UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

[Dingdongs]

Refugees =/= migrants.

 

Well, yeah, before some smart arse intervenes, I know they're technically migrants.

 

Irv, why then do left-wing organisations like the BBC insist on repeatedly showing selective images of desperate women and children whilst refusing to display the images of violent thuggery amongst the young men causing carnage? Even looking at that BBC vid I posted a few weeks ago on this thread of the 'welcoming' at that German train station, 80-90% of them were young males. Do I really need some 'statisic' to blind my own eyes? Sorry man, I'm not so easily convinced.

Probably because the BBC wants to portray the situation in a particular way and are going to use the best looking possible cases for their viewers. It´s the same thing as Fox News using the people at the train station causing fights as the image representative of the migrants.

 

The statistics are relevant insofar as proving that the majority of these refugee are not a bunch of strapping young men that are prepared to dismantle Western civilization.

[Svip]

The difference is BBC is a public service channel and Fox News is a cable news channel. BBC has legal obligation to be unbiased, Fox News have not. BBC is largely funded by taxpayers and licence payers, Fox News is largely funded by cable subscriptions and advertisement.

 

Now, I don't see the same problems with the BBC as the two gentlemen here, but I do believe they aren't portraying their case well.

 

Adult male refugees were sent ahead to determine whether the journey was possible, and the women and children were sent next. In addition, it appears to depend on the origin of the refugees whether the majority of men is striking and particularly which checkpoint you look at.

 

It may also be an indicator that the journey up until the point they reach Europe have been hard, and women and children didn't make it in the same numbers as adult males did.

 

These men may appear fit, but considering the journey they had to endure, that might actually be a plus. Most of the Syrian refugees are in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. They are mostly the ones that can't make the trip further to Europe. Either because they don't have the money or the strength.

 

The 800,000 asylum seekers predicted to be coming across the European borders this year seems to pale in comparison to the 4 million far poorer countries like Jordan and Lebanon have to deal with. And moreover, they can't deal with them. Hence why some of them are trying their luck in Europe.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Svip

[sivispacem]

I'll also concede that it's not exactly a stunningly coherent piece of reporting but I don't think you can reasonably argue it's evidence of an agenda. As I've said before, it's an apparent agenda which only manifests itself to a small group of people with a particular set of political beliefs; your continued insistence that it is there based on little snippets of programmes doesn't mean it actually is. But if you're genuinely concerned about the partiality of the Beeb on this particular subject, thenwhy don't you write to the Trust? It's their primary role to ensure compliance with the impartiality clause, maybe you'll be vindicated?

 

The racism series that's currently airing doesn't exactly represent further proof. I don't know if you're aware bit it's currently quite a large topic of social discussion. It's not a topic unique to the Beeb either; Channel 4 did their "Race: Science's Last Taboo" series a couple of years back and I didn't see outcry from people like yourself. Do you not think it's an important subject to address and discuss? Or are you prescribing to the Dail Wail allegations that the whole thing is purposefully engineered to show Britons as racist? That would rather imply you didn't think they were, which I'm not sure is particularly tenable.

 

As for the comments on the last page about a majority of people having concerns about immigration, that's exactly the kind of weasel-worded phrasing which is part of the problem. I have no doubt that a majority of the population have "concerns" about immigration. If you asked me if I had "concerns" about immigration I'd probably answer yes, though those concerns have nothing to do with reducing it. The only way you can get a meaningful response in thus instance us by asking specific questions, as a general concern isn't equatable to a concern over numbers/levels and pretending such is extremely disengenuous.

 

I also think if more people were actually privy to the statistical evidence regarding the benefits of immigration rather than incessant fear mongering from the right wing elements of the press people would probably exhibit less concerns over immigration figures. Interestingly, the kinds of people who are fully aware of those statistics- business groups, economists and sociologists, people who read dense 100,000 word reports for fun- already do.

[Dingdongs]

The difference is BBC is a public service channel and Fox News is a cable news channel. BBC has legal obligation to be unbiased, Fox News have not. BBC is largely funded by taxpayers and licence payers, Fox News is largely funded by cable subscriptions and advertisement.

 

Now, I don't see the same problems with the BBC as the two gentlemen here, but I do believe they aren't portraying their case well.

 

Adult male refugees were sent ahead to determine whether the journey was possible, and the women and children were sent next. In addition, it appears to depend on the origin of the refugees whether the majority of men is striking and particularly which checkpoint you look at.

 

It may also be an indicator that the journey up until the point they reach Europe have been hard, and women and children didn't make it in the same numbers as adult males did.

 

These men may appear fit, but considering the journey they had to endure, that might actually be a plus. Most of the Syrian refugees are in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. They are mostly the ones that can't make the trip further to Europe. Either because they don't have the money or the strength.

 

The 800,000 asylum seekers predicted to be coming across the European borders this year seems to pale in comparison to the 4 million far poorer countries like Jordan and Lebanon have to deal with. And moreover, they can't deal with them. Hence why some of them are trying their luck in Europe.

Right, I didn't really contest that the BBC was biased. I don't know enough about it so I simply offered an uneducated guess on why they were doing what John asked.

 

As for the migrants, you're right about why women children may not be able to make the full journey to Europe. That being said, again, according to the raw numbers, the gender breakdown of the total reguees are about even. When you consider the ones who could make the journey by sea, that's where you see all these men.

[GTA_stu]

I also think if more people were actually privy to the statistical evidence regarding the benefits of immigration rather than incessant fear mongering from the right wing elements of the press people would probably exhibit less concerns over immigration figures. Interestingly, the kinds of people who are fully aware of those statistics- business groups, economists and sociologists, people who read dense 100,000 word reports for fun- already do.

 

"Anyone who disagrees with my view does so because they are ignorant, uninformed and unaware of the real truth of the matter."

 

I realise I didn't specify, but I wasn't talking about the majority having a really wishy washy "general concern" towards immigration. Most people are unhappy with the current levels we have for a number of reasons, it's not a "oh well I have a few small concerns about some of them not integrating" which pretty much everyone has to some degree. It's a much more stronger view than that. Hence why May made that speech, because she wants to appeal to the majority of the population with her tough (and probably, as always, empty) rhetoric. The idea that it was pretty much just trying to appease UKIP voters, is so utterly false.

[sivispacem]

"Anyone who disagrees with my view does so because they are ignorant, uninformed and unaware of the real truth of the matter."

That is generally why people disagree with facts, yes. It goes some way to explaining the massive gulf in perception of immigrants between graduates, who generally look upon them favourably, and those with no education, who look on them extremely unfavourably. There's a direct correlation between level of education and attitude towards immigration.

 

Most people are unhappy with the current levels we have

Are they, though? I mean, away from responses incited from direct questioning on the subject do people genuinely and in isolation from external influences I genuinely don't think people care. They certainly don't care enough to avoid making fundamental factual errors when responding to stuff like the British Social Attitudes survey. For instance, 24% of people think that the nsin reason immigrants come to the UK is to clsim benefits, even though the percentage of immigrants who are even entitled to benefits is tiny; similarly, 43% of people think immigration increases crime, whilst actually all statistics show an inverse correlation between immigration and crime.

 

I don't think for one minute it's a coincidence that higher levels of education correlate much more strongly with positive attitudes towards immigrants. 60% of university graduates see immigration as a net benefit to the economy, compared to 17% of people with no qualifications. Whose right? Statistics suggest the former.

 

I don't know about you, but I make a distinction between views that are formed voluntarily and people who just bob along on whatever current trend is in vigue in their social class.

 

You may well be right that many, or even most, people harbour some fundamental dislike of immigration as it currently stands. But ask them to produce a coherent explanation of why they dislike it and u doubt you'll get many responses that tally with reality. And I don't know about you but I'd rather the direction this country took was dictated by empiricism rather than the weight of ignorance. Any policy that's designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator is probably a bad thing.

 

The idea that it was pretty much just trying to appease UKIP voters, is so utterly false.

No, it really isn't. You'd have to be delusional to think it wasn't an attempt to reach out to those who deserted the major parties last election after being drawn in by UKIP's rhetoric. It was pure and simple populism of the most divisive kind.

[GTA_stu]

Immigration is good = fact? It's a highly subjective thing Sivis, it isn't factual at all. And I hate to repeat myself, but your insistance that it's a given fact that it's a benefit is highly flawed in any case. The idea that people come here for our welfare isn't necessarily wrong, that it's the primary reason is. It's certainly a pull factor even if getting a job is primarily what migrants come for though. Immigration causes a drop in crime? Err what? Why do black and muslims find themselves over represented in the prison population then, and over represented in violent crime stats and sexual assault stats? European immigrants have similar offending rates to the native population but our immigrants aren't just from the EU.

 

Could the fact that educated people have a higher opinion of immigration not also be to do with the fact that they don't tend to have as much competition for their jobs from immigrants, they live in nicer areas with the better services that aren't as under strain, and schools which aren't heavily populated by immigrant children, they don't actually live near that many immigrants, and the ones they do live near are wealthier and better educated and not like the majority? Maybe poorer people have a worse opinion of immigration, because they actually deal with it's consequences and aren't just exposed to it's good sides. If a high education makes people so "enlightened", why do 40% still not see immigration as a net benefit? Are they all just ignorant too?

 

I never said it wasn't a reach out to main party deserters or UKIP voters, I said it wasn't just that. If you really think that's all it was, and wasn't targeted at the majority of voters who have big issues with immigration, then you're the delusional one.

[sivispacem]

Immigration is good = fact? It's a highly subjective thing Sivis, it isn't factual at all.

That immigration is a positive net contributor to society in empirically demonstrable ways isn't really debatable. The fact that people don't like or approve of something does not make it objectively negative.

 

 

And I hate to repeat myself, but your insistance that it's a given fact that it's a benefit is highly flawed in any case.

Which part of it is flawed? My refusal to acknowledge the whims of people so uneducated on the basic facts of a subject thst a good quarter of them think that something that borders on impossible is the chief reason for foreign migrants coming to this country? Or the fundamental empirical basis for immigration being a net benefit to society in a variety of ways? If it's the latter then you really should take it up with the people who conducted the studies, I'm just repeating their conclusions.

 

 

The idea that people come here for our welfare isn't necessarily wrong, that it's the primary reason is.

Except it sort of is wrong. Non-EU nationals subject to immigration controls don't have access to the UK benefit system, with the exceptions of individuals granted humanitarian protection who aren't yet resident and therefore can't work. Working EU citizens have the same level of access as normal British citizens but non-working EU nationals have very limited access in comparison to British citizens. EU migrants entitled to benefits draw on average significantly less than domestic citizens.

 

Benefits can't logically be the primary draw for foreign migrants because the majority are ineligible, therefore anyone who believes they are is factually wrong.

 

 

Immigration causes a drop in crime? Err what?

Straw man, that's what. I never said that immigration caused less crime, I said recent decreases in recorded crime correlated with an increase in immigration. Very different things. As for over-representation of minorities in the judicial system, that's a trend which exists everywhere in the world and us linked more closely to socioeconomic status than race. There's also evidence from other countries they minorities tend to receive harsher penalties.

 

 

Could the fact that educated people have a higher opinion of immigration not also be to do with the fact that they don't tend to have as much competition for their jobs from immigrants, they live in nicer areas with the better services that aren't as under strain, and schools which aren't heavily populated by immigrant children, they don't actually live near that many immigrants, and the ones they do live near are wealthier and better educated and not like the majority?

Possible but very unlikely, as the largest proportion of individuals with higher education qualifications centre on the city with the largest immigrant populatuon- London. Interestingly, London also shows a disproportionately high level of positive opinions of immigrants, whereas a lot of the very negative opinion trends are in areas where there isn't very much immigration. Look at the places where UKIP has had the most success in recent years, and where we can therefore presume these sentiments are held strongly- parts of Essex, North Devon, rural Sussex, Suffolk coast, the North East and coastal North West. All these areas have aging population, lower average incomes, liwer levels of education and, surprisingly, disproportionate number of white British citizens. So it doesn't look to me like people who hold these sentiments of from actual experience of immigration, as they're clustered in areas where it's extremely rare.

 

 

Maybe poorer people have a worse opinion of immigration, because they actually deal with it's consequences

But all the evidence suggests they don't. Those that express negative views on immigration typically cluster in areas where immigration is relatively rare, regardless of their economic status. There's a far stronger correlation between positive views of immigration and areas that see substantial migration than the inverse. Just have a look at the UKIP heat map from the last election.

 

Perhaps a demonstration is in order:

 

 

To the left, an ethnicity heatmap map of the UK. It's 2011, but I can't imagine there's been that fundamental a shift since. The more purple, the higher proportion are ethnic Britons.

To the right, a voting heatmap of UKIP in the 2015 general election. You'll notice that the darkest spots of UKIP support tend to correlate with the darkest spots on the other map, signifying the highest percentage of ethnic Britons.

 

Now, what I wanted to do was try and overlay the two, but a) the actual underlying maps are different and b) it just became incomprehensible, so I colour- and tone-matched them as best as I could. It's not exactly great, but:

 

 

If you ignore Wales, which is very ethnically British but where UKIP fail to compete with the Welsh nationalists, England is a pretty mixed story. You can see that many of the areas of significant support for UKIP are in areas where the percentage of ethnic Britons is very high- parts of the North of England, Devon and Northeast Cornwall, East Essex, Norfolk, parts of the North West, Southern Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. There are other areas where this trend is less noticeable, like the Midlands (fairly ethnically mixed, larger proportion of UKIP voters) Wales and the Welsh Borders (very ethnically British, low proportion of UKIP voters) but many areas do show a trend.

[Clem Fandango]

It's an absolute disgrace.

 

And the youth are continually poisoned by its agenda.

Nah the youth are poisoned by the right-wing gutter press diverting attention away from important issues and onto stupid bullsh*t. I'd like to talk about whether the rich really deserve their unrestricted access to resources while I have to scrounge for the bus, you want to talk about whether we really deserve our welfare. I'm angry that the rich and the police aren't under any real scrutiny, you're angry that Muslims aren't forced to account for every bearded c*nt that blows up a school bus. Whose agenda does that serve? The agenda of your average British guy on the street, or the agenda of the ruling class?

 

 

 

left-wing organisations like the BBC

You're in fantasy land.

[Clem Fandango]

anti migrant movement

What do you expect? Our 'anti rich people' movement gets no attention despite not being the stupidest waste of time ever, and representing people other than the paranoid white middle class. 'Anti-migrant movement' lol pull your socks up.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Melchior

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Straw man, that's what. I never said that immigration caused less crime, I said recent decreases in recorded crime correlated with an increase in immigration. Very different things. .

Recorded crime in the Western world has at a macro level decreased. However I would be interested to look at the micro level, i.e. cities which have the highest percentage of immigrants, and the crime levels there. That would go a long way to either proving right or wrong the idea that immigrants to Britain cause crime.

[sivispacem]

 

Straw man, that's what. I never said that immigration caused less crime, I said recent decreases in recorded crime correlated with an increase in immigration. Very different things. .

Recorded crime in the Western world has at a macro level decreased. However I would be interested to look at the micro level, i.e. cities which have the highest percentage of immigrants, and the crime levels there. That would go a long way to either proving right or wrong the idea that immigrants to Britain cause crime.

 

I've only seen detailed statistics for London and then only for violent crime up to 2011, but as a general trend across the city murder and assault have declined (and were at the lowest levels since the Met started releasing statistics in 1996), levels of robbery were at their lowest in 1998 before climbing in the mid-2000s and were falling back down to pre-2000 levels until about 2009.

 

It's hard to draw direct comparisons as there are so many other factors influencing crime rates. The closest coherent match I've managed to find in geographical terms is between Sheffield (89% White British) and Leicester (45% White British), which is far from a fair comparison but is rather skewed by the prevalence of large numbers of immigrants in many East Midlands cities. Comparing crime figures per 100 citizens:

 

General Crime (6 month average)

Sheffield 7.07

Leicester 6.37

 

Burglary

Sheffield 1.18

Leicester 0.94

 

Drug Offences

Sheffield 0.26

Leicester 0.33

 

Robbery

Sheffield 0.11

Leicester 0.15

 

Vehicle Crime

Sheffield 1.01

Leicester 0.84

 

Burglary

Sheffield 1.18

Leicester 0.94

 

Violent and Sexual offenses

Sheffield 0.78

Leicester 1.79

 

So, overall crimes in Sheffield are much higher (I didn't give breakdowns for antisocial behaviour or shoplifting, just more major crimes), but violent and sexual offences and robbery are more prevalent in Leicester. That said, Sheffield consistently ranks as one of the best cities in the UK for violent crime rates.

[Dingdongs]

Interesting... I'm guessing violent and sexual offenses would include basic assaults as well. Looking at those two, and if that is a microcosmic of most white British cities versus immigrant populated British cities, it answers our question.

 

I guess one could argue that immigrants who come over with little money and education bring with them the makers of crime, i.e. being poor and having no education. But even then, based on those examples you have it doesn't seem that way. Plus, from my understanding a very good amount of immigrant to British are already highly educated and ready to work in the.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Irviding

[sivispacem]

Like I said, there are numerous other factors. Leicester is the considerably poorer city (it's in the bottom five cities in the UK for disposable income); higher levels of unemployment and lower average wages. It's accepted fact that poverty is a considerable driver of crime, especially violent crime, so that may go some way to explaining it. Violent offences do include assaults, yes, unless there's also a theft taking place and then they're both a violent offence and a robbery. It's also worth noting that these figures are based on proportions of ethnic minorities including naturalised British citizens, rather than proportions of actual first-generation immigrants as finding statistics for the latter is surprisingly difficult.

[BRITLAND]

The time has finally come:

 

Police are being given the power to view everyones internet history in its new surveillance bill to be published next week according to reports.

 

The rather intrusive measure will make it a legal requirement for telecoms and internet service providers to retain all customers web browsing history for at least one year, according to the Daily Telegraph. Incognito mode wont even save you now.

 

Police, intelligence services, and the National Crime Agency will be among those who can access the details, however, they would need approval from a judge to view the content of all the websites you visited, emails, and messages over the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

 

These services have argued that these powers are necessary due to the scale of activity online. The Guardian reported that police have lobbied the government for the change.

 

Richard Berry, the National Police Chiefs Council spokesman for data communications, told The Guardian:

 

We essentially need the who, where, when and what of any communication who initiated it, where were they and when did it happened. And a little bit of the what, were they on Facebook, or a banking site, or an illegal child-abuse image-sharing website? Five years ago, [a suspect] could have physically walked into a bank and carried out a transaction. We could have put a surveillance team on that but now, most of it is done online. We just want to know about the visit.

 

Next Wednesdays bill is expected to be a revival of Home Secretary Theresa Mays snoopers charter, which suffered a setback earlier this year when an independent review raised concerns over the move. Big brother will be watching, but in the form of Theresa May what a f*cking terrifying thought.

 

Goodbye privacy, we will miss you.

[sivispacem]

It's not going to happen IMO. They'll struggle to even get it through the Commons, and it's pretty much guaranteed to fail in the Lords. The entire information security community is up in arms about it. It's going to be the same as the "war on encryption" tripe.

[sivispacem]

And as if by magic:

 

"Theresa May rules out keeping web browsing data"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956

 

Probably the most sensible decision Theresa May has ever made.

[Zoobz]

Looks like we're going to war in Syria for the bombing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34980504

 

Voted by 390 votes for, 211 against.

 

R.I.P to the innocent Syrians that will probably be part of collateral damage.

[sivispacem]

I'm conflicted on this one. One one hand, it's true that there's an artificial boundary between Iraq, where we were already operating, and Syria; we have a UNSC resolution and the cause is worthwhile. On the other hand, it's not clear how much effect strikes are having (direct close air support for the Kurds aside) given that IS have already begun to change their strategy significantly in response to previous attacks

[Ukeman5]

I think we can all agree everything is broken! We need the typical thing that we always do and that's reform (of institutions and such). I'm talking about the structure of the country, our legislature, courts and fundamentally our voting system for Westminster. I'm surprised at the lack of real meaningful reform that actually enhances government/citizenry and not just the 1 percents pockets. But that's just me. I think the next few years are going to be incredibly interesting and possibly frustrating politically for the UK. As for the world well with the mess that is isis, the possibility of a terrible president being elected. Let's just hope we don't implode!

[CBH]

I'm surprised at the lack of real meaningful reform that actually enhances government/citizenry and not just the 1 percents pockets.

It's called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Why would they enact reforms that go against their class interests? There's always a selfish motivation even when they give you a concession.

[Ukeman5]

I totally agree CBH it's the pattern with British political history, always giving the bare minimum that they can concede without really compromising their position. My observation was just that even. This hasn't happened in recent times

[BRITLAND]

http://news.sky.com/story/1624561/should-trump-be-banned-mps-debate

 

MPs will debate banning Donald Trump from the UK after 570,000 people signed an online petition calling for him to be refused entry.

 

The outspoken billionaire sparked controversy after hedemanded a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the US.

 

On Sunday, Jeremy Corbyn said he would like to take Mr Trump on a visit to a North London mosque.

 

The Labour leader said: "I decided to invite Donald Trump on his visit to Britain to come with me to my constituency because he has problems with Mexicans and he has problems with Muslims.

 

"My wife is Mexican and my constituency is very multicultural. What I was going to do was go down to the mosque with him and let him talk to people there."

 

Mr Corbyn added that he didnt think the US Presidential hopeful should be banned from the UK, despite his "weird and off-the-wall views".

In contrast, former SNP leader Alex Salmond said: "My view is that, yes, I would probably ban 'The Donald' because it would do him some good.

 

"He wants to ban all Muslims from the United States, I want to ban all Donald Trumps from Scotland."

 

The Republican candidate also claimed there are parts of London that are "so radicalised" that police officers are "afraid for their own lives".

 

I'm no fan of Trump's politics but this debate is just ridiculous ffs.

[Fonz]

Yep, that is ridiculous. What they should actually do is get him up against a wall and blow the fascist f*ck's brains out.

[GTA_stu]

We should get him up against a wall and give him a knighthood.

 

Arise Sir Donald!

[Svip]

We should get him up against a wall and give him a knighthood.

 

Arise Sir Donald!

 

Sorry, but he would have to be a UK citizen for that to happen. Then he definitely couldn't win his presidential election.

[GTA_stu]

 

We should get him up against a wall and give him a knighthood.

 

Arise Sir Donald!

 

Sorry, but he would have to be a UK citizen for that to happen. Then he definitely couldn't win his presidential election.

 

 

But he could be prime minister. I like the way you think Svip.

[Ukeman5]

I can remember signing that thing Haha! The extent to which it requires debate though is questionable. We should just ban him! Regardless nothing will happen and no one will show up as per usual except when it's Over their own collosal salaries and benefits

[am30]

http://news.sky.com/story/1624561/should-trump-be-banned-mps-debate

 

MPs will debate banning Donald Trump from the UK after 570,000 people signed an online petition calling for him to be refused entry.

 

The outspoken billionaire sparked controversy after hedemanded a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the US.

 

On Sunday, Jeremy Corbyn said he would like to take Mr Trump on a visit to a North London mosque.

 

The Labour leader said: "I decided to invite Donald Trump on his visit to Britain to come with me to my constituency because he has problems with Mexicans and he has problems with Muslims.

 

"My wife is Mexican and my constituency is very multicultural. What I was going to do was go down to the mosque with him and let him talk to people there."

 

Mr Corbyn added that he didnt think the US Presidential hopeful should be banned from the UK, despite his "weird and off-the-wall views".

In contrast, former SNP leader Alex Salmond said: "My view is that, yes, I would probably ban 'The Donald' because it would do him some good.

 

"He wants to ban all Muslims from the United States, I want to ban all Donald Trumps from Scotland."

 

The Republican candidate also claimed there are parts of London that are "so radicalised" that police officers are "afraid for their own lives".

I'm no fan of Trump's politics but this debate is just ridiculous ffs.

 

 

It's a no-brainer. No debate is required. Ban the hate-monger. If he was a religious hate preacher, he'd be banned by now. It is what he essentially is but with a different name.

 

 

Yep, that is ridiculous. What they should actually do is get him up against a wall and blow the fascist f*ck's brains out.

 

I'm afraid that is far too good for him.

[sivispacem]

Banning people for having idiotic opinions is counterproductive. If we applied that logic universally, no-one would be left. Better to subject idiots to very public, scathing ridicule.