Does this suggest the tide is turning on immigration ?

Moby

BobQ wrote: »

Surely you are not suggesting that immigration is a new phenomenon?

This country has seen much immigration and emigration over the last few centuries and before. I agree that fat and lazy is a myth but to suggest that immigrants played no part in forming Britain is insulting. They came from many nations, were of many faiths and many different ethnicities.

You cannot get more British than Marks and Spencer but it was partly founded by a Polish Jewish immigrant. Many people think Isambard Kingdon Brunel epitomises British Engineering yet his father came here from France. Millions of people - famous and not- have come to the UK from all over the world (a consequence of trying to conquer it ) and have enriched this country.

Of course we have the right to control it and encourage immigrants with relevant skills but please do not try to re-write British History.

Excellent post mate...well balanced and thoughtful imo.

Sampong

BobQ wrote: »

Yes but she was still a UKIP sympathiser.

That is a ridiculous assertion - Melanie Philips made very salient points. As I have said previously - judging by the reaction of the audience, the majority agreed with her. Were they all UKip sympathizers also?

BobQ wrote: »

The Mail story adds nothing to this matter. If I were a UKIP supporter and witnessed my party being made to look inept and then found the person who instigated it was a Labour activist, I would probably write a letter to the BBC complaining. Obviously UKIP has enough support to muster 90 letters to the BBC.

It actually does add to the matter - it shows that the matter is controversial enough to hit the news. Personally I wouldn't bother writing a letter - as you would be wasting your breath complaining to a corrupt organisation unless it is done en masse. I would imagine the majority of people have better things to do with their time.

BobQ wrote: »

But the facts remain. Nobody has suggested she got on the programme by false pretences (by not answering truthfully the questions on the standard application form). The issue is, and always has been that UKIP did not like their tactics being exposed.

You are wrong. Anyone with half a brain would realise that despite filling in the application form truthfully - clearly there was a deliberate attempt to present herself to the viewing audience as a Jane Doe - the evidence of this has been discussed earlier in the thread.

BobQ wrote: »

Those who saw the programme realised she was not saying the candidate was disgusting. She said of UKIP "they are disgusting".

You're being quite ridiculous now clutching at every straw you can find in a desperate hope that you can be correct by having the last word. By saying "they" are disgusting that basically refers to everyone involved in the Ukip party. If that explanation isn't good enough for you there is also this screenshot of her twitter account;

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/13/article-0-18A1C09A000005DC-748_634x117.jpg

on which she says;

Don't miss out on Question Time Tonight, you'll see me rip into the disgusting UKIP woman!

Clearly you think that behavior is reasonable since you keep trying to defend it. I on the other hand think it lacks not only any reasonable argument, but also any human decency.

BobQ wrote: »

She also said why. Namely that their leaflet (while lierally correct) suggested that all 29m people in Romania and Bulgaria were likely to come to the UK. This was designed to make some of the voters fear an influx of immigrants as if they were all going to leave their countries and all come to the UK. This she said was arguably preying on the vulnerable.

Also discussed previously in the thread (you're still hoping for that last word) but at least you accept that it was literally and factually correct. If suggesting that all 29 million will come is the way you interpret the leaflet then carry on, though I would have thought that any person with a reasonable level of intelligence would realize it means that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians will receive the right to freedom of movement. Also - Ukip preying on the vulnerable in society? And she makes this assertion based on the strength of a headline in a leaflet when the Tories are implementing bedroom tax?

Is there any common sense in the world????

Mr._Pricklepants

tesuhoha wrote: »

British people are the best.

Sampong wrote: »

I agree.

Sampong wrote: »

Is there any common sense in the world????

:rotfl::rotfl:

BobQ

Sampong wrote: »

That is a ridiculous assertion - Melanie Philips made very salient points. As I have said previously - judging by the reaction of the audience, the majority agreed with her. Were they all UKip sympathizers also?

...........

Is there any common sense in the world????

I will agree that the twitter jpg you post does associate the word with your candidate and I do not think that is fair based on what I know of her.

But I really think that if a politician is incapable on handling heckling or dealing with aggressive criticism then that politician should get another career.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Albert Einstein

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many people from Eastern Europe settled in this country rather than passing through to the USA. The early 1900's were particularly tough. That's where my family tree originated from. Started life as working class people as well. Difference back then was that people aspired to better themselves. Fundamentally by working hard.

I sense delusions of grandeur

Sampong

BobQ wrote: »

I will agree that the twitter jpg you post does associate the word with your candidate and I do not think that is fair based on what I know of her.

You've made that many u-turns on this thread that I would be surprised if you know whether you are coming or going.

BobQ wrote: »

But I really think that if a politician is incapable on handling heckling or dealing with aggressive criticism then that politician should get another career.

Once again - you are making stuff up to divert from the original point - that Amy Rutland was a Labour plant on QT.

Rutland was keen to heckle abuse via the word "disgusting" yet her argument was inexperienced and weak.

As for Diane James - my observation was that she handled the attack perfectly. She didn't rise to the insult and offered a reasoned explanation. Perhaps if Rutland would have piped down for just a second she may have actually learned something.

So why do you suggest she gets a different career? I'm not sure what qualifies you to offer advice to politicians but she did come second in the Eastleigh elections, beating the cons into second place with Labour hardly even on the radar.

So I would actually argue she should keep on doing what she is doing for now. I am sure she will be happy to consider your advice though - and perhaps file it for future reference under "R".

Excellent post though mate...very entertaining....unbalanced and thougtless imo.

Sampong

Moby wrote: »

How many times?......correlation does not amount to causation.

The correct expression is correlation does not imply causation.

Meaning that there doesn't necessarily have to be a link - but there can be and often will be.

If you are trying to assert that a rise in Romanian population will not be responsible for the increase in crime that will (inevitably) follow - then you are either politically motivated or missing something somewhere.

Moby wrote: »

Don't you realise quoting from the Daily Mail says more about you than any argument you may be putting forward!;)

Don't you realise that the above statement undermines your own arguments, makes you a hypocrite - not to mention bigoted and prejudiced?

BobQ

Sampong wrote: »

You've made that many u-turns on this thread that I would be surprised if you know whether you are coming or going

I do wonder if English is your second language! I pointed out that despite your assertion to the contrary Ms Rutland had used the word about the party not the candidate. You then quoted a twitter message from her. Its not a U-turn to concede that she did appear to post a personal comment on Twitter. I am just acknowledging new information.

You on the other hand do not answer questions you do not like. Such as when I asked you why, when I had asked Badger two questions, it was you who replied. In doing so you stated I had asked YOU the questions, so giving the impression you were the same person.

Once again - you are making stuff up to divert from the original point - that
Amy Rutland was a Labour plant on QT.

What have I made up?

You really do not understand what a "plant" is do you! The issue is that she did no more than activists have done previously and was selected to appear on the programme.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

So why do you suggest she gets a different career? I'm not sure what qualifies
you to offer advice to politicians but she did come second in the Eastleigh
elections, beating the cons into second place with Labour hardly even on the
radar.

Oh please grow up! I said if a politician cannot handle criticism they ought to get a new career.

Of course Ms James does not appear to be as upset as you are!

CKhalvashi

BobQ wrote: »

These stats are for arrests not convictions (there is a difference you know!). Also they relate to the UK not just London.

There certainly is.

I was arrested on suspicion of quite a serious offence, as someone reported the registration plate of the car as XX07RYJ instead of XX07RYY (X = hidden letter)

It was the same model, same colour and same exact spec (although I later found mine has sat nav, and the other didn't), however was released when I could prove I wasn't in the area, now was my car damaged at all. As such, I haven't seen anything on my CRB check.

CK

anqet

On the 30% - contrasting number of arrests to number of Romanians living in the UK ('country of origin' indicator at the last Census) - this is wrong in many ways:

- some of those are repeat arrests (same person arrested more than one time)
- many of those arrested have a Romanian passport but don't live here (as you might know Romanians already benefit from freedom of movement). So it's pointless to do the math with the number of those living here as those arrested might not be living here.
- last but not least, Census numbers are severely underestimating the number of Romanians who actually live in the UK. It's not 70-80K, it's double.

Misleading stats...