Incitement to religious hatred....and other racist behaviour
Discussion
Devil2575 do you really believe this statement?
I think that people who do not have a university education are more likely to be opposed to imigration and be unsure of people that are not like themselves. University broadens people's horizons and exposes them to people that they would not have otherwise come into contact with had they stayed at home.
I didn't go to university but due to joining the forces I've been to plenty of countries that students wouldn't visit in a gap year. From what I know from friends that did go to university they spent their time partying, drinking and sleeping in. Their gap year was spent in Australia repeating the above routines. The whole university exposing some to people they wouldn't meet if they stayed at home is flawed, nearly every city is a melting pot of visitors. You are basically tarring everyone who didn't go to university with the bigot brush, which isn't true
I think that people who do not have a university education are more likely to be opposed to imigration and be unsure of people that are not like themselves. University broadens people's horizons and exposes them to people that they would not have otherwise come into contact with had they stayed at home.
I didn't go to university but due to joining the forces I've been to plenty of countries that students wouldn't visit in a gap year. From what I know from friends that did go to university they spent their time partying, drinking and sleeping in. Their gap year was spent in Australia repeating the above routines. The whole university exposing some to people they wouldn't meet if they stayed at home is flawed, nearly every city is a melting pot of visitors. You are basically tarring everyone who didn't go to university with the bigot brush, which isn't true
Fozziebear said:
Devil2575 do you really believe this statement?
In a way his making such a statement is just as bigoted as the people he is complaining about.Devil2575 said:
I think that people who do not have a university education are more likely to be opposed to immigration and be unsure of people that are not like themselves. University broadens people's horizons and exposes them to people that they would not have otherwise come into contact with had they stayed at home.
I didn't go to university but due to joining the forces I've been to plenty of countries that students wouldn't visit in a gap year. From what I know from friends that did go to university they spent their time partying, drinking and sleeping in. Their gap year was spent in Australia repeating the above routines. The whole university exposing some to people they wouldn't meet if they stayed at home is flawed, nearly every city is a melting pot of visitors. You are basically tarring everyone who didn't go to university with the bigot brush, which isn't true singlecoil said:
Fozziebear said:
Devil2575 do you really believe this statement?
In a way his making such a statement is just as bigoted as the people he is complaining about.Devil2575 said:
I think that people who do not have a university education are more likely to be opposed to immigration and be unsure of people that are not like themselves. University broadens people's horizons and exposes them to people that they would not have otherwise come into contact with had they stayed at home.
I didn't go to university but due to joining the forces I've been to plenty of countries that students wouldn't visit in a gap year. From what I know from friends that did go to university they spent their time partying, drinking and sleeping in. Their gap year was spent in Australia repeating the above routines. The whole university exposing some to people they wouldn't meet if they stayed at home is flawed, nearly every city is a melting pot of visitors. You are basically tarring everyone who didn't go to university with the bigot brush, which isn't true I fail to see how it is bigoted. I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush at all. I didn't go to university full time, so if I was I'd be tarring myself with that same brush
What I'm saying is that people who go away to study at university are more likely to mix with people from outside of their own comunities than people who do not. They're more likely to hold liberal views and more likely to be tollerant of people different to themselves. The other difference between university and just living in proximity to people who are different is that in University you tend to end up working closely with other people.
Lots of cities are a melting pot of visitors but a lot of people don't live in cities. If you look at where UKIP derives most of it's support it is not in cosmopolitian cities, where I agree people are more likely to be tollerant of each other. But there are a lot of towns in the North east for example where many people live their whole lives and never leave, except perhaps to sit on a beach in Malaga for 2 weeks of the year.
This map shows where UKIP gets most of it's support from.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1153...
bmw535i said:
Fozziebear said:
The irony is strong, I'm off to my klan meeting due to no university.......
No surprise, ALL squaddies are uneducated northern f
kwits 
Fozziebear said:
bmw535i said:
Fozziebear said:
The irony is strong, I'm off to my klan meeting due to no university.......
No surprise, ALL squaddies are uneducated northern fkwits Fozziebear said:
singlecoil said:
Devil2575 said:
It's an opinion...
Once again you are having to defend your statements. Perhaps a little thinking before posting wouldn't go amiss?bmw535i said:
I've never served north of the M4 in 17 years - apart from exercising in god forsaken northern peat bogs. Shockingly I've managed to squeeze in a degree and be a UKIP voting Brexit winner!
Royal? Good work on the degree, I could never be arsed with extra education unless it involved explosives or guns Harji said:
No, you completely misunderstood everything I originally said, and you are just spouting Mail/Express headlines.
You're joking right? You made the following points:- Nothing wrong with access to trade with half a billion people.
Nobody is suggesting there won't be access to that trade, what's your point? It might not be free access, but then that would be a reciprocal arrangement to the greater detriment of the EU given we import more from them than we export. Obviously that doesn't make economic sense, but then there is a risk the EU will make politically motivated decisions against their own voter's best interests as testified by Digby Jones at the International Trade select committee last week. I hope they don't make those kinds of decisions, but if they do it certainly adds weight to the reasons for exit.
- Unless you think the Chinese are going to swallow up British made goods
Well, actually, British brands are doing very well in China, so why not have the freedom to negotiate better trade deals with China and enhance our prospects further?
- Protectionism of the US
Yes, we covered that. US may be protectionist, but it is a good deal more favourable towards the UK under Trump than towards the EU.
- Asset selloff
Still have no idea what relevance this has to the conversation
So maybe you could tell me what I have misunderstood. In addition, maybe you could put an original argument of your own forward.
I don't read the Daily Mail or the Express, so I wouldn't know if the economic positives of Brexit have been covered there. I certainly haven't seen them covered in any great detail elsewhere in the mainstream media, particularly the state of the Euro and its prospects and future impact on the EU as a whole.
bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
I am not asking what the 'rules' say. I am asking why you support this.
Having an understanding of the process would be helpful instead of just assuming things. You didn't even know this happened until I told you - if you find out why it happens you may have a more balanced view on it instead of the slanted outrage you currently feel. Due to what you've already said, it seems clear you know nothing of the process or rules. I have simply asked why you support this policy. You have chosen not to answer.
As you have said I have little knowledge in this area. However, the articles I have read, including the one you have posted, suggest very clearly that we are failing these children.
Wikipedia notes that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate accepts that children's asylum applications receive less attention that adults because it is expected that they will be provided with 'discretionary leave to remain':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccompanied_asylum...
The problem with this approach is that by the time they are adults and their asylum applications are properly considered, they will have spent their formative years in our society learning how to be British. Their country of origin will no longer be their home and they will be ill equipped to survive as adults in that environment.
I can see that it is a difficult area, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to raise these young adults in our country and then cast them aside as soon as they are legally old enough to be independent. I would like to understand why you believe it to be necessary and why you support this policy.
Unfortunately I don't think you are going to tell me. In which case I will need to draw my own conclusions about your position.
Elysium said:
I haven't assumed anything or shown an unbalanced view. Nor have I shown 'slanted outrage'.
I have simply asked why you support this policy. You have chosen not to answer.
As you have said I have little knowledge in this area. However, the articles I have read, including the one you have posted, suggest very clearly that we are failing these children.
Wikipedia notes that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate accepts that children's asylum applications receive less attention that adults because it is expected that they will be provided with 'discretionary leave to remain':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccompanied_asylum...
The problem with this approach is that by the time they are adults and their asylum applications are properly considered, they will have spent their formative years in our society learning how to be British. Their country of origin will no longer be their home and they will be ill equipped to survive as adults in that environment.
I can see that it is a difficult area, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to raise these young adults in our country and then cast them aside as soon as they are legally old enough to be independent. I would like to understand why you believe it to be necessary and why you support this policy.
Unfortunately I don't think you are going to tell me. In which case I will need to draw my own conclusions about your position.
So now it is cruel to give asylum to a child? I suppose we could refuse asylum to all children to avoid this? Or do we allow asylum for every applicant that ever applies? I'm sure you can see both of the above options are not sensible, fair or feasible.I have simply asked why you support this policy. You have chosen not to answer.
As you have said I have little knowledge in this area. However, the articles I have read, including the one you have posted, suggest very clearly that we are failing these children.
Wikipedia notes that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate accepts that children's asylum applications receive less attention that adults because it is expected that they will be provided with 'discretionary leave to remain':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccompanied_asylum...
The problem with this approach is that by the time they are adults and their asylum applications are properly considered, they will have spent their formative years in our society learning how to be British. Their country of origin will no longer be their home and they will be ill equipped to survive as adults in that environment.
I can see that it is a difficult area, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to raise these young adults in our country and then cast them aside as soon as they are legally old enough to be independent. I would like to understand why you believe it to be necessary and why you support this policy.
Unfortunately I don't think you are going to tell me. In which case I will need to draw my own conclusions about your position.
The system we currently have is the best we can have for our country - each case is judged on its merits. It is also often the case that migrants lie to get into the country. I had a case last week where an African in this country wanted his mother to visit for a month. I assisted him preparing his application and compiling the necessary evidence etc and sent the application off. Last week he was informed that his mother was refused entry and banned for 10 years. He had altered a bank statement of hers which the Home Office had checked up on with the bank in Africa.
I can see why he did it because he had already had 3 applications refused for silly reasons. The HO want to see things like photos of the applicant with family members back home to prove family ties, letters, bank statements, birth certificates, savings, employment contracts, mortgage/rental agreements etc etc. If you cannot supply enough evidence that the applicant can be financially supported during their visit and that they will leave at the end - no entry.
The fact that it is difficult for non-eu migrants to gain entry to the IK is that it is easier to control those numbers than EU migrants. You may not like the system, but it's the best one we have.
You state that their formative years will be spent in the UK. Are you even aware of the ages of most UASC?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 14th February 07:09
singlecoil said:
Devil2575 said:
It's an opinion...
Once again you are having to defend your statements. Perhaps a little thinking before posting wouldn't go amiss?k off.
I should have stood by what I posted originally.
If you don't like that tough.
Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 14th February 07:43
Fozziebear said:
singlecoil said:
Devil2575 said:
It's an opinion...
Once again you are having to defend your statements. Perhaps a little thinking before posting wouldn't go amiss?bmw535i said:
I don't think that university taught the definition of bigoted either. Definitely didn't teach that you can't go round on PH making crazy statements backed up by sources a few years old.
You really aren't worth talking too are you.You need to explain how after a few years a source becomes invalid...
Devil2575 said:
bmw535i said:
I don't think that university taught the definition of bigoted either. Definitely didn't teach that you can't go round on PH making crazy statements backed up by sources a few years old.
You really aren't worth talking too are you.You need to explain how after a few years a source becomes invalid...
Statistical information is generally only valid at the time it's printed. For example child migration rates have increased massively in the last 2 years so any information relating to that from 2013 wouldn't bear any relevance to a discussion about today's situation.
I can't really believe I've just had to explain that to someone with a degree!
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 14th February 08:06
Devil2575 said:
singlecoil said:
Devil2575 said:
It's an opinion...
Once again you are having to defend your statements. Perhaps a little thinking before posting wouldn't go amiss?k off.I should have stood by what I posted originally.
If you don't like that tough.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff