refused to accept the multiple articles, experts and professionals that disagreed with you. It was clear that you were denying that HP wasnt delayed, but I am glad that you have now U-turned on that and accept that HP has indeed been delayed. To say that someone is unqualified to write a report based solely on their country of birth is racist. Actually I was responding to YOUR quotes and so called experts. They were not disagreeing with me .. chicken / egg syndrome? You used out of date sources who were speaking before EDF had made their final commitment to it and before May delayed the final go ahead. At no point did I say it was not delayed so stop telling blatant lies. Again do please copy paste if you are so sure. Again no answer on racism just a twisting and turning on your own hook of stupidity, bias and lies. You started this whole Thread to continue to peddle your vicious and ignorant mantra that anyone who voted Leave is a racist / old / uneducated/ poor / Little Englander. And you have failed at every turn to prove any such thing. Maybe its time to just stop? How can a source be out of date if they say its going to be delayed, and then it is delayed? Is this your new tactic? When an expert is proved right, you are going to say that its out of date? Twisting on my own hook of stupidity? I wonder if you could explain to the rest of the forum what other jobs Brazilians are unqualified for? Is it just Brazilians, or all South Americans that you think can't do certain jobs? If you can't see that saying someone cant do a job because of their country of birth is racist, then its not very surprising that you say you saw no racism at Vote Leave is it? Perhaps you just can't recognise it? " To expose someone from a very poor and slum ridden country as a hypocrite for writing a damning report on British poverty and poor housing based on 15 minute briefings by vested interests and no meetings with the Government Department or Ministers concerned is not in any way xenophobic or racist. It is factual criticism. Except in your parallel universe of course. Where you are the arbiter of all things and where Brexiters are by definition Old, Ignorant, Poorly Educated, Racist, Xenophobic Little Englanders. Your thesis is flawed and your arguments have no substance. You are repeatedly corrected in your false statements and yet you keep dragging out the same old nonsense. You especially seek out any and all opportunities to play the racism card just as all people with failed arguments do. And you have even started a Thread to play that card for all its worth. which is nothing. It is worthless. So please just stop... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? " So seriously, nobody is interested in my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor???  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its all getting really silly now. And very boring. I voted Leave. I have a degree. I'm middle aged. I pay my taxes, work hard and treat others how I would like to be treated. I make balanced decisions based on common sense above all else. I dont care what anyone thinks of me because I voted leave. I think the level of immigration is far too high. I think it causes huge problems for many people and their families. For far too long politicians have ignored the views of all us "poorly educated racist little Englanders". Hate crime - just another load of PC bollocks. Its a crime. Plain and simple. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its all getting really silly now. And very boring. I voted Leave. I have a degree. I'm middle aged. I pay my taxes, work hard and treat others how I would like to be treated. I make balanced decisions based on common sense above all else. I dont care what anyone thinks of me because I voted leave. I think the level of immigration is far too high. I think it causes huge problems for many people and their families. For far too long politicians have ignored the views of all us "poorly educated racist little Englanders". Hate crime - just another load of PC bollocks. Its a crime. Plain and simple. " can I just say I like you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its all getting really silly now. And very boring. I voted Leave. I have a degree. I'm middle aged. I pay my taxes, work hard and treat others how I would like to be treated. I make balanced decisions based on common sense above all else. I dont care what anyone thinks of me because I voted leave. I think the level of immigration is far too high. I think it causes huge problems for many people and their families. For far too long politicians have ignored the views of all us "poorly educated racist little Englanders". Hate crime - just another load of PC bollocks. Its a crime. Plain and simple. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its all getting really silly now. And very boring. I voted Leave. I have a degree. I'm middle aged. I pay my taxes, work hard and treat others how I would like to be treated. I make balanced decisions based on common sense above all else. I dont care what anyone thinks of me because I voted leave. I think the level of immigration is far too high. I think it causes huge problems for many people and their families. For far too long politicians have ignored the views of all us "poorly educated racist little Englanders". Hate crime - just another load of PC bollocks. Its a crime. Plain and simple. can I just say I like you " Haha! At least somebody does! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? So seriously, nobody is interested in my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor??? "Is it like the 'Empty Barn Story'? There is nothing in it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? So seriously, nobody is interested in my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor???
Is it like the 'Empty Barn Story'? There is nothing in it? "No, it's both funny and informative. You can learn while you laugh. Wanna hear it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its all getting really silly now. And very boring. I voted Leave. I have a degree. I'm middle aged. I pay my taxes, work hard and treat others how I would like to be treated. I make balanced decisions based on common sense above all else. I dont care what anyone thinks of me because I voted leave. I think the level of immigration is far too high. I think it causes huge problems for many people and their families. For far too long politicians have ignored the views of all us "poorly educated racist little Englanders". Hate crime - just another load of PC bollocks. Its a crime. Plain and simple. " As a certain UKIP Leader said to the EU Parliament: "You laughed at us before. But you aren't laughing now!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? So seriously, nobody is interested in my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor???
Is it like the 'Empty Barn Story'? There is nothing in it?
No, it's both funny and informative. You can learn while you laugh. Wanna hear it? "I will even interrupt my Sweet & Sour Chicken to hear ....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? So seriously, nobody is interested in my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor???
Is it like the 'Empty Barn Story'? There is nothing in it?
No, it's both funny and informative. You can learn while you laugh. Wanna hear it?
I will even interrupt my Sweet & Sour Chicken to hear .... "Well I'm glad somebody does, CLCC take note before repeating that rationale. Here goes: Two university professors are walking around the campus of the Chicago Business School on a summers sunny day. They are deeply engaged in a discussion about the role of government in the economy, when suddenly the efficient market hypothesis professor realises he's a few steps ahead of his colleague who has stopped. Annoyed that he'd been talking to himself for the last few paces, he asks the other professor what the fuck he stopped for. The other professor says "i saw a 20 on the ground so I stopped to pick it up". Infuriated further, the efficient market hypothesis professor says "that's fucking impossible, if there was a 20 on the floor, someone would have picked it up already". Thank you, I'm here all week. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Quite simply if polling data was rubbish, there wouldn't be a polling industry. That logic is patently incorrect. Humans are creatures of habbit and notoriously slow and reluctant to update beliefs. 2008 proven beyond any reasonable doubt that rating agencies are utterly useless at their job. Yet here we are 8 years later and everyone still cares about their opinions!! So you dont believe in the power of the free market? I'm surprised to hear that coming from you. You want me to tell you the joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? So seriously, nobody is interested in my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor???
Is it like the 'Empty Barn Story'? There is nothing in it?
No, it's both funny and informative. You can learn while you laugh. Wanna hear it?
I will even interrupt my Sweet & Sour Chicken to hear ....
Well I'm glad somebody does, CLCC take note before repeating that rationale.
Here goes:
Two university professors are walking around the campus of the Chicago Business School on a summers sunny day. They are deeply engaged in a discussion about the role of government in the economy, when suddenly the efficient market hypothesis professor realises he's a few steps ahead of his colleague who has stopped. Annoyed that he'd been talking to himself for the last few paces, he asks the other professor what the fuck he stopped for. The other professor says "i saw a 20 on the ground so I stopped to pick it up". Infuriated further, the efficient market hypothesis professor says "that's fucking impossible, if there was a 20 on the floor, someone would have picked it up already".
Thank you, I'm here all week. "I prefer my Sweet & Sour Chicken .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What do you call people who discriminate against people based on their country of birth?
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not being racist
Discriminating against someone based on their country of birth is not called hypocrisy.
I fully understand that Sherlock.
I'll try and make it overly clear then.
For someone to write a report on another countries problems when their own countries same problem is 100 times worse is hypocritical not discrimination
You twist or totally leave out the crux of a point to meet your desire to get back to discrimination
Their job was to write a report on the UK, you are suggesting that they are not qualified to do that simply because of the country they were born.
"Incorrect. You're totally missing the point and frankly i can't be arsed to explain it to you. You wouldn't understand anyway But crack on with your discriminatory bluster, you seem to enjoy it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll try again without the aweful spelling errors... Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. Not seen it but how can they blame anyone apart from the person/persons committing the crime? Because rhetoric can be incitable. It's the same when Trump tells supporters to knock out the protesters at his rallies and he'll pay the legal fees. My example lacks subtlety, but you get the idea. I take your point but can you please give an example of where any 'Vote Leave', 'G O' or 'Leave.EU' literature was in any way provocative or racist? I worked with Vote Leave for months. even before it became that name and I never saw ANY racist material anywhere. Even the posters that Farage was alleged to have put up for racist reasons were actually no such thing. Emotions did run high during that Referendum on both sides and that is a good thing but its over and done and Brexit won. Finished. All this crap from the OP is just another example of their sour grapes and why they are now known as 'Remoaners'... I gave an example earlier in the thread in response to your question - the poster that Farage stood in front of where he made false insinuations that many, including myself, believed to be race driven.... I could also note the obvious racial comment made about Obama by Boris when he dared have an opinion about the debate. Of course the referendum is over - I get that (although no legal action has yet taken place to actually implement it....) but discussion about racial violence, or even the perception of it, as it relates to the referendum are clearly not over. It's isn't just fear baiting - which both sides engaged in during the referendum - its fact, as stated in the article the OP cited. What is so wrong about having a discussion about it? Why is any discourse on it deemed part of "project fear" and "remoaners". That's all just meaningless, incendiary soundbites." What about the blatantly racist poster put out by the 'Remain' campaign then, the operation back vote poster designed by saatchi and saatchi? No mention of that in your post? Remainers constantly criticise the Leave campaigns but refuse to acknowledge that the remain campaign told lies of their own and had openly racist posters of their own. Secondly the Ukip/Farage/Leave.EU 'breaking point' poster you mentioned highlighted the failures of the EU to deal with the migrant crisis going on in Europe. Nigel Farage said as much when the poster was unveiled. Do you think the EU has done a good job of dealing with the migrant crisis then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/31/mp-horror-over-killing-of-polish-man-in-harlow-robert-halfon" Yes? Your point is exactly? So a bunch of teenage thugs murder someone. Sadly not for the first time we see young people in gangs acting violently. Is it because the poor guy was Polish that makes it worse? Why is the murder of a Polish person worth more comment than the murder of a British person. They are both tragedies. Or maybe not in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you're not attacking this surge in racist attacks then you are most probably a racist" In what way do you suggest to attack | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't need the UN to blame hate crimes on the Brexit referendum. For the best part of six months, the winning side created mythical problems in our society and the blame for which was laid at the feet of foreigners (immigrants, EU politicians etc). By suggesting that by wresting control back from the foreigners the country could be made better for the indigenous population is the very simplest form of racism and it is no real wonder than a certain percentage of the population would see taking on the foreigner therefore as being their patriotic duty. It reminds me of the paediatricians house that was spray painted with offensive graffiti when the media was on a paedophile witch hunt a few years ago. " They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Leaving the EU will now allow the UK Government to exercise control of EU migration and the focus on this problem will force better non-EU migration. Quote: "By suggesting that by wresting control back from the foreigners the country could be made better for the indigenous population is the very simplest form of racism" Wow that has to be one of the most outrageous statements on here! I have to point out it is your use of the word 'indigenous' that infers the racism you criticise. No one in the Leave campaigns used that term. Control of immigration into a population of some 65 million is simple common sense. Control of demand on our Public Services is common sense. Control of the quality of skills people bring to the UK is common sense. Control is not racist especially as most of the migrants are from white Caucasian areas of Europe... D'UH! Last point. So once again you are equating us Brexit voters as ignorant and uneducated but now with the added embellishment of being paedo chasers now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems." Like what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Leaving the EU will now allow the UK Government to exercise control of EU migration and the focus on this problem will force better non-EU migration. Quote: "By suggesting that by wresting control back from the foreigners the country could be made better for the indigenous population is the very simplest form of racism" Wow that has to be one of the most outrageous statements on here! I have to point out it is your use of the word 'indigenous' that infers the racism you criticise. No one in the Leave campaigns used that term. Control of immigration into a population of some 65 million is simple common sense. Control of demand on our Public Services is common sense. Control of the quality of skills people bring to the UK is common sense. Control is not racist especially as most of the migrants are from white Caucasian areas of Europe... D'UH! Last point. So once again you are equating us Brexit voters as ignorant and uneducated but now with the added embellishment of being paedo chasers now? "The immigration that we are experiencing is economically lead. No one disputes that, if it wasn't there would be tens of millions unemployed and the Govt (pick one) would have taken action against non EU migration. It appears that you and not me are equating us Brexit voters as ignorant and uneducated but now with the added embellishment of being paedo chasers. That is unless you all turn into rabid, feral mobs everytime a racist politician tells you that your life will be better without foreigners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? " Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. " It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? " When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. " Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. " how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? " McDonalds don't have Government cuts they are not starved of burgers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? " Well we could debate the tax value of low paid migrant workers who are happy to work for less than the minimum wage, claim Child Benefit (paid to their home country) and Tax Credits but that can be subjective. So lets take some hard numbers? Housing. So you have an exceptional demand for rental properties because immigrants initially cannot a) afford purchases and b) would not get a mortgage. This puts property rentals up to an exaggerated level. It also makes house prices go up because the rental market fuels the 'Buy-to-Rent' market. The nett effect is that this makes it harder for British resident families to a) get a rental property or b) afford to buy their first house. From personal experience I can tell you it is not uncommon to find migrant families sharing two families to a home and the Landlord getting 50% more rentals. How does a British worker compete with that especially when his wages are suppressed by those same migrants? Not my views I hasten to add. Those of the B of E who stated in "Staff Working Paper No. 574" of December 2015 that in the semi/unskilled areas of the economy a 10 percentage rise in immigration causes a near 2% drop in wages. Despite the numbers quoted about 'Nett migration' of some 180,000 EU nationals arriving in 2015 the key (and also Official) figure for 2015 showed that some 650,000 new NI numbers were issued just to EU nationals migrating in to the UK. This allows migrants to work, claim benefits, use the NHS and have their children placed in schools Glasgow (the UK's third largest city in 2011) had a population of 590,507 people. The corollary of that is that we have to build a city the size of Glasgow every year to house, educate, feed, transport and hospitalise EU migrants. Even at 180,000 a year nett we need another Bournemouth every year. That clearly does not happen. To state that this does not place issues and pressures on a society is not a sustainable argument surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are" According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? McDonalds don't have Government cuts they are not starved of burgers. " The governments job is simply to balance a budget, more tax payers do not inhibit their ability to do that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? Well we could debate the tax value of low paid migrant workers who are happy to work for less than the minimum wage, claim Child Benefit (paid to their home country) and Tax Credits but that can be subjective. So lets take some hard numbers? Housing. So you have an exceptional demand for rental properties because immigrants initially cannot a) afford purchases and b) would not get a mortgage. This puts property rentals up to an exaggerated level. It also makes house prices go up because the rental market fuels the 'Buy-to-Rent' market. The nett effect is that this makes it harder for British resident families to a) get a rental property or b) afford to buy their first house. From personal experience I can tell you it is not uncommon to find migrant families sharing two families to a home and the Landlord getting 50% more rentals. How does a British worker compete with that especially when his wages are suppressed by those same migrants? Not my views I hasten to add. Those of the B of E who stated in "Staff Working Paper No. 574" of December 2015 that in the semi/unskilled areas of the economy a 10 percentage rise in immigration causes a near 2% drop in wages. Despite the numbers quoted about 'Nett migration' of some 180,000 EU nationals arriving in 2015 the key (and also Official) figure for 2015 showed that some 650,000 new NI numbers were issued just to EU nationals migrating in to the UK. This allows migrants to work, claim benefits, use the NHS and have their children placed in schools Glasgow (the UK's third largest city in 2011) had a population of 590,507 people. The corollary of that is that we have to build a city the size of Glasgow every year to house, educate, feed, transport and hospitalise EU migrants. Even at 180,000 a year nett we need another Bournemouth every year. That clearly does not happen. To state that this does not place issues and pressures on a society is not a sustainable argument surely?" A capitalist would never complain about too much demand. They would ask why supply isn't meeting it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are" EVERYONE pays VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, cigarette duty etc. And by the way, of the 20 or so immigrants to this country that I know personally, none are on minimum wage (albeit all but 1 started on minimum wage) and all are now significant contributors and 8 are now employers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? " how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are EVERYONE pays VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, cigarette duty etc. And by the way, of the 20 or so immigrants to this country that I know personally, none are on minimum wage (albeit all but 1 started on minimum wage) and all are now significant contributors and 8 are now employers." Get in the real world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ....... Even at 180,000 a year nett we need another Bournemouth every year. That clearly does not happen. To state that this does not place issues and pressures on a society is not a sustainable argument surely?" The UK is more than capable of organising itself for a less than 0.3% rise in annual population. Using your net migration figures of 180,000 against a population of 60,000,000. An irrational fear of "tidal waves" of foreigners "invading" our shores and the need to "secure our borders" is more hazardous to your average voter than the actual facts of EU immigration. Perhaps we should be building a wall - and getting the EU to pay for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers?" You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? " can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down?" Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). " but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron "The birth rate of British nationals is below 2 per couple. Our population would shrink without immigrants and you won't want seconds of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron
The birth rate of British nationals is below 2 per couple. Our population would shrink without immigrants and you won't want seconds of that. "no it wouldn't. The birth rate would still outgrow the death rate. And of course their would still be some immigration just sensible numbers. How come China adopted a policy of 1 child per family and what effect has that had on their economy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron
The birth rate of British nationals is below 2 per couple. Our population would shrink without immigrants and you won't want seconds of that.
no it wouldn't. The birth rate would still outgrow the death rate. And of course their would still be some immigration just sensible numbers. How come China adopted a policy of 1 child per family and what effect has that had on their economy?"Since you ask it's created a demographic timebomb. Don't get me wrong, it was the right thing to do, albeit a bit brutal. But their growth record has little to do with that and a lot to do with forcibly moving peasants out of the countryside and into the city. In the last 40 years since that idiot Mao left and the brilliant Deng Shao Ping entered office, they have created 88 cities the size of London or bigger. You never heard them complaining the cities didn't have enough schools or hospitals!! They just built them and look what it did to their economy. In effect, they simulated the effects of a growing population whilst actually decreasing it. But you can only do that if you have a huge proportion of your population that are (economically speaking) doing fuck all in the countryside. India is the next country that meets that criteria and to a lesser extent, Vietnam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism "Is this a technique? Say something often enough and it can become the accepted truth? I've read a lot by the OP and very little has been proved wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron
The birth rate of British nationals is below 2 per couple. Our population would shrink without immigrants and you won't want seconds of that.
no it wouldn't. The birth rate would still outgrow the death rate. And of course their would still be some immigration just sensible numbers. How come China adopted a policy of 1 child per family and what effect has that had on their economy?
Since you ask it's created a demographic timebomb. Don't get me wrong, it was the right thing to do, albeit a bit brutal. But their growth record has little to do with that and a lot to do with forcibly moving peasants out of the countryside and into the city. In the last 40 years since that idiot Mao left and the brilliant Deng Shao Ping entered office, they have created 88 cities the size of London or bigger. You never heard them complaining the cities didn't have enough schools or hospitals!! They just built them and look what it did to their economy. In effect, they simulated the effects of a growing population whilst actually decreasing it. But you can only do that if you have a huge proportion of your population that are (economically speaking) doing fuck all in the countryside.
India is the next country that meets that criteria and to a lesser extent, Vietnam."I understand that but where/when does it stop? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Is this a technique?
Say something often enough and it can become the accepted truth?
I've read a lot by the OP and very little has been proved wrong. "Read again then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Is this a technique?
Say something often enough and it can become the accepted truth?
I've read a lot by the OP and very little has been proved wrong. "and nothing proved right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron
The birth rate of British nationals is below 2 per couple. Our population would shrink without immigrants and you won't want seconds of that.
no it wouldn't. The birth rate would still outgrow the death rate. And of course their would still be some immigration just sensible numbers. How come China adopted a policy of 1 child per family and what effect has that had on their economy?
Since you ask it's created a demographic timebomb. Don't get me wrong, it was the right thing to do, albeit a bit brutal. But their growth record has little to do with that and a lot to do with forcibly moving peasants out of the countryside and into the city. In the last 40 years since that idiot Mao left and the brilliant Deng Shao Ping entered office, they have created 88 cities the size of London or bigger. You never heard them complaining the cities didn't have enough schools or hospitals!! They just built them and look what it did to their economy. In effect, they simulated the effects of a growing population whilst actually decreasing it. But you can only do that if you have a huge proportion of your population that are (economically speaking) doing fuck all in the countryside.
India is the next country that meets that criteria and to a lesser extent, Vietnam.
I understand that but where/when does it stop?"Honestly and in all seriousness, it ends with a race of robots that produce all or most of our economic needs while we sit on our arse's and enjoy leisure time. Failing that, economic meltdown that would make 1929 look like 1997. There's a reason Japan is at the forefront of artifical intelligence and even creates robots to care for old people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? When there are too many people using a limited resource, then the resource will suffer as a consequence. That is just basic logic. Tax revenue is proportional to the number of tax payers. It is not finite as you suggest. how much tax do people on minimum wage pay and how many children do they have and will they be staying in the UK permanently etc etc. There is no way of planning, the way things are According to the treasury, immigrants have made a net tax contribution of £20bn. Do you have better information? Have you ever wondered how McDonald's forecast demand and never seem to run out of big macs? how can you compare burgers to schools and hospitals. and with all due respect I would suggest that figure is bollocks if you look into it. so what happens when all these new schools and hospitals are being built thanks to an influx of taxpayers and suddenly there is a recession and a couple of million are thrown on the dole and they are no longer taxpayers but tax takers? You know there are private schools and hospitals right? Ones that rarely go bankrupt and never complain about having too many customers. Why do you imply government services are some special category that nobody else could do? What evidence do you have that the treasury figure is bollocks? can't be arsed to find it now but if we are not building enough hospitals/schools etc and more immigrants/taxpayers means more money to the government then why is the national debt growing? If McDonalds took more and spent less would their profits go down? Numerous reasons naturally. Economic growth has been shit for 8 years now, Ironically building a few schools or hospitals would help that. We have huge interest payments on the debt from bailing out banks which was a mistake and we shouldn't have done. Our productivity is shite. Few things are more difficult for an economy than a shrinking population. Our entire stock market is basically predicated on the assumption future demand is greater than current demand. If you want to see what a declining population does to a country then look at Japan (or Russia). It was only 35 years ago that 'experts' talked about Japan the way they talk about China now (i.e that it would overtake America). but our population wasn't shrinking, the biggest danger is growing too fast and then you have the possibility of shrinking. Everything in moderation matron
The birth rate of British nationals is below 2 per couple. Our population would shrink without immigrants and you won't want seconds of that.
no it wouldn't. The birth rate would still outgrow the death rate. And of course their would still be some immigration just sensible numbers. How come China adopted a policy of 1 child per family and what effect has that had on their economy?
Since you ask it's created a demographic timebomb. Don't get me wrong, it was the right thing to do, albeit a bit brutal. But their growth record has little to do with that and a lot to do with forcibly moving peasants out of the countryside and into the city. In the last 40 years since that idiot Mao left and the brilliant Deng Shao Ping entered office, they have created 88 cities the size of London or bigger. You never heard them complaining the cities didn't have enough schools or hospitals!! They just built them and look what it did to their economy. In effect, they simulated the effects of a growing population whilst actually decreasing it. But you can only do that if you have a huge proportion of your population that are (economically speaking) doing fuck all in the countryside.
India is the next country that meets that criteria and to a lesser extent, Vietnam.
I understand that but where/when does it stop?
Honestly and in all seriousness, it ends with a race of robots that produce all or most of our economic needs while we sit on our arse's and enjoy leisure time. Failing that, economic meltdown that would make 1929 look like 1997. There's a reason Japan is at the forefront of artifical intelligence and even creates robots to care for old people. "thats gone over me head now
but as you said, China grew those cities over 40 years and is a vastly bigger country. We are trying to do it too quickly, or were, and it is failing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means." Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? " They would if those customers spent all day in there and only bought a cup of coffee. I work in a factory of 1200 people. 900 of those are eastern European, 800 of which are on minimum wage. So those 800 contribute, including ENI, about £2,800 per person. Not much tax take there to fund the NHS, education, other public services, any tax credits, child benefit and any other benefits they may be entitled to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Is this a technique?
Say something often enough and it can become the accepted truth?
I've read a lot by the OP and very little has been proved wrong. "OK lets make this easy. Apart from the obvious fact that Sterling has been devalued what else has the OP ever said that is factually correct? As distinct from saying 'the experts say'.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. " You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias, then please can you show me evidence in the field of defence and security that Brexit will make us safer? Or that it will be better for our research and academic sector? Or the Brexit will be better for the environment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? They would if those customers spent all day in there and only bought a cup of coffee. I work in a factory of 1200 people. 900 of those are eastern European, 800 of which are on minimum wage. So those 800 contribute, including ENI, about £2,800 per person. Not much tax take there to fund the NHS, education, other public services, any tax credits, child benefit and any other benefits they may be entitled to. " Your numbers reflect those I saw while delivering container loads of goods all over the country. There are cold stores in Kent that are 99% Eastern European staffed. Go in a works canteen in one and you get the aggressive shoving and looks until you leave. Go to the Argos warehouse in Bedford and English is a forgotten language. They don't even bother advertising for staff as they just ask the Polish gangmaster to get more staff from Poland. As for those on minimum wage @ £7.20 an hour on 38 hour week they gross £14,227 a year. After tax allowance of £10,600 they pay 20% tax or £725. Their NI will be 12% on (£14,227 - £5,980) or £717. Annual deductions = £1,442. BUT: Using the Government website they will get £3,329 Child Tax Credit with one child plus £1,580 Working Tax Credit. So before they do anything else one individual has cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £138 plus a further £3,329 for every child (which is paid to their home country). So as you say not much benefit to the UK there.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? They would if those customers spent all day in there and only bought a cup of coffee. I work in a factory of 1200 people. 900 of those are eastern European, 800 of which are on minimum wage. So those 800 contribute, including ENI, about £2,800 per person. Not much tax take there to fund the NHS, education, other public services, any tax credits, child benefit and any other benefits they may be entitled to. Your numbers reflect those I saw while delivering container loads of goods all over the country. There are cold stores in Kent that are 99% Eastern European staffed. Go in a works canteen in one and you get the aggressive shoving and looks until you leave. Go to the Argos warehouse in Bedford and English is a forgotten language. They don't even bother advertising for staff as they just ask the Polish gangmaster to get more staff from Poland. As for those on minimum wage @ £7.20 an hour on 38 hour week they gross £14,227 a year. After tax allowance of £10,600 they pay 20% tax or £725. Their NI will be 12% on (£14,227 - £5,980) or £717. Annual deductions = £1,442. BUT: Using the Government website they will get £3,329 Child Tax Credit with one child plus £1,580 Working Tax Credit. So before they do anything else one individual has cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £138 plus a further £3,329 for every child (which is paid to their home country). So as you say not much benefit to the UK there...." There are at least 3 jobs on Indeed for Argos in Bedford so I'm going to have to call BS on your claim of then not advertising and using a polish gangmaster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are at least 3 jobs on Indeed for Argos in Bedford so I'm going to have to call BS on your claim of then not advertising and using a polish gangmaster" I could have excused myself as it was 3 years ago but I will hold my hand up when wrong. Except of course the three 'roles' you mentioned are a) Christmas jobs and b) in stores not the warehouse. As I say you don't read too well do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your numbers reflect those I saw while delivering container loads of goods all over the country. There are cold stores in Kent that are 99% Eastern European staffed. Go in a works canteen in one and you get the aggressive shoving and looks until you leave. Go to the Argos warehouse in Bedford and English is a forgotten language. They don't even bother advertising for staff as they just ask the Polish gangmaster to get more staff from Poland. As for those on minimum wage @ £7.20 an hour on 38 hour week they gross £14,227 a year. After tax allowance of £10,600 they pay 20% tax or £725. Their NI will be 12% on (£14,227 - £5,980) or £717. Annual deductions = £1,442. BUT: Using the Government website they will get £3,329 Child Tax Credit with one child plus £1,580 Working Tax Credit. So before they do anything else one individual has cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £138 plus a further £3,329 for every child (which is paid to their home country). So as you say not much benefit to the UK there...." In other words... Businesses have capitalised and been able to expand because of the availability of labour. But this and previous governments have failed to capitalise because they were too concerned about maintaining the welfare benefits of the native Brits and have not initiated a taxation system that collects more than it pays out in welfare. That is not the fault of the immigrant. That said, you are making assumptions that all immigrants are on minimum wage, they all benefit from child tax credits, child benefit and assume that they send all of their money out of the country and therefore pay no indirect taxation. The immigranmts that I know have made a life here and now earn far more than ther minimum wage and some have become employers themselves. You see the hidden ingredient here is that it takes balls to uproot and haul ass to another country and so it is mainly the motivated who do it. Motivated people tend to always be looking for ways to earn more and be better - that is no bad thing. Then again, you can believe the hype that you read about "swarms" of "Eastern Europeans" "invading" our country and "destroying" what was "Great Britain". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said earlier. Boooooooooooooooooring! The OP has been proved wrong so many times hes reverted to his favourite past time, racism
Is this a technique?
Say something often enough and it can become the accepted truth?
I've read a lot by the OP and very little has been proved wrong.
OK lets make this easy. Apart from the obvious fact that Sterling has been devalued what else has the OP ever said that is factually correct? As distinct from saying 'the experts say'...."What's the point? You'll either deny the things happen at all, or deny they were caused by Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your numbers reflect those I saw while delivering container loads of goods all over the country. There are cold stores in Kent that are 99% Eastern European staffed. Go in a works canteen in one and you get the aggressive shoving and looks until you leave. Go to the Argos warehouse in Bedford and English is a forgotten language. They don't even bother advertising for staff as they just ask the Polish gangmaster to get more staff from Poland. As for those on minimum wage @ £7.20 an hour on 38 hour week they gross £14,227 a year. After tax allowance of £10,600 they pay 20% tax or £725. Their NI will be 12% on (£14,227 - £5,980) or £717. Annual deductions = £1,442. BUT: Using the Government website they will get £3,329 Child Tax Credit with one child plus £1,580 Working Tax Credit. So before they do anything else one individual has cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £138 plus a further £3,329 for every child (which is paid to their home country). So as you say not much benefit to the UK there.... In other words... Businesses have capitalised and been able to expand because of the availability of labour. But this and previous governments have failed to capitalise because they were too concerned about maintaining the welfare benefits of the native Brits and have not initiated a taxation system that collects more than it pays out in welfare. That is not the fault of the immigrant. That said, you are making assumptions that all immigrants are on minimum wage, they all benefit from child tax credits, child benefit and assume that they send all of their money out of the country and therefore pay no indirect taxation. The immigranmts that I know have made a life here and now earn far more than ther minimum wage and some have become employers themselves. You see the hidden ingredient here is that it takes balls to uproot and haul ass to another country and so it is mainly the motivated who do it. Motivated people tend to always be looking for ways to earn more and be better - that is no bad thing. Then again, you can believe the hype that you read about "swarms" of "Eastern Europeans" "invading" our country and "destroying" what was "Great Britain"." I was giving a response to another post so it was addressed to that. I was not making a generlisation. But when you drill down into the £20 Billion" migrants have supposedly contributed it doesn't look too good spread out over 10 years and 5 million people. Just saying like ... No matter how you cut the migration cake it all comes out the same. There are too many coming into this small island and our infrastructure cannot cope. (For whatever political reasons people wish to make). The only way to stop EU migration is to leave the EU. By doing that we also get the choices as to how we spend some £13 Bn a year and how we manage to reduce our £61 Bn a year trade deficit with the EU. Inside we have no choices. Throw in the £30 Bn a year the unnecessary EU regulation adds to SMEs who do not export to the EU, restoring the Sovereignty of Parliament and our Supreme Court and to me its a no brainer ... Vote Leave... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Businesses have capitalised and been able to expand because of the availability of labour. But this and previous governments have failed to capitalise because they were too concerned about maintaining the welfare benefits of the native Brits and have not initiated a taxation system that collects more than it pays out in welfare. That is not the fault of the immigrant. That said, you are making assumptions that all immigrants are on minimum wage, they all benefit from child tax credits, child benefit and assume that they send all of their money out of the country and therefore pay no indirect taxation. The immigranmts that I know have made a life here and now earn far more than ther minimum wage and some have become employers themselves. You see the hidden ingredient here is that it takes balls to uproot and haul ass to another country and so it is mainly the motivated who do it. Motivated people tend to always be looking for ways to earn more and be better - that is no bad thing. Then again, you can believe the hype that you read about "swarms" of "Eastern Europeans" "invading" our country and "destroying" what was "Great Britain"." . Couple of points. Firstly why would a government take more out of an economy than it puts in?... The idea is to put as much capital in as possible while maintaining a serviceable debt?. Secondly If you look at current birth rates 1 in 4 children is being born a mother born outside the UK.... Now do you happen to know how much a birth of a child costs from conception through to 1 years old? I don't know myself but I'm guessing it's quite a few years of tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your numbers reflect those I saw while delivering container loads of goods all over the country. There are cold stores in Kent that are 99% Eastern European staffed. Go in a works canteen in one and you get the aggressive shoving and looks until you leave. Go to the Argos warehouse in Bedford and English is a forgotten language. They don't even bother advertising for staff as they just ask the Polish gangmaster to get more staff from Poland. As for those on minimum wage @ £7.20 an hour on 38 hour week they gross £14,227 a year. After tax allowance of £10,600 they pay 20% tax or £725. Their NI will be 12% on (£14,227 - £5,980) or £717. Annual deductions = £1,442. BUT: Using the Government website they will get £3,329 Child Tax Credit with one child plus £1,580 Working Tax Credit. So before they do anything else one individual has cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £138 plus a further £3,329 for every child (which is paid to their home country). So as you say not much benefit to the UK there.... In other words... Businesses have capitalised and been able to expand because of the availability of labour. But this and previous governments have failed to capitalise because they were too concerned about maintaining the welfare benefits of the native Brits and have not initiated a taxation system that collects more than it pays out in welfare. That is not the fault of the immigrant. That said, you are making assumptions that all immigrants are on minimum wage, they all benefit from child tax credits, child benefit and assume that they send all of their money out of the country and therefore pay no indirect taxation. The immigranmts that I know have made a life here and now earn far more than ther minimum wage and some have become employers themselves. You see the hidden ingredient here is that it takes balls to uproot and haul ass to another country and so it is mainly the motivated who do it. Motivated people tend to always be looking for ways to earn more and be better - that is no bad thing. Then again, you can believe the hype that you read about "swarms" of "Eastern Europeans" "invading" our country and "destroying" what was "Great Britain". I was giving a response to another post so it was addressed to that. I was not making a generlisation. But when you drill down into the £20 Billion" migrants have supposedly contributed it doesn't look too good spread out over 10 years and 5 million people. Just saying like ... No matter how you cut the migration cake it all comes out the same. There are too many coming into this small island and our infrastructure cannot cope. (For whatever political reasons people wish to make). The only way to stop EU migration is to leave the EU. By doing that we also get the choices as to how we spend some £13 Bn a year and how we manage to reduce our £61 Bn a year trade deficit with the EU. Inside we have no choices. Throw in the £30 Bn a year the unnecessary EU regulation adds to SMEs who do not export to the EU, restoring the Sovereignty of Parliament and our Supreme Court and to me its a no brainer ... Vote Leave... "You did a huge post with some good figures in - where did it go. So yes the £20bn is spread over 2000 - 2011 but the point is that as long as they make a net contribution you cannot possibly argue that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias, then please can you show me evidence in the field of defence and security that Brexit will make us safer? Or that it will be better for our research and academic sector? Or the Brexit will be better for the environment? " No I can't because I don't care because the decision has been taken. I didn't vote for it either but the decision isn't changing so just let it go. It's democracy, you take the rough with the smooth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias" You you do, you still can't answer a simple question. If Nobel prize winners are such good experts, how come their hedge fund broke the record for largest bankruptcy ever!? What more evidence do you want that their theory was a bag of shit than that?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias, then please can you show me evidence in the field of defence and security that Brexit will make us safer? Or that it will be better for our research and academic sector? Or the Brexit will be better for the environment? No I can't because I don't care because the decision has been taken. I didn't vote for it either but the decision isn't changing so just let it go. It's democracy, you take the rough with the smooth. " So you have no proof of my confirmation bias then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias You you do, you still can't answer a simple question. If Nobel prize winners are such good experts, how come their hedge fund broke the record for largest bankruptcy ever!? What more evidence do you want that their theory was a bag of shit than that?! " . Mr Richards writes good books, I've read a few, the trouble with predicting a very complicated thing is it tends to get very vague on when.... And that's a biggy when considering hedges! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They weren't 'mythical problems' in our society. When you have the massive and unsustainable level of immigration (EU and non-EU) we have had this will cause stresses and strains that caused very real problems. Like what? Thought that was obvious really. Parents struggling to find school places for their kids, increased pressure on the Nhs, longer waiting times in A and E, longer waiting lists for operations, some people having to wait over a week to get a GP appointment, increased amount of traffic on the roads, increased numbers and pressure on public transport, trains and buses, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't deny that the high level of immigration over the last 10 to 15 years has had an adverse and negative effect on these things. It's an economic fallacy to suggest that tax funded services are strained by having too many tax payers. Did you ever hear McDonald's complain they had too many customers? They would if those customers spent all day in there and only bought a cup of coffee. I work in a factory of 1200 people. 900 of those are eastern European, 800 of which are on minimum wage. So those 800 contribute, including ENI, about £2,800 per person. Not much tax take there to fund the NHS, education, other public services, any tax credits, child benefit and any other benefits they may be entitled to. Your numbers reflect those I saw while delivering container loads of goods all over the country. There are cold stores in Kent that are 99% Eastern European staffed. Go in a works canteen in one and you get the aggressive shoving and looks until you leave. Go to the Argos warehouse in Bedford and English is a forgotten language. They don't even bother advertising for staff as they just ask the Polish gangmaster to get more staff from Poland. As for those on minimum wage @ £7.20 an hour on 38 hour week they gross £14,227 a year. After tax allowance of £10,600 they pay 20% tax or £725. Their NI will be 12% on (£14,227 - £5,980) or £717. Annual deductions = £1,442. BUT: Using the Government website they will get £3,329 Child Tax Credit with one child plus £1,580 Working Tax Credit. So before they do anything else one individual has cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £138 plus a further £3,329 for every child (which is paid to their home country). So as you say not much benefit to the UK there.... There are at least 3 jobs on Indeed for Argos in Bedford so I'm going to have to call BS on your claim of then not advertising and using a polish gangmaster" But not BE on the tax benefits that the country gets? Interesting..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias, then please can you show me evidence in the field of defence and security that Brexit will make us safer? Or that it will be better for our research and academic sector? Or the Brexit will be better for the environment? No I can't because I don't care because the decision has been taken. I didn't vote for it either but the decision isn't changing so just let it go. It's democracy, you take the rough with the smooth. So you have no proof of my confirmation bias then? " Lots, look above! You still can't explain Long Term Capital Management to me and why Black Scholes tanked so badly in the real world outside their ivory towers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These last few posts show that we are now living in a post-truth age. There is no fact that someone can't say "that's bollocks" to. Facts are now seemingly meaningless. The opinions of trained, educated, experts from a diverse range of field's, are no more valuable and carry no more weight than your average man or woman on the street. I think its sad that after a referendum where many people were expressing disillusionment with the political elite, decisions are now being made by an unelected PM, sitting behind closed doors in a grace and favour mansion and not allowing parliament to debate the issue of what Brexit really means. Not at all, in scientific and truthful terms, you suffer from what Kahneman would call 'confirmation bias' meaning that everyone on TV that agrees with you is an 'expert' and everything else is a "phoney study". In your defence, it's a common psychological flaw but one you should really get over. You think it's OK to judge experts on job titles, their employer or how many books they've written - anything but actual evidence of them being competent at the job they are employed to do. You are far too focused on that economic forecasting study and cant see passed it. If I really suffer from confirmation bias, then please can you show me evidence in the field of defence and security that Brexit will make us safer? Or that it will be better for our research and academic sector? Or the Brexit will be better for the environment? " More importantly. Can you provide proof all would be better if we remained? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure." You might like to read these snippets from official police guidance on recording and reporting of hate crime, and what constitutes a hate crime. The police’s ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ now stresses that the victim’s perception is the deciding factor in whether something is measured as a hate crime. No evidence is required. ‘Evidence of… hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident,’ the guidance says. ‘[The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor… the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.’ The police are discouraged from asking for evidence. This is reflected in the policies of individual constabularies. The ‘Hate Crime Procedure’ of the Surrey Police says ‘apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts’. The police must record the incident as a hate crime if the victim perceives it to be so. The police guidance gives the example of a gay man being ‘sworn at and threatened’ by an assailant who said 'absolutely nothing… about his sexual orientation’. If this gay man ‘perceives that he was targeted [because] he is gay’ then the police must ‘record this as a hate crime based on sexual orientation’. Think about this. If any gay man is shouted at in the street, by anyone, about anything, with no mention of sexuality, that can be recorded as an anti-gay hate crime. There’s no need for any proof whatsoever that anything anti-gay in sentiment was said or even intimated. They also define the issue od ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’. The ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. And it gets worse: the prosecution of a hate crime doesn’t actually have to prove that hatred was the motivation. The CPS states: ‘The prosecution does not… need to prove hatred as the motivating factor behind an offence.’ They say any crime that involves ‘ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, or dislike’ on the basis of a ‘personal characteristic’ could be a hate crime. So unfriendliness can now be criminal. Next time you read about a hate-crime epidemic, bear that in mind. Burglaries and robberies are often recorded as hate crimes. According to Home Office Statistics, of all the hate incidents in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, 8 per cent are burglaries. And 1 per cent is bicycle theft. A racially motivated bike theft? You might think stealing is just about stealing, but if the victim thinks his stuff was nicked because he’s foreign, gay, black, asian, transgender, or due to his religion, then it is recorded as hate crime. The ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ demands ‘increasing the reporting and recording of hate crime’. It specifically states that success should NOT be measured by a reduction in hate-crime levels. ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate,’ it says, as this won’t ‘motivate managers’ to ‘promote positive recording’ or ‘increase the opportunity for victims to report’. So ‘success’ has one meaning only: creating evidence to suggest the problem is getting worse. The police are incentivised to find hatred, because their goal isn’t to tackle crime so much as to create a public impression of mass hatred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37193140 Another comfortable truth for some I’m sure. You might like to read these snippets from official police guidance on recording and reporting of hate crime, and what constitutes a hate crime. The police’s ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ now stresses that the victim’s perception is the deciding factor in whether something is measured as a hate crime. No evidence is required. ‘Evidence of… hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident,’ the guidance says. ‘[The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor… the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.’ The police are discouraged from asking for evidence. This is reflected in the policies of individual constabularies. The ‘Hate Crime Procedure’ of the Surrey Police says ‘apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts’. The police must record the incident as a hate crime if the victim perceives it to be so. The police guidance gives the example of a gay man being ‘sworn at and threatened’ by an assailant who said 'absolutely nothing… about his sexual orientation’. If this gay man ‘perceives that he was targeted [because] he is gay’ then the police must ‘record this as a hate crime based on sexual orientation’. Think about this. If any gay man is shouted at in the street, by anyone, about anything, with no mention of sexuality, that can be recorded as an anti-gay hate crime. There’s no need for any proof whatsoever that anything anti-gay in sentiment was said or even intimated. They also define the issue od ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’. The ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. And it gets worse: the prosecution of a hate crime doesn’t actually have to prove that hatred was the motivation. The CPS states: ‘The prosecution does not… need to prove hatred as the motivating factor behind an offence.’ They say any crime that involves ‘ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, or dislike’ on the basis of a ‘personal characteristic’ could be a hate crime. So unfriendliness can now be criminal. Next time you read about a hate-crime epidemic, bear that in mind. Burglaries and robberies are often recorded as hate crimes. According to Home Office Statistics, of all the hate incidents in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, 8 per cent are burglaries. And 1 per cent is bicycle theft. A racially motivated bike theft? You might think stealing is just about stealing, but if the victim thinks his stuff was nicked because he’s foreign, gay, black, asian, transgender, or due to his religion, then it is recorded as hate crime. The ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ demands ‘increasing the reporting and recording of hate crime’. It specifically states that success should NOT be measured by a reduction in hate-crime levels. ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate,’ it says, as this won’t ‘motivate managers’ to ‘promote positive recording’ or ‘increase the opportunity for victims to report’. So ‘success’ has one meaning only: creating evidence to suggest the problem is getting worse. The police are incentivised to find hatred, because their goal isn’t to tackle crime so much as to create a public impression of mass hatred." Under those guidelines im surptised the bma arent trying to charge govt with hate cromes against junior doctorslol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
