More fun and games in Calais

[heebeegeetee]

monamimate said:

Percentage of foreign citizens residing in:

UK: 7.6%
Latvia: 16.3%
Estonia: 15.7%
Spain: 12.0%
Austria: 11.2%
Belgium: 11%
Ireland 10.6%
Germany: 9.1%
Greece: 8.6%
Italy: 7.9%
Source eurostat 2012 (i.e. pre-Syria)

Don't let facts get in the way, they might interfere with your bias.

And who's Jack, Dick?

What sort of view point is it, whereby you consider that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be biased? It's a ridiculous position to take.

I don't have a problem with what we have now, and I'm not biased. There is a practical view that must be taken though, and we should be able to have a proper discussion about it.

But whenever anyone tries to instigate a discussion, they're called a racist. If anyone says "hold on, they aren't children" the immediate response is not "well where are the children then?" it's "you're a nazi".

Utterly ridiculous and utterly offensive (certainly to people who did live under the Nazis).

[JagLover]

Potatoes said:

I'm one of those 12.5% - I consider myself English though... well actually I consider myself to be from 2 countries. The one I am from and the one I am now a citizen of.

and so is my wife

I am just pointing out he cherry picked statistics to make his point.

[monamimate]

heebeegeetee said:

What sort of view point is it, whereby you consider that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be biased? It's a ridiculous position to take.

I don't have a problem with what we have now, and I'm not biased. There is a practical view that must be taken though, and we should be able to have a proper discussion about it.

But whenever anyone tries to instigate a discussion, they're called a racist. If anyone says "hold on, they aren't children" the immediate response is not "well where are the children then?" it's "you're a nazi".

Utterly ridiculous and utterly offensive (certainly to people who did live under the Nazis).

Did I call you a racist? You bring up the Nazi thing, for some incomprehensible reason. Talk about escalating a "proper discussion" into a slanging match!

Sorry, but in my book when someone makes claims that are contradicted by facts (not opinions), they are showing a bias. Or just wrong. Either way, we should be led by facts not feelings.

[monamimate]

JagLover said:

and so is my wife

I am just pointing out he cherry picked statistics to make his point.

You quote a single number, out of context, but I'm the one cherry picking! Jeez!


I'm open to being proved wrong. Could you provide the equivalent comparative data for foreigners and foreign-born but naturalised citizens, by country across Europe?

Thanks.

Edited by monamimate on Thursday 27th October 16:15

[Goaty Bill 2]

monamimate said:

Percentage of foreign citizens residing in:

UK: 7.6%
Latvia: 16.3%
Estonia: 15.7%
Spain: 12.0%
Austria: 11.2%
Belgium: 11%
Ireland 10.6%
Germany: 9.1%
Greece: 8.6%
Italy: 7.9%
Source eurostat 2012 (i.e. pre-Syria)

I am not going to dispute the accuracy of these statistics nor the meaning you derive from them.
Quite simply; I don't care.

I would be much happier if the statistics for Britain were considerably lower.
I can not find any merit in 'importing' a lot of unskilled, untrained labour into a country that contains a surfeit of such already. If Latvia wishes to 'top the leader board' that is for them to decide. It's their country.

People continuously trundle out these statistics as though we should feel guilty about not achieving 'top marks' in our chosen subject. It is not my 'chosen subject', nor it appears is it, of the majority of commentators here.
I feel no guilt for my opinion whatsoever, and I will give no time to anyone who attempts to make me feel some, though I will continue to listen and debate on the arguments.

I see, most especially in light of our expected Brexit, absolutely no reason why we should follow the herd rather than do what is actually best for Britain.

You clearly feel very differently about it, and that is your right, and our shared privilege.
A privilege that many of the more vociferous liberals would remove.

I do not suggest that you have done so, but the common [liberal] response to anyone questioning or speaking out against this camping trip gone wrong, is to call the objector a racist.
It is nothing more than a shameful attempt at demanding the silence of those who do not share their opinions.

The facts that we can see for ourselves are quite straight forward;
- Many of the 'children' are clearly not children.
- When this was commented on, barriers were erected to prevent us from observing the obvious.

When a government and charities lie to us about one thing, we must cease to trust them on everything they tell us in relation to that lie. They have proven themselves to be wholly untrustworthy, and by definition we therefore must question every decision made, and it's ultimate purpose.

"You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. They don't need to call a meeting, they already know what's good for them" - George Carlin

[heebeegeetee]

monamimate said:

1. Did I call you a racist?


2. You bring up the Nazi thing, for some incomprehensible reason. Talk about escalating a "proper discussion" into a slanging match!


3. Sorry, but in my book when someone makes claims that are contradicted by facts (not opinions), they are showing a bias. Or just wrong. Either way, we should be led by facts not feelings.

1. I try to enter the conversation and you immediately accuse me of bias, without knowing me at all. On the same page you're bandying the xenophobic accusations about. Is this what happens every time someone doesn’t agree with you?


2. Oh come on, don’t pretend you haven’t seen!?
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/l...
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/national/148...


And


http://uknewsy.com/2016/10/25/diane-abbott-i-am-as...
https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/10/26/stoke-...


Which gives the tone.


3. You are using facts to deliberately misrepresent a situation imo. The fact is, in large swathes of numerous British cities the immigration levels are at 60-100%, certainly if you include generations subsequently born here. When religion is factored in it results in entire (and quite large) neighborhoods living a different kind of existence from the rest of the country. I notice this myself as a resident of Birmingham, and I also notice very much that when, for instance, I spend a week in somewhere like East Sussex and visit National Trust properties and gardens etc, I’m very much in a tribe that is all but 100% solidly white middle class. I notice this because I don’t ever recall being told that this was how it was going to be - where’s the so-called multiculturalism?


In any case, it something to be discussed, but one side constantly name-calling and slandering doesn’t get us anywhere.

[monamimate]

heebeegeetee said:

1. I try to enter the conversation and you immediately accuse me of bias, without knowing me at all. On the same page you're bandying the xenophobic accusations about. Is this what happens every time someone doesn’t agree with you?


2. Oh come on, don’t pretend you haven’t seen!?
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/l...
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/national/148...


And


http://uknewsy.com/2016/10/25/diane-abbott-i-am-as...
https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/10/26/stoke-...


Which gives the tone.


3. You are using facts to deliberately misrepresent a situation imo. The fact is, in large swathes of numerous British cities the immigration levels are at 60-100%, certainly if you include generations subsequently born here. When religion is factored in it results in entire (and quite large) neighborhoods living a different kind of existence from the rest of the country. I notice this myself as a resident of Birmingham, and I also notice very much that when, for instance, I spend a week in somewhere like East Sussex and visit National Trust properties and gardens etc, I’m very much in a tribe that is all but 100% solidly white middle class. I notice this because I don’t ever recall being told that this was how it was going to be - where’s the so-called multiculturalism?


In any case, it something to be discussed, but one side constantly name-calling and slandering doesn’t get us anywhere.

Accusing someone of bias because they ignore facts is not name-calling. Don't be so sensitive.

I love how I can "use facts to misrepresent a situation". Don't you see the irony in this?

The rest is just drivel, so I can't be bothered to honour it with an answer.

[monamimate]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I am not going to dispute the accuracy of these statistics nor the meaning you derive from them.
Quite simply; I don't care.

Thank you. There, in a nutshell, you have explained why I am on this forum taking a different position from most.

I DO care about the FACTS, rather than basing all my arguments on a set of personal feelings or interpretations.

Not caring about facts is, to put it politely, pretty short-sighted.

[heebeegeetee]

monamimate said:

1. Accusing someone of bias because they ignore facts is not name-calling. Don't be so sensitive.

2. I love how I can "use facts to misrepresent a situation". Don't you see the irony in this?

3. The rest is just drivel, so I can't be bothered to honour it with an answer.

1. It's nothing to do with sensitivity, it's about your inability to debate properly, and it's about you being wrong.

2. Well you clearly can't, can you?

3. 'Course it is. Anything you don't agree with is drivel, anyone you disagree with is biased, a xenophobe and a racist. It's the level of the debate.

[Goaty Bill 2]

monamimate said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I am not going to dispute the accuracy of these statistics nor the meaning you derive from them.
Quite simply; I don't care.

Thank you. There, in a nutshell, you have explained why I am on this forum taking a different position from most.

I DO care about the FACTS, rather than basing all my arguments on a set of personal feelings or interpretations.

You have taken on a substantial task against the majority, in this thread at least, are opposed to your opinion. That can be a monumental task, and for that I will respect your courage and fortitude for doing so, though I do not share your view.

monamimate said:

Not caring about facts is, to put it politely, pretty short-sighted.

You may have misunderstood me slightly.
Accepting that those statistics are accurate, which for the sake of argument I have already done, my point is quite clearly; they will not influence my opinion.

To go against, what I perceive to be, the national interest, and the interests of the average person in this country because of a desire or feeling of obligation to be like other countries is "short-sighted".
Yes, I have moved into the neighbourhood, and now wish to close the door to others behind me.
There you have it, and I stand by it. You may call it 'selfish' or what you will, but it will not alter my opinion.
Logical argument may on the other hand do so.

[monamimate]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

monamimate said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I am not going to dispute the accuracy of these statistics nor the meaning you derive from them.
Quite simply; I don't care.

Thank you. There, in a nutshell, you have explained why I am on this forum taking a different position from most.

I DO care about the FACTS, rather than basing all my arguments on a set of personal feelings or interpretations.

You have taken on a substantial task against the majority, in this thread at least, are opposed to your opinion. That can be a monumental task, and for that I will respect your courage and fortitude for doing so, though I do not share your view.

monamimate said:

Not caring about facts is, to put it politely, pretty short-sighted.

You may have misunderstood me slightly.
Accepting that those statistics are accurate, which for the sake of argument I have already done, my point is quite clearly; they will not influence my opinion.

To go against, what I perceive to be, the national interest, and the interests of the average person in this country because of a desire or feeling of obligation to be like other countries is "short-sighted".
Yes, I have moved into the neighbourhood, and now wish to close the door to others behind me.
There you have it, and I stand by it. You may call it 'selfish' or what you will, but it will not alter my opinion.
Logical argument may on the other hand do so.

Fair enough. We've said our pieces and I guess will just have to agree to disagree.

[monamimate]

heebeegeetee said:

monamimate said:

1. Accusing someone of bias because they ignore facts is not name-calling. Don't be so sensitive.

2. I love how I can "use facts to misrepresent a situation". Don't you see the irony in this?

3. The rest is just drivel, so I can't be bothered to honour it with an answer.

1. It's nothing to do with sensitivity, it's about your inability to debate properly, and it's about you being wrong.

2. Well you clearly can't, can you?

3. 'Course it is. Anything you don't agree with is drivel, anyone you disagree with is biased, a xenophobe and a racist. It's the level of the debate.

Wow, you've reached playground level, haven't you? "Did, didn't, did, didn't..."

My inability to debate? I come with facts, statistics, references to official documents, etc against your feelings and opinions, but I'm the one who can't debate. Right.

Your second point is so childish in its "argumentation", I'm not bothering.

If you bother to read the thread, you'll see that I am also accused of writing drivel by those that don't agree with me. However, instead of whining about it like a child, I offer counter arguments. You just whine.

You are the only one I called biased (which you are, as you are unable to support your claims with any facts whatsoever). As far as I recall, I have not called anyone racist.

So in summary, stop making stuff up and grow some balls.

And stop whining.

[irocfan]

oh great - another 'polite' posting from the passive-agressive 'intellectual'. I'd rather read posts by jawknee, at least you know he's on a wind-up

[B'stard Child]

irocfan said:

oh great - another 'polite' posting from the passive-agressive 'intellectual'. I'd rather read posts by jawknee, at least you know he's on a wind-up

I've agreed with Jawknee - at least twice now so I really don't think he's on a wind up

[Goaty Bill 2]

monamimate said:

Fair enough. We've said our pieces and I guess will just have to agree to disagree.

We could....

What I do not believe I have heard or seen is a logical argument as to why we should actually accept people who to all appearances are no more than economic migrants rather than refugees, simply because many of them are having a bad time in a 'refugee' camp.

There are many who will say it's our "moral duty/obligation", and others will argue that we have international agreements in place; but to my thinking, these arguments can only logically be applied to actual proven refugees.

The bleeding hearts being interviewed on television appear to be prepared to label them all 'refugees' without question, and the moment someone suggests any form of proof should be required, they cry "racist!", "xenophobe!" or that it would be a "violation of their human rights".
Perhaps someone could point out to me, just where in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states or even implies that the requirement to supply some form of proof of refugee status is a violation?
These 'liberals' seem to feel they have a right to redefine legal human rights to mean whatever they desire it to mean at any given point in time.

In any case, acceptance of refugees is a purely emotional response to a situation, not based upon any logical or practical appraisal or argument.

Can any dispassionate argument be supplied for the action of accepting, what I believe will become, very large numbers of people who simply wish to improve their lot in life?
Or even, how this benefits the current legal residents of Britain?

ETA
I leave that final question open to anyone, not just to the heavily besieged monamimate.

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 29th October 13:53

[BlackLabel]

France has demanded that Britain take in nearly 1,500 child migrants being temporarily sheltered in shipping containers on the site of the now-cleared Calais Jungle camp. A diplomatic row has erupted over the fate of the unaccompanied minors, with French and British ministers blaming each other for leaving them in limbo.

Telegraph said:

Xavier Bertrand, the president of the Calais regional council, said: “We now need the British government to implement and accelerate the juvenile transfer process to the UK… It is a question of humanity and dignity.” The head of the French refugee agency said France had given shelter to thousands of adults from the Jungle and Britain should look after the children.

[heebeegeetee]

monamimate said:

1. Wow, you've reached playground level, haven't you? "Did, didn't, did, didn't..."

My inability to debate? I come with facts, statistics, references to official documents, etc against your feelings and opinions, but I'm the one who can't debate. Right.

Your second point is so childish in its "argumentation", I'm not bothering.

If you bother to read the thread, you'll see that I am also accused of writing drivel by those that don't agree with me. However, instead of whining about it like a child, I offer counter arguments. You just whine.

2. You are the only one I called biased (which you are, as you are unable to support your claims with any facts whatsoever). As far as I recall, I have not called anyone racist.

So in summary, stop making stuff up and grow some balls.

And stop whining.

1. Fact is, it's not 7.6% at local level. That's a fact, you know it's a fact and I don't know why you would have an issue with it. A short walk around many British cities will tell you that, but if you want facts, a moment on google brings up stuff like "Foreign-born people constituted 39% of Inner London’s population in 2013 (the highest share among all regions with comparable data)." http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources...

2. Saying so doesn't make me biased in any way shape or form. You've judged me on just one post on a forum so it's you that has the bias and prejudice. It's also, as proved by my quoting your post that I responded to, you who is doing the whining. Don't be depressed, grow some some balls.

I just merely suggested to you that the country you cherished may not have existed. Brexit hasn't changed a single thing, all it's done is clarify what country we live in. The only reason we may not have known is because more than half of the population isn't listened to.

Well now you've had to listen, and boy, will the whinging ever stop?

[monamimate]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

ETA
I leave that final question open to anyone, not just to the heavily besieged monamimate.

Thank you.

I know, I must be crazy to carry on in the face of such overwhelming odds!

[monamimate]

heebeegeetee said:

1. Fact is, it's not 7.6% at local level. That's a fact, you know it's a fact and I don't know why you would have an issue with it. A short walk around many British cities will tell you that, but if you want facts, a moment on google brings up stuff like "Foreign-born people constituted 39% of Inner London’s population in 2013 (the highest share among all regions with comparable data)." http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources...

2. Saying so doesn't make me biased in any way shape or form. You've judged me on just one post on a forum so it's you that has the bias and prejudice. It's also, as proved by my quoting your post that I responded to, you who is doing the whining. Don't be depressed, grow some some balls.

I just merely suggested to you that the country you cherished may not have existed. Brexit hasn't changed a single thing, all it's done is clarify what country we live in. The only reason we may not have known is because more than half of the population isn't listened to.

Well now you've had to listen, and boy, will the whinging ever stop?

Still busy with the "no, I didn't, you did" line of arguing?

Sorry mate, not wasting any more time here.

[monamimate]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

We could....

What I do not believe I have heard or seen is a logical argument as to why we should actually accept people who to all appearances are no more than economic migrants rather than refugees, simply because many of them are having a bad time in a 'refugee' camp.

There are many who will say it's our "moral duty/obligation", and others will argue that we have international agreements in place; but to my thinking, these arguments can only logically be applied to actual proven refugees.

The bleeding hearts being interviewed on television appear to be prepared to label them all 'refugees' without question, and the moment someone suggests any form of proof should be required, they cry "racist!", "xenophobe!" or that it would be a "violation of their human rights".
Perhaps someone could point out to me, just where in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states or even implies that the requirement to supply some form of proof of refugee status is a violation?
These 'liberals' seem to feel they have a right to redefine legal human rights to mean whatever they desire it to mean at any given point in time.

In any case, acceptance of refugees is a purely emotional response to a situation, not based upon any logical or practical appraisal or argument.

Can any dispassionate argument be supplied for the action of accepting, what I believe will become, very large numbers of people who simply wish to improve their lot in life?
Or even, how this benefits the current legal residents of Britain?

ETA
I leave that final question open to anyone, not just to the heavily besieged monamimate.

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 29th October 13:53

Actually, I do agree with a large part of what you say here.

While I am pre-disposed to take a fairly liberal approach towards refugees (after all, some of them are here as a result of European and British planes bombing their homes), I do agree completely that controls should exist to ensure that only the truly needy get assistance.

Many of the posts here fail to make that distinction, lumping all the inhabitants of the Jungle into the same pot and using the excesses of some to justify a refusal of all. This is further compounded by a rather outdated, may I even say somewhat delusional, view by some of how Britain is perceived in the world.

That's my beef here, and I still maintain it's not an unreasonable one, despite some unpleasant attacks on me.

Edited by monamimate on Saturday 29th October 16:31