'Are you thinking whilst we're being racist?'

[Dusty Gozongas]

Scanning through the above... Maybe worth mentioning that even Peter Mandelson firmly said NO to the european grant that any town gets for taking a batch of immigrants into the fold when he was MP for Hartlepool.  Clever bloke, Peter.  He understands racism.  Love it or loathe it, racism is real.  Talking sense won't put it to bed and it has to be said that some comments in this thread smack of SU bar talk.

Also, I noticed a comment by a poster about their father - which makes the poster quite old compared to the apparent demographic - seeing the aftermath of Belsen being dismissed as a poor argument.  That strikes me as a pretty shitty attitude.  I'll mention, for your benefit, that my grandfather fought in Africa before being posted to clean the mess up at that shithole.  He didn't talk about it often and he didn't elaborate too much but I'm sure that any person hearing the truth is most unlikely to be mindlessly racist.   Again, racism is real.  It exists.  You might be right-thinking (small "r") on this matter but you're dreaming if you think that it'll go away if you smile hard enough.

However. Lost meself on a rant there. The poll was about immigration control.  Anybody who says NO probably hasn't thought about it even as much as the "don't knows".


(excuse ranting/typos/thingsalreadysaid etc.  It's late and i need sleep)  :^}

[Saturday Boy]

The problem is that you appear to be attributing that belief to every single person who thinks that letting every single person who turns up on our shores into the country is a bad idea

No. I. Don't.

It seems, judging by the poll, there are some unsavoury opinions on here too. I'm quite surprised as usually sensible people constitute the majority of people on this board, rather than selfish racists.

Yes. You. Do.

[Canny]

the disinterest and lack of compassion for these people absolutely kills me

Noone has a monopoly on compasssion nor the lack of it. To accuse the Conservatives of nod-and-a-wink racism is not merely a childish insult it is destructive and ignores the fact that immigration policy has been in a mess for decades. When my grandad escaped to this country there was no policy at all but since the government has nationalised compassion it has the resposibility of doing the job properly, efficiently, coherently and fairly. If you are so mortally wounded by the "lack of compassion" in others why don't you support the Conservative campaign for proper controls on asylum and immigration or else start taking in families of refugees like my grandma did in the thirties, at her own expense.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I've already apologized for that! I can't believe you quote me on something I've already fully retracted! (Saturday Boy)

As for arqarqa's comments about when I said "using an anecdote about your dad in belsen to argue for immigration cheapens the whole thing" I stand by what I said 100%. It does.

[Dusty Gozongas]

The problem is that you appear to be attributing that belief to every single person who thinks that letting every single person who turns up on our shores into the country is a bad idea

No. I. Don't.

Come on then man.  Spit it out :-)

note to self: page 4. check back tomorrow (and read all of it first)

[Dusty Gozongas]

Ta for keeping me up all fucking night.

I've already apologized for that, you cunt! (Saturday Boy)

As for arquarqa's comments about when I said "using an anecdote about your dad in belsen to argue for immigration cheapens the whole thing" I stand by what I said 100%. It does.

No it doesn't.  The History Channel might though.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Yes it does- had I said what you misquoted me as saying (If you twist what people say, it detracts from your own arguments, not everyone elses):

How do you get from here:

"using an anecdote about your dad in belsen to argue for immigration cheapens the whole thing"

To:

"seeing the aftermath of Belsen being dismissed as a poor argument"

It's just some really amateurish attempt at  character assassination by falsely insinuating that I have a lack of respect for the victims at Belsen, when if anything, Canny was being disrespectful by using his anecdote about his dad at Belsen to add to his arguments about immigration.

[JesusAndYourBush]

The Conservatives are proposing quotas on the number of asylum-seekers we let in, which is wrong.

I agree with you, that is wrong.  Limit immigration,but not asylum, and make sure other EU countries all take their fair share so we're not overburdened.

You're clearly unaware of the arguments that have already came up. An able chap called chand rightly pointed out:

"It's also well-documented that many refugees don't know where they're going to end up, many are refused by several countries before they get here, many are brought here by people traffickers. Of those who do specifically choose Britain, it's often because English is their second language, the same reason that those fleeing French-speaking African nations go to France."

How about that? That seems entirely reasonable justification for their actions.

Yes, it does. Assuming people do choose a country for those reasons (as opposed to making a trek all the way through Europe specifically because we're seen as a soft touch) then fair enough.

Yes. Instead of coming here and making our country shit they should stay where they are and help to make their country great.

That's just ignorant. Not only does it group people together and ignore the minutae of individual cases and circumstances, it ignores the basic facts that the majority of people flee for sanctuary only in the most extreme circumstances. These people who are supposed to be making their country great are generally being tortured or ostracised for objecting to the regimes in countries such as D.R Congo. It's the equivalent of saying that the Jews should've stayed in Germany to improve their lot. And maybe they should've done that in Rwanda, and Sudan too.

Well, ok, I admit I was shooting my mouth off there.



There was a woman in Nigeria last year who was going to be stoned to death for adultery.  Her and the woman in Pakistan mentioned by thomasina earlier in the thread are exactly the sort of circumstances where should be given asylum.  In fact, in those cases where it's probably very difficult for them to flee their country they should be allowed to knock on the doors of an Embassy and request asylum (I don't know if people are allowed to do this, but it should be allowed for extreme cases like that.)

[Saturday Boy]

I've already apologized for that! I can't believe you quote me on something I've already fully retracted! (Saturday Boy)

Ahh, I'm sorry. I wasn't actually sure which bit you were retracting before. I still think your overall stance and plenty of other comments you've made lean towards making that same statement.


I'm going to stay out of the immigration/asylum debate on this thread, because unfortunately, like the debate the Conservatives have provoked in the country, it's already been kicked off on the wrong foot, and yelling and unpleasantness are sure to follow, which is a shame.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ok, Thanks Saturday Boy. I actually intended the poll question to be different, but I pressed 'Submit' before I changed it. My original question would've contained the word 'quota', and I made that rash comment before realising what I'd done.

[Canny]

The point about my dad and Belsen is that REAL racism, as opposed to the false allegation of racism you make against the Conservatives, is neither anecdotal nor cheap. You assert the "undeniable" existence of uncaring people yet cannot quantify this. If something is undeniable it must be quantifiable, by definition.

[Mr Custard]

I've already apologized for that! I can't believe you quote me on something I've already fully retracted! (Saturday Boy)

Well, there are also these

Not only are limits on immigration unfair

I can't really see how voting 'Yes' doesn't make you selfish, racist or both.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the policy Howard is proposing is part-product of an insidious racist undercurrent that is present in the Conservative party, and has been fuelled by the likes of the Express/Mail, etc

And getting those took about ten seconds. And I didn't even have to point out the poll questions. the only possible way you could make yuorself look more of a twat is by replacing the 'Yes'  vote with 'Yes, i'm clearly a cunt'


Edit: possibly pointing out the cock up with the title about 3 hours ago would have made you look like slightly less of a wanker though. Only slightly though.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The Conservatives have a history of racism that post-war is well documented. Just because the Conservatives have multi-racial members doesn't mean that others aren't racist, and it doesn't mean that they don't adopt racist, or racially motivated policies in order to attract voters. In my book, the votes of people like that aren't worth it- clearly they disagree and are happy to sell their morals and their integrity to win votes. I know others do, but it doesn't make it any better.

That's impossible- you can't quantify the opinions and prejudices of a population. These people exist, yet putting a number on them is impossible. The exist in every town in the country. You do realise that by proxy you are implying that there are no uncaring people in this country, and you know how stupid that sounds.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I can't really see how voting 'Yes' doesn't make you selfish, racist or both.

I still stand by that, and no-one has yet put forward an argument that changes my opinion on that.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the policy Howard is proposing is part-product of an insidious racist undercurrent that is present in the Conservative party, and has been fuelled by the likes of the Express/Mail, etc

I absolutely stand by that, and thankyou for re-surfacing it.

[El Unicornio, mang]

That is the responsibility we must bear, and the astonishingly selfish nature of some Britons, and the disinterest and lack of compassion for these people absolutely kills me.

That's the selfishness of humans, actually, unless you believe that those seeking asylum would do the same for us if the roles were reversed.

[Saturday Boy]

Ach, don't get me wrong... I assumed from the title of the thread "'Are you thinking whilst we're being racist?'", that this thread would be some rather enjoyable Tory/Howard bashing (done brilliantly over in Vision Mong not too long ago).

And I certainly agree that there's a debate to be had regarding the actual issues, but blurring the two things there is going to inevitably cause some ire with people who disagree with you.



My opinion?


Regarding Asylum:


An unlimited amount of refugees should be allowed into this country, when they arrive their refugee status should be checked up on, as quickly, politely, and accurately as possible.

If the world is ever in a state where the UK is overrun by genuine refugees, lack of national resources and overpopulation will be the least of our global concerns.



Regarding immigration:

Of course we're in the EU now, so technically and citizen of any member state can "immigrate" and work here with little or no hassle at all. I can go to France on holiday with my E111 and get free healthcare. Technically one could imagine every French, German and Pole coming here to work, all within the law.

"Economic Migrant" shouldn't be a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with it. If an Australian, or Iranian, or Saudi Arabian wants to come and work in England (because say, he's fallen in love with classic British comedy, and try as he might he cannot find the market for his own work back home), then he should have a fair crack at doing it here.

There should be limits on how many migrants can come to the country though,  and there should be a combination of yearly limits and some sort of assesment for prospective migrants.


My father came to this country with not-very-much and started his own business and whatnot, but he was both British (part of the Empire) and also fleeing an amount of persecution. His British status means that it was never really an issue, though of course that didn't help the problems of relocation and culture shock, which economic migrants will have to face and should be assisted with, if they are to be happy active members of British and World society.


It isn't racist to put limits on immigration, it's about protecting National interests, which governments are both wont, and in fact charged to do by their very nature.


However, it very suspect to both (i) blur the issues of asylum and immigration, and (ii) elevate the debate on immigration to the forefront of your election policy despite it's relative lack of importance in governance, and speak in a manner which clearly serves to play to people's irrational fears and prejudices.


EDIT:

I can't really see how voting 'Yes' doesn't make you selfish, racist or both.

Oh dear... still standing by that? I have little choice to retract my previous apology.


By that logic (ignoring the issue of racism), surely it is selfish for you to be tapping away on your computer when in the high-street near you there are certainly people freezing and starving?

People in brick houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Purple Tentacle]

The Conservatives have a history of racism that post-war is well documented.

Yep. And 1945-1951, 1964-1970, 1974-1979 and 1997 onwards have been completely racism free.

[Canny]

Enoch Powell (of all people) persuaded bus drivers in Birmingham (all of them trade union members and Labour supporters) not to go on strike against West Indian bus drivers when they arrived in the 1950's. There is just as much a history of racism in the Labour/trade union movement as there is anywhere else. You have made a specific allegation of racism against the Conservative Party (not just the odd member) and its campaign policy on immigration and that allegation is simply untrue. It is a dirty smear and you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you cannot quatify the opinions and prejudices of a population you cannot assert that they exist. I might as well claim that I have priveleged knowledge that you a knicker fetishist without offering any evidence in support.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

You know what I mean.

The difference is- Labour has generally looked after the working class, and as a result built up a large asian and carribean vote, wheras the Conservatives have been much less welcoming of immigrants, and have turned their noses up at such support, even though they traditionally have more Conservative style values. I'm speaking generally, but Labour has in the past been proven to be less racist. You can't deny it.

[gazzyk1ns]

You know those drivers who clearly can't drive properly? You know, they're too nervous, old, or [whatever] and so they have to doodle around at 20mph, braking heavily before every bend and sticking to at least 10mph below the speed limit? Well, I can understand their driving if they were the only people on the road. But I always wonder why they don't see a tail of at least 5 cars bunched up behind them, clearly frustrated, no matter where they are in the country or what type of road they're on; and think "Maybe I'm driving in the wrong way? Maybe everyone else isn't unreasonable, and that it's me who is going about this in the wrong fashion?".

Same here VM, don't you ever wonder why nearly everyone responding to your posts seems to think you're an utter tosser? I acknowledge that some people in the past had a go at you just because you were a popular hate figure, that's how Tracey and Weekender work, everyone knows that no matter how chummy they are with them in public and via PM/MSN. But you really do come across as an immature wanker, you think you know everything and you throw abuse at people who hold a different opinion. You've got to understand that the main reason for me pointing this out is that I know what a twat I was when I was 17/18/19, not just to slag you off. Having said that, I know that nobody could have told me that sort of thing when I was that old, so...

[Saturday Boy]

The early Labour party had both eugenicist and racist members.

George Bernad Shaw (a supporter of the hideous abuses in the Soviet Union under Stalin) and Oswald Mosely were both prominent figures in the early Labour party.


That won't stop me voting Labour this May at all. I judge the party on it's current membership, not who was in the Party in the 1920s.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If you cannot quatify the opinions and prejudices of a population you cannot assert that they exist.

Hah! I can't believe you've just said that! Yes, yes you can. How can you possibly argue that? That's madness.

It is a dirty smear and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Forgive me if I crease up with laughter. So both parties have a history of racism- I agree, but it's the Conservatives that have gone after the racist vote, and played on the prejudices and fears of the electorate.

[Saturday Boy]

Conservatives have been much less welcoming of immigrants, and have turned their noses up at such support, even though they traditionally have more Conservative style values

I wouldn't like to start making those sorts of broad assumptions about the political beliefs of people based on their culture myself, it could lead to all sorts of accusations.

[gazzyk1ns]

I posted at the bottom of the last page and I want you to read it. This post is just in case it got lost with the "lots of people posting and lots of people viewing the new page, assuming they've read all of the previous one" thing happens.

[Canny]

You know what I mean.

The difference is- Labour has generally looked after the working class, and as a result built up a large asian and carribean vote, wheras the Conservatives have been much less welcoming of immigrants, and have turned their noses up at such support, even though they traditionally have more Conservative style values. I'm speaking generally, but Labour has in the past been proven to be less racist. You can't deny it.

I do NOT know what you mean and I DO deny it! The Labour party has done more to suck up to the working poor (black and white) by taxing them heavily and then giving them (some) of their own money back and calling it "the welfare state". That way they build a constituency of dependency. Nearly 40% of the population now receives some kind of state benefit and the poor are taxed more heavily than ever.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Hmm yeah, I think that's best left to PM's gazzykins. Paste it into PM's and I'll reply there.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

poor are taxed more heavily than ever.

I was under the impression that we had some of the lowest tax rates in Europe, and that a sizeable proportion of the benefits given out aren't at all depedency related, but benefits people are entitled to such as Child Benefit that is intended to help working families from different backgrounds.

[Canny]

quote]I was under the impression that we had some of the lowest tax rates in Europe.[/quote]

Your impression is false. Try adjusting your opinions according to the facts rather than adjusting the facts to suit your opinions/prejudices. It's called growing up.

Night night

[gazzyk1ns]

Hmm yeah, I think that's best left to PM's gazzykins. Paste it into PM's and I'll reply there

What!? PM me and ask me not to call you a cunt in public if you want, I'll do it. But what do you mean, "paste it into PMs"? No, I've posted it, PM me if you want. This isn't a dick-measuring contest, if you want me to ignore you then I will, it's just that you seemed to be actively inviting criticism and debate.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If I'm wrong- show me I'm wrong. Don't just say 'your impression is false'. If you want to keep to facts and figures, then at least prove me wrong.