Interesting debate. My Mother In Law worked for the NHS for years and alongside many immigrant workers. She could only speak very highly of those she worked alongside; whilst at the same time as reading the Daily Mail and running down immigrants in general and complaining that they were over here taking our jobs or sponging off the state. She had no answer when I pointed out the hypocracy of her position.
I think there is a legitimate concern about controlling immigration. Personally I don't subscribe to that concern although I understand it. People want to come here becuase this is (still) a rich country and the world fifth largest economy. It is, primarily because of that, and our previous conquest of large chunks of the worlds territory that many see our country as either home or a desirable place to live. As others have already said, long may that continue.
Oh and by the way, I have seen reference to "indigenous" in earlier posts. I am, as far as I can tell (from my surname) Anglo-Saxon, with a bit of Flemish, oh and some Irish and well maybe some Spanish somewhere in the past, plus maybe an odd Viking or two. Who amongst us can trace our ancestry un-contaminated by immigrant blood to err.....well Bodicea or Caracticus or the Cantii, or the Votadini, or the Picts, or the Scotii (who came from Ireland) or such like?
The fact is that our country has been enriched by those who, over the centuries, have made it their home.
As for in or out of the EU, well for all its faults (which are manifest) I am and continue to be emphatically for staying in. Those who argue the opposite I respect, but profoundly disagree. What I despise though, is the lack of proper informed debate about the merits or otherwise of being in or out of the EU which is, to a great extent hijacked by the tabloid press who like to fan the flames of discontent, because it's an easy target. They keep the focus on negative issues like how much meat is in a sausage, how straight bananas should be and who is getting more out and who is putting more in. I believe in what goes around, comes around and if as country we contribute more, in time we will gain more. I also believe that it is better to be inside the tent shaping things than on the outside only able to react with no voice or vote.
If you wish to create a polarised debate, start one on immigration.
Those of Left leaning views will broadly support immigration and point out that (in their view) we are all immigrants!
Those of Right leaning views will say it's time to stop immigration.
I will just make a few points for discussion;
Right now we have 2.4 million unemployed. Though the figure for the 'economically inactive' is in excess of 5million. Should we then allow into Britain uncontrolled numbers of people with no particular skills? Or should we shake up the work dodgers we already have?
Why is it that virtually every 'asylum seeker' currently waiting their chance in Calais. Broadly fits the description 'male aged 16 to 35? Are there no old/young/female asylum seekers?
Why do they cross several EU borders to get into England? What is attracting them?
When people who are highly skilled come here to work, and i'm particularly thinking of doctors and nurses (who i am sure work hard and are indeed decent folk regardless of their nationality or skin colour) I'm tempted to ask 'are there no sick people in your homeland'
Why not train up some of the unemployed people we already have to work in the NHS? They aren't all ill-educated layabouts. Wouldn't this be a better deal for Britain?
The NHS is not free to the legal residents of Britain (in fact there are now four NHS's in Britain, but that's a different debate) It is paid for from our taxes. Therefore is it right for people who have never paid in a penny to be able to use the NHS? When Brits go to Hungary or wherever for dental treatment or indeed any treatment. They don't get it free, they pay the local rate. Unlike an immigrant who presents his/herself to the NHS who will be treated for free.
Immigration is not about colour. It is about the number of people arriving here. Currently the numbers are so high the Gov. has completely lost track and control. Never in the history of these islands have immigration figures been anything like todays.
Is it right we here in Britain should effectively concrete over large swathes of our land to house the ever increasing population. Whilst the lands from which many immigrants come are barren, under-utilised and poor. Should we not help and encourage people to improve their homeland, rather than leave it?
And finally, you'll be glad to hear.
Why are people such as Anjem Choudary allowed to live here? He is a radical Muslim who hates Britain. Yet chooses to live here. He recieves around £25K a year in benefits, from the taxes you and i pay. Which is odd because he is clearly an intelligent man (despite his vile views) He is a trained lawyer. He is also apparently fit and healthy. Yet he doesn't work. How can this be? (By the way, i have asked my MP this question, i'm still awaiting an answer) There are of course many more like him.
Those of Left leaning views will broadly support immigration and point out that (in their view) we are all immigrants!
Those of Right leaning views will say it's time to stop immigration.
Except that is not what has happened here. How many have said stop all immigration? Most if not all are saying that immigration should be controlled.
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]
When people who are highly skilled come here to work, and i'm particularly thinking of doctors and nurses (who i am sure work hard and are indeed decent folk regardless of their nationality or skin colour) I'm tempted to ask 'are there no sick people in your homeland'
Why not train up some of the unemployed people we already have to work in the NHS? They aren't all ill-educated layabouts. Wouldn't this be a better deal for Britain?
A rather crass argument. Should the Iranian surgeon who works with my wife go "home". He fled the Shah and has lived, worked and paid taxes for 20 years. He has had children and put down roots.
Should the Filipino nurses who are active recruited by the NHS Trusts (they don't just turn up, the Trusts go out there to find them) turn down the chance to earn enough to educate the children they have left behind when there aren't enough paid nursing jobs in their country?
I actually agree with a lot of what you say.
We should train more school leavers and the unemployed to be nurses or other medical staff. Perhaps if we offered better wages the jobs would be more attractive to UK citizens.
We should be controlling immigration regardless of colour but emotive terms like "concreting over the countryside" add nothing to the debate.
Neither does bringing up Anjem Choudary in a debate on immigration. Distasteful as his views are to me he's not an immigrant. He was born in Welling.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Neither does bringing up Anjem Choudary in a debate on immigration. Distasteful as his views are to me he's not an immigrant. He was born in Welling.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Neither does bringing up Anjem Choudary in a debate on immigration. Distasteful as his views are to me he's not an immigrant. He was born in Welling.
Must be Millwall though....
Well no one likes him and he doesn't seem to care so......
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]
When people who are highly skilled come here to work, and i'm particularly thinking of doctors and nurses (who i am sure work hard and are indeed decent folk regardless of their nationality or skin colour) I'm tempted to ask 'are there no sick people in your homeland'
There are indeed sick people in their homeland, but the doctors come here for the wages. There's a bit of controversy about it as Poland or Lithuania or whoever train up their doctors and then we pilfer them. So we're not the ones who come out of it badly.
Les, firstly, really happy to hear your Mum is on the mend.
My view is that the NHS is not perfect but it is still superb and this is in a large part due to the amount of immigrant workers that are involved in our health service. I think Chizz's first post is spot on and wholeheartedly echo what he said. I hate the idea of selective immigration as this often means stripping poorer nations of their key workers and thus sending that country further into the mire. Despite what some media outlets might try and lead you to believe, this country is hugely benefitting from current immigration practices and although some abuse the system, at the moment, the benefits outweigh the cost. Are there immigrants that are abusing the benefits system, yes. Are there British people abusing the benefits system, yes. The system isn't perfect but its still one of the best in the world.
When people who are highly skilled come here to work, and i'm particularly thinking of doctors and nurses (who i am sure work hard and are indeed decent folk regardless of their nationality or skin colour) I'm tempted to ask 'are there no sick people in your homeland'
Why not train up some of the unemployed people we already have to work in the NHS? They aren't all ill-educated layabouts. Wouldn't this be a better deal for Britain?
A rather crass argument. Should the Iranian surgeon who works with my wife go "home". He fled the Shah and has lived, worked and paid taxes for 20 years. He has had children and put down roots.
Should the Filipino nurses who are active recruited by the NHS Trusts (they don't just turn up, the Trusts go out there to find them) turn down the chance to earn enough to educate the children they have left behind when there aren't enough paid nursing jobs in their country?
At no time have i suggested anyone 'went home' nor would I
I actually agree with a lot of what you say.
We should train more school leavers and the unemployed to be nurses or other medical staff. Perhaps if we offered better wages the jobs would be more attractive to UK citizens.
We should be controlling immigration regardless of colour but emotive terms like "concreting over the countryside" add nothing to the debate.
You say 'emotive' Well yes it is emotive to me. I care deeply about the English countryside and have no wish to see it destroyed.
Neither does bringing up Anjem Choudary in a debate on immigration. Distasteful as his views are to me he's not an immigrant. He was born in Welling.[/quote]
I concede i was incorrect in believing him to be an immigrant. Nonetheless he is a 1st generation British/Pakistani who has benefitted, in every sense, from Britain the country he wants to destroy. He should be in prison for 'inciting racial hate' Or deported to a Muslim country of his choice. Where i'm sure he would be much happier.
Sorry but asking "are there no sick people in your homeland?" is clearly a suggestion that they should be nursing or doctoring in their home country. They may well actually wish to do that but other factors, as mentioned above, mean that they are here.
I don't want the countryside "destroyed" either but the urbanisation of this country has been going on for centuries. It is NOT being concreted over to house immigrants as you implied. Most of the green belts and rural areas have very strict planning laws to prevent just this. It is lack of local jobs, second homes, rural commuters and lack of public transport that are hurting rural communities and seeing more and more young rural people either out of work or moving to the cities.
What does Chowdhury's parentage have to do with it? And he is clearly 2nd generation, at least, as he was born in the UK. He is a UK born UK citizen so he can no more be deported than Nick Griffen. Chowdhury is a despicable man and a hypocrite who if he has incited racial hatred (I only say if as I haven't read in detail what he has said) should be arrested and charged but I still can't see what his case has to do with this immigration debate.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Sorry but asking "are there no sick people in your homeland?" is clearly a suggestion that they should be nursing or doctoring in their home country. They may well actually wish to do that but other factors, as mentioned above, mean that they are here.
Correct, there is plenty for them to do in their homeland and we should be creating "British jobs for British workers' but we ain't. But i do not suggest for one minute 'sending them back' I'm looking to the future.
I don't want the countryside "destroyed" either but the urbanisation of this country has been going on for centuries. It is NOT being concreted over to house immigrants as you implied. Most of the green belts and rural areas have very strict planning laws to prevent just this. It is lack of local jobs, second homes, rural commuters and lack of public transport that are hurting rural communities and seeing more and more young rural people either out of work or moving to the cities.
And our population is set to rise to 70million. A large proportion of which are immigrants and their dependants. They have to be housed somewhere. Strict planning laws are, and will continue to be overidden by Govt.
What does Chowdhury's parentage have to do with it? And he is clearly 2nd generation, at least, as he was born in the UK. He is a UK born UK citizen so he can no more be deported than Nick Griffen. Chowdhury is a despicable man and a hypocrite who if he has incited racial hatred (I say if as I haven't read what he has said) should be arrested and charged but I still can't see what his case has to do with this immigration debate.
Have a study of what he has said. If i had said it about Muslims or Muslim lands. I would be striking off the days on the cell wall by now. I suggested deportation as a soft option (for him) As i said i originally cited him as an example of the negative side of immigration. But i've conceded i was wrong about his status. I still utterly despise him
and his cronies and believe he has forfeited his right to live in our Democracy.
As i said at the beginning, points for debate and discussion. You and I will probably never agree on this subject. But at least we are still (just) free enough to try. My views are Right of centre and on this board that puts me in the minority. As we have all seen before.
Many years ago i learned a simple lesson. Sometimes the views one holds are not necessarily popular. But that does not mean they are necessarily wrong.
The whole Choudhury thing is difficult. You can't go around throwing British citizens out of the country because they don't like Britain. We have a right to live here and a right to dislike it. Somewhat similiar to people who go to Charlton yet moan their heads off about it.
Sure, if he doesn't like it then he should take it upon himself to leave. But that's down to him and just highlights the contradiction of the man rather than any sort of problem with immigration.
Disagree about you being in a minority on here for being on the right of politics.
I'd say that of those that express views (and the vast majority don't) there are more on the right than the left and plenty who move between the two depending on the issue, like me.
In any case the right's natural position as champions of the free market should be total freedom of labour and capital so they should welcome immigration ; - )
If the population rises to 70m then more homes will be needed but the countryside is not, as you have suggested being concreted over. As I said emotive language but where is the substance to back it up? The homes are being built in the cities.
And "A large proportion of which are immigrants and their dependants". Really, how large is that and are we talking about actual immigrants or people who are 2nd or 3rd generation?
Still your views are your views and you are entitled to hold them. Some I agree with, some I don't not that that should sway you or anyone else either way.
[cite]Posted By: Chunes[/cite]The whole Choudhury thing is difficult. You can't go around throwing British citizens out of the country because they don't like Britain. We have a right to live here and a right to dislike it. Somewhat similiar to people who go to Charlton yet moan their heads off about it.
Sure, if he doesn't like it then he should take it upon himself to leave. But that's down to him and just highlights the contradiction of the man rather than any sort of problem with immigration.
I find it stunning that this labour Government can open our borders for mass imigration, say they arnt doing it, call people that say they are "facists and rascists" because it fits in with their idiology (3million plus). Then when they are found out by one of their own blowing the whistle --- just say "so what the country is big enough"
Turn that round --- say a Tory government had moved 3 million people out for not being "British enough" --------- it would have made the Guardianistas give birth on the spot ! (thats just the men).
Good and bad in all large organisation.
My fathers last few months in this world,I saw good and bad in the NHS. (and some of the bad looked very anglo white northern whatever european to me) But 95% of the time he had the best the country could offer, of that I'm sure.
When I have needed treatment its been there for me. 2 years ago I had Sunday afternoon accident with a circular saw, I was seen to and given treatment straight away. The medical staff were all humans and I didnt give a toss which corner of the world they grew up in or what shade their skin might be. Although none of them were green like me.
I have photos of my finger with a 4mm slot down it if anyone wants to see how well electric saws cut finger nails.
[cite]Posted By: Chunes[/cite]The whole Choudhury thing is difficult. You can't go around throwing British citizens out of the country because they don't like Britain. We have a right to live here and a right to dislike it. Somewhat similiar to people who go to Charlton yet moan their heads off about it.
Sure, if he doesn't like it then he should take it upon himself to leave. But that's down to him and just highlights the contradiction of the man rather than any sort of problem with immigration.
What Choudhury needs to be is ignored. Framing the immigration debate with reference to Choudhury (as often people do) is as pointless as using the case of Jon Venables to dictate youth policy. They make people angry and reactionary based on extraordinarily isolated cases that don't really reflect Britain as a whole.
The entirely reasonable advice from the Muslim Council of Britain in terms of Islam4UK was that we should "ensure we do not grant them the oxygen of publicity". Advice that has been completely ignored by the media.
We are all missing the point here... as far as I can see the whole point of this thread is that Prince's mrs is sweedish and a nurse! So the bigger question is.... does she have any single sisters... he he, its Friday people try and lighten it up a little. ;-)
[cite]Posted By: Chunes[/cite]The whole Choudhury thing is difficult. You can't go around throwing British citizens out of the country because they don't like Britain. We have a right to live here and a right to dislike it. Somewhat similiar to people who go to Charlton yet moan their heads off about it.
Sure, if he doesn't like it then he should take it upon himself to leave. But that's down to him and just highlights the contradiction of the man rather than any sort of problem with immigration.
What Choudhury needs to be is ignored. Framing the immigration debate with reference to Choudhury (as often people do) is as pointless as using the case of Jon Venables to dictate youth policy. They make people angry and reactionary based on extraordinarily isolated cases that don't really reflect Britain as a whole.
The entirely reasonable advice from the Muslim Council of Britain in terms of Islam4UK was that we should "ensure we do not grant them the oxygen of publicity". Advice that has been completely ignored by the media.
[cite]Posted By: Chunes[/cite]The whole Choudhury thing is difficult. You can't go around throwing British citizens out of the country because they don't like Britain. We have a right to live here and a right to dislike it. Somewhat similiar to people who go to Charlton yet moan their heads off about it.
Sure, if he doesn't like it then he should take it upon himself to leave. But that's down to him and just highlights the contradiction of the man rather than any sort of problem with immigration.
What Choudhury needs to be is ignored. Framing the immigration debate with reference to Choudhury (as often people do) is as pointless as using the case of Jon Venables to dictate youth policy. They make people angry and reactionary based on extraordinarily isolated cases that don't really reflect Britain as a whole.
The entirely reasonable advice from the Muslim Council of Britain in terms of Islam4UK was that we should "ensure we do not grant them the oxygen of publicity". Advice that has been completely ignored by the media.
[cite]Posted By: adamtheaddick[/cite]We are all missing the point here... as far as I can see the whole point of this thread is that Prince's mrs is sweedish and a nurse! So the bigger question is.... does she have any single sisters... he he, its Friday people try and lighten it up a little. ;-)
I'm with you Adam!!!
That said, I'd chuck you all out and only let scandinavian women in if it was up to me....
[cite]Posted By: adamtheaddick[/cite]We are all missing the point here... as far as I can see the whole point of this thread is that Prince's mrs is sweedish and a nurse! So the bigger question is.... does she have any single sisters... he he, its Friday people try and lighten it up a little. ;-)
Don't let Lady Irving hear you perving over nurses.
She'll give you her "so you find blood and vomit and excrement sexy then?" speech : - )
Comments
I think there is a legitimate concern about controlling immigration. Personally I don't subscribe to that concern although I understand it. People want to come here becuase this is (still) a rich country and the world fifth largest economy. It is, primarily because of that, and our previous conquest of large chunks of the worlds territory that many see our country as either home or a desirable place to live. As others have already said, long may that continue.
Oh and by the way, I have seen reference to "indigenous" in earlier posts. I am, as far as I can tell (from my surname) Anglo-Saxon, with a bit of Flemish, oh and some Irish and well maybe some Spanish somewhere in the past, plus maybe an odd Viking or two. Who amongst us can trace our ancestry un-contaminated by immigrant blood to err.....well Bodicea or Caracticus or the Cantii, or the Votadini, or the Picts, or the Scotii (who came from Ireland) or such like?
The fact is that our country has been enriched by those who, over the centuries, have made it their home.
As for in or out of the EU, well for all its faults (which are manifest) I am and continue to be emphatically for staying in. Those who argue the opposite I respect, but profoundly disagree. What I despise though, is the lack of proper informed debate about the merits or otherwise of being in or out of the EU which is, to a great extent hijacked by the tabloid press who like to fan the flames of discontent, because it's an easy target. They keep the focus on negative issues like how much meat is in a sausage, how straight bananas should be and who is getting more out and who is putting more in. I believe in what goes around, comes around and if as country we contribute more, in time we will gain more. I also believe that it is better to be inside the tent shaping things than on the outside only able to react with no voice or vote.
Those of Left leaning views will broadly support immigration and point out that (in their view) we are all immigrants!
Those of Right leaning views will say it's time to stop immigration.
I will just make a few points for discussion;
Right now we have 2.4 million unemployed. Though the figure for the 'economically inactive' is in excess of 5million. Should we then allow into Britain uncontrolled numbers of people with no particular skills? Or should we shake up the work dodgers we already have?
Why is it that virtually every 'asylum seeker' currently waiting their chance in Calais. Broadly fits the description 'male aged 16 to 35? Are there no old/young/female asylum seekers?
Why do they cross several EU borders to get into England? What is attracting them?
When people who are highly skilled come here to work, and i'm particularly thinking of doctors and nurses (who i am sure work hard and are indeed decent folk regardless of their nationality or skin colour) I'm tempted to ask 'are there no sick people in your homeland'
Why not train up some of the unemployed people we already have to work in the NHS? They aren't all ill-educated layabouts. Wouldn't this be a better deal for Britain?
The NHS is not free to the legal residents of Britain (in fact there are now four NHS's in Britain, but that's a different debate) It is paid for from our taxes. Therefore is it right for people who have never paid in a penny to be able to use the NHS? When Brits go to Hungary or wherever for dental treatment or indeed any treatment. They don't get it free, they pay the local rate. Unlike an immigrant who presents his/herself to the NHS who will be treated for free.
Immigration is not about colour. It is about the number of people arriving here. Currently the numbers are so high the Gov. has completely lost track and control. Never in the history of these islands have immigration figures been anything like todays.
Is it right we here in Britain should effectively concrete over large swathes of our land to house the ever increasing population. Whilst the lands from which many immigrants come are barren, under-utilised and poor. Should we not help and encourage people to improve their homeland, rather than leave it?
And finally, you'll be glad to hear.
Why are people such as Anjem Choudary allowed to live here? He is a radical Muslim who hates Britain. Yet chooses to live here. He recieves around £25K a year in benefits, from the taxes you and i pay. Which is odd because he is clearly an intelligent man (despite his vile views) He is a trained lawyer. He is also apparently fit and healthy. Yet he doesn't work. How can this be? (By the way, i have asked my MP this question, i'm still awaiting an answer) There are of course many more like him.
Except that is not what has happened here. How many have said stop all immigration? Most if not all are saying that immigration should be controlled.
A rather crass argument. Should the Iranian surgeon who works with my wife go "home". He fled the Shah and has lived, worked and paid taxes for 20 years. He has had children and put down roots.
Should the Filipino nurses who are active recruited by the NHS Trusts (they don't just turn up, the Trusts go out there to find them) turn down the chance to earn enough to educate the children they have left behind when there aren't enough paid nursing jobs in their country?
I actually agree with a lot of what you say.
We should train more school leavers and the unemployed to be nurses or other medical staff. Perhaps if we offered better wages the jobs would be more attractive to UK citizens.
We should be controlling immigration regardless of colour but emotive terms like "concreting over the countryside" add nothing to the debate.
Neither does bringing up Anjem Choudary in a debate on immigration. Distasteful as his views are to me he's not an immigrant. He was born in Welling.
We have more brains, as F&H demonstrates nicely.
F&H is a man
No wonder I get no reply to my love-whispers ;-(
Must be Millwall though....
Well no one likes him and he doesn't seem to care so......
Should have told him about that orange stud you have. Putty in your hands : - )
After you was so nasty to me about my piercing I went straight home and changed it ;-)
Sorry, I was emotionally disturbed at the time : - )
There are indeed sick people in their homeland, but the doctors come here for the wages. There's a bit of controversy about it as Poland or Lithuania or whoever train up their doctors and then we pilfer them. So we're not the ones who come out of it badly.
My view is that the NHS is not perfect but it is still superb and this is in a large part due to the amount of immigrant workers that are involved in our health service. I think Chizz's first post is spot on and wholeheartedly echo what he said. I hate the idea of selective immigration as this often means stripping poorer nations of their key workers and thus sending that country further into the mire. Despite what some media outlets might try and lead you to believe, this country is hugely benefitting from current immigration practices and although some abuse the system, at the moment, the benefits outweigh the cost. Are there immigrants that are abusing the benefits system, yes. Are there British people abusing the benefits system, yes. The system isn't perfect but its still one of the best in the world.
A rather crass argument. Should the Iranian surgeon who works with my wife go "home". He fled the Shah and has lived, worked and paid taxes for 20 years. He has had children and put down roots.
Should the Filipino nurses who are active recruited by the NHS Trusts (they don't just turn up, the Trusts go out there to find them) turn down the chance to earn enough to educate the children they have left behind when there aren't enough paid nursing jobs in their country?
At no time have i suggested anyone 'went home' nor would I
I actually agree with a lot of what you say.
We should train more school leavers and the unemployed to be nurses or other medical staff. Perhaps if we offered better wages the jobs would be more attractive to UK citizens.
We should be controlling immigration regardless of colour but emotive terms like "concreting over the countryside" add nothing to the debate.
You say 'emotive' Well yes it is emotive to me. I care deeply about the English countryside and have no wish to see it destroyed.
Neither does bringing up Anjem Choudary in a debate on immigration. Distasteful as his views are to me he's not an immigrant. He was born in Welling.[/quote]
I concede i was incorrect in believing him to be an immigrant. Nonetheless he is a 1st generation British/Pakistani who has benefitted, in every sense, from Britain the country he wants to destroy. He should be in prison for 'inciting racial hate' Or deported to a Muslim country of his choice. Where i'm sure he would be much happier.
I don't want the countryside "destroyed" either but the urbanisation of this country has been going on for centuries. It is NOT being concreted over to house immigrants as you implied. Most of the green belts and rural areas have very strict planning laws to prevent just this. It is lack of local jobs, second homes, rural commuters and lack of public transport that are hurting rural communities and seeing more and more young rural people either out of work or moving to the cities.
What does Chowdhury's parentage have to do with it? And he is clearly 2nd generation, at least, as he was born in the UK. He is a UK born UK citizen so he can no more be deported than Nick Griffen. Chowdhury is a despicable man and a hypocrite who if he has incited racial hatred (I only say if as I haven't read in detail what he has said) should be arrested and charged but I still can't see what his case has to do with this immigration debate.
Have a study of what he has said. If i had said it about Muslims or Muslim lands. I would be striking off the days on the cell wall by now. I suggested deportation as a soft option (for him) As i said i originally cited him as an example of the negative side of immigration. But i've conceded i was wrong about his status. I still utterly despise him
and his cronies and believe he has forfeited his right to live in our Democracy.
As i said at the beginning, points for debate and discussion. You and I will probably never agree on this subject. But at least we are still (just) free enough to try. My views are Right of centre and on this board that puts me in the minority. As we have all seen before.
Many years ago i learned a simple lesson. Sometimes the views one holds are not necessarily popular. But that does not mean they are necessarily wrong.
cheers COYA [as the younsters say
Sure, if he doesn't like it then he should take it upon himself to leave. But that's down to him and just highlights the contradiction of the man rather than any sort of problem with immigration.
I'd say that of those that express views (and the vast majority don't) there are more on the right than the left and plenty who move between the two depending on the issue, like me.
In any case the right's natural position as champions of the free market should be total freedom of labour and capital so they should welcome immigration ; - )
If the population rises to 70m then more homes will be needed but the countryside is not, as you have suggested being concreted over. As I said emotive language but where is the substance to back it up? The homes are being built in the cities.
And "A large proportion of which are immigrants and their dependants". Really, how large is that and are we talking about actual immigrants or people who are 2nd or 3rd generation?
Still your views are your views and you are entitled to hold them. Some I agree with, some I don't not that that should sway you or anyone else either way.
Spot on
Turn that round --- say a Tory government had moved 3 million people out for not being "British enough" --------- it would have made the Guardianistas give birth on the spot ! (thats just the men).
just remember to tomorrow belongs to me !
Good and bad in all large organisation.
My fathers last few months in this world,I saw good and bad in the NHS. (and some of the bad looked very anglo white northern whatever european to me) But 95% of the time he had the best the country could offer, of that I'm sure.
When I have needed treatment its been there for me. 2 years ago I had Sunday afternoon accident with a circular saw, I was seen to and given treatment straight away. The medical staff were all humans and I didnt give a toss which corner of the world they grew up in or what shade their skin might be. Although none of them were green like me.
I have photos of my finger with a 4mm slot down it if anyone wants to see how well electric saws cut finger nails.
What Choudhury needs to be is ignored. Framing the immigration debate with reference to Choudhury (as often people do) is as pointless as using the case of Jon Venables to dictate youth policy. They make people angry and reactionary based on extraordinarily isolated cases that don't really reflect Britain as a whole.
The entirely reasonable advice from the Muslim Council of Britain in terms of Islam4UK was that we should "ensure we do not grant them the oxygen of publicity". Advice that has been completely ignored by the media.
As usual, Charlie Brooker nails it:
I did. Another to the list of reasons why he is my hero and mentor in life
I'm with you Adam!!!
That said, I'd chuck you all out and only let scandinavian women in if it was up to me....
Other than that small thing, I too tend to agree with virtually everything he says.
Don't let Lady Irving hear you perving over nurses.
She'll give you her "so you find blood and vomit and excrement sexy then?" speech : - )