I thought the main immigration "rule" was to point at it every time a brown person goes postal so no one starts asking coherent questions about our ongoing wars, arms sales and network of financial secrecy jurisdictions that we sustain in order to protect the unsustainable privileges and powers of a tiny minority of national and international actors.
This horrendous attack was done by 3 people with a van and some knives. What security controls are going to "fix" that without destroying democracy? Isn't democracy a "British value"?
Perhaps they were Muslims. What immigration controls are going to "fix" that without institutionalising religious discrimination? Isn't religious equality a "British value"?
You stop terrorism by tackling the environment that creates people who would rather murder and die than keep living. That means tackling our wars, which regimes we support abroad and why and exposing the black money flows our financial economy relies on.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization and but was never intended to facilitate mass immigration from the colonies. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971 due to mass immigration of people whose ancestors had not gone to the colonies from Britain. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
In what world is the UK a police state? Need to stop reading reddit a bit I think.
It's a meme based on the fact that the UK has the most CCTV per head of population. Also, the last government gave police the ability to check people's browsing history without informing them of what they were doing. They began by claiming this was only for terrorism investigations but eventually admitted it would be used for other 'serious' incidents. Translation: it can be used for anything. As you can see, the PM wants to push this further. It's a lot of nonsense that will infringe on the rights of British people and do nothing to stop terrorism.
As for British values, I am increasingly convinced that they are already dead, or so watered down as to barely be worth the name.
Yeah, infringing on internet privacy etc isn't great. I can see why they want it but I'd much rather that they had to make their case to a judge with an advocate on the other side arguing against the case made by the security services. That'd have to be held in secret to avoid both notifying the suspect and telling the suspect why they got their suspicions (you can't say "our spy in ISIS spoke to him" in public) so I'd want them unsealed after a few years.
But that's a long, long way from a police state. In a police state people live in constant fear that the police will make them disappear without an explanation and sentence them without a trial.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population.
It's quite simple.
The UK isn't Germany.
Immigration into the UK isn't the same as immigration into Germany.
Muslim immigration into the UK primarily happened between 1948 and 1968 due to the people of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India being British subjects who came as economic immigrants. This only applies to Britain, not to Italy, Japan and Germany who did not rule the British Empire.
This was an unintended result of the policy and was in no way connected to population growth or GDP growth. It wasn't a tool to prop up GDP, it was a tool to resolve the confusion caused by the fact that a significant number of British people in 1948 were born in parts of the British Empire which were no longer going to be British.
This changed in 1968, a number of years before the refugee crisis in Germany.
The refugee crisis in Germany did not lead to large numbers of Muslim immigrants coming to Britain in the 50s. There are three reasons for this which I'll explain below. 1) Britain isn't in Germany. 2) The refugee crisis actually happened after the 50s. 3) Britain has its own immigration policy and also some water around it that stops people walking in.
Modern governments did not allow immigration between 1948 and 1968 as a strategy to stave off a recession out of fear of losing the election. There are two reasons for this which I'll explain below. 1) Modern British governments have sworn off using their time travel technology for political gain. 2) The voters would not necessarily reward one specific government for decisions made thirty years previously by a different government.
Any argument you hear anyone making about how Muslims ended up in Britain that blames anything that happened in the last 50 years is being made by an idiot. Britain was largely unaffected by the refugee crisis (and citing articles talking about Germany doesn't dispute that) and has had a points based immigration system for a long time.
In any event pulling the immigration level to prop up GDP historically lowers the standards of living. The guardian might love to tote those statistics to play to it's audience but I bet it won't talk about all of the factors, or if the gdp per capita remains the same - it doesn't.
The UK hasn't been allowing mass Muslim immigration to prop up GDP. It's just not a thing that has happened. There is no historical basis for any part of that claim.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
You clearly have no idea what a police state is. The Soviet Union was a police state. The Polish People's Republic was a police state. Police state means that the ruling class uses power arbitrarily to opress citizens using police and other government agencies. It means people can be "disappeared" without trial or any good reason at all. It means the censorship of free media, art and the public debate. Police state rules with force, and when people are trying to protest, it does not care for lives it has to destroy to keep things under control. Regulating the internet is a step in a wrong direction for sure, but it's still not even remotely close to any kind of a "police state".
On June 05 2017 00:37 KwarK wrote: The UK hasn't been allowing mass Muslim immigration to prop up GDP. It's just not a thing that has happened. There is no historical basis for any part of that claim.
I'm disagreeing with linking the guardian as a response to anything. Shitty left (and right) leaning "journalism" padding statistics to make a case is irritating at best, and deceitful at worst.
I never mentioned muslims. None of what you are posting is relevant. I am saying high immigration boosts nominal GDP which makes the economy look 'good'. So a country like Japan that has stagnant now declining population has an economy that is smaller in GDP terms than it was in 1995.
My point was simply the very high immigration seen since 1997 has led the UK to avoid several technical recessions.Mentioning refugees in Germany was not discussing their religion or whatever, just the fact that they boost GDP growth, mostly by increased government spending.Here's an article saying exactly that if you are interested : https://global.handelsblatt.com/imf-sees-refugee-spending-boosting-german-gdp-growth-by-0-3-in-2017-678211 This is refugees, obviously skilled migrants will boost GDP by a greater amount in the shorter term at least.
Anyway this is kind of getting off topic now and the comment really didn't need to be drilled down into this much detail.It's basic fact.
On June 05 2017 00:37 KwarK wrote: The UK hasn't been allowing mass Muslim immigration to prop up GDP. It's just not a thing that has happened. There is no historical basis for any part of that claim.
I'm disagreeing with linking the guardian as a response to anything. Shitty left (and right) leaning "journalism" padding statistics to make a case is irritating at best, and deceitful at worst.
Heh well i better update my list of 'acceptable' publications then. Which is pretty fucking tiny at this point i must say.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
You clearly have no idea what a police state is. The Soviet Union was a police state. The Polish People's Republic was a police state. Police state means that the ruling class uses power arbitrarily to opress citizens using police and other government agencies. It means people can be "disappeared" without trial or any good reason at all. It means the censorship of free media, art and the public debate. Police state rules with force, and when people are trying to protest, it does not care for lives it has to destroy to keep things under control. Regulating the internet is a step in a wrong direction for sure, but it's still not even remotely close to any kind of a "police state".
On June 05 2017 00:34 bo1b wrote: In any event pulling the immigration level to prop up GDP historically lowers the standards of living. The guardian might love to tote those statistics to play to it's audience but I bet it won't talk about all of the factors, or if the gdp per capita remains the same - it doesn't.
Immigration does increase GDP per capita and it's not hard to see why. Another country takes the cost of raising an economically unproductive child, we reap the benefits of an economically productive adult.
Last time I checked GDP per capita was double what it was in 1980.
However.
British people work more than they did in 1980 and have less disposable income. Over that time GDP doesn't seem to have had very much to do with the economic well being or economic freedoms of the median citizen.
We fix this by reducing inequality, we reduce inequality by sinking the unsustainable insanity that is the new economic liberal consensus NOT by demanding our government reduce immigration to 5 figures.
A note on topicality: This isn't about the London Bridge attack, but it is a refutation of the blaming of immigrants for British poverty which seems to have come up because... err... I don't know why it came up so I don't know, maybe this is off topic.
Twelve people have been arrested after the London terror attack which left seven people dead and 48 injured.
The arrests in Barking, east London, followed a raid at a flat belonging to one of the three attackers.
The rest of the article goes over what happened with various eye witness statements, some guessing about ISIS "inspiration" and some bits of background.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
In what world is the UK a police state? Need to stop reading reddit a bit I think.
It's a meme based on the fact that the UK has the most CCTV per head of population. Also, the last government gave police the ability to check people's browsing history without informing them of what they were doing. They began by claiming this was only for terrorism investigations but eventually admitted it would be used for other 'serious' incidents. Translation: it can be used for anything. As you can see, the PM wants to push this further. It's a lot of nonsense that will infringe on the rights of British people and do nothing to stop terrorism.
As for British values, I am increasingly convinced that they are already dead, or so watered down as to barely be worth the name.
Yeah, from perspective this is terrorists winning.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
You clearly have no idea what a police state is. The Soviet Union was a police state. The Polish People's Republic was a police state. Police state means that the ruling class uses power arbitrarily to opress citizens using police and other government agencies. It means people can be "disappeared" without trial or any good reason at all. It means the censorship of free media, art and the public debate. Police state rules with force, and when people are trying to protest, it does not care for lives it has to destroy to keep things under control. Regulating the internet is a step in a wrong direction for sure, but it's still not even remotely close to any kind of a "police state".
Do you think David Kelly committed suicide?
A single suspicious death from 2003 is clearly a proof of the UK being a police state, apologies for my ignorance.
This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they careb about is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
Happens all the time with anything NHS related, would fully expect the same to happen with defence spending. Lots of money with maximum benefit to the MP and minimum value for money to the population. Also can bet none of the money will go to the Police on the ground keeping people safe, who have also had their salaries shat on by the last Government or two.
About immigration propping things up, again look at the make up of staff working in hospitals (hint, most of them aren't British"). While it's saved on spending because the UK can stop training it's own people to do those jobs (see: Doctor's new shit contract, cuts to Nursing, OT, SALT, Physio bursaries), it's also driven Nursing, Medicine and all other allied health professional jobs into the floor as far as relative pay cuts and how NHSE can treat its workforce with fuck fucking contempt (sounds better when you're shitting on Foreigners rather than honest Brits). /rant over, sorry.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
What is the implication? That we are responsible for war and by extension terrorism because we sell arms? You think they won't simply buy them elsewhere? Almost every country has a military. Selling arms is legitimate, and bombs bought from China are not any less lethal than bombs bought from the UK.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
Happens all the time with anything NHS related, would fully expect the same to happen with defence spending. Lots of money with maximum benefit to the MP and minimum value for money to the population. Also can bet none of the money will go to the Police on the ground keeping people safe, who have also had their salaries shat on by the last Government or two.
About immigration propping things up, again look at the make up of staff working in hospitals (hint, most of them aren't British"). While it's saved on spending because the UK can stop training it's own people to do those jobs (see: Doctor's new shit contract, cuts to Nursing, OT, SALT, Physio bursaries), it's also driven Nursing, Medicine and all other allied health professional jobs into the floor as far as relative pay cuts and how NHSE can treat its workforce with fuck fucking contempt (sounds better when you're shitting on Foreigners rather than honest Brits). /rant over, sorry.
He's saying we create war to artificially sustain our military industries. You're saying we do everything we can to avoid artificially sustaining our health service. What, because the NHS doesn't bribe politicians as much as BAE does? Illuminati level nonsense coming out here.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
What is the implication? That we are responsible for war and by extension terrorism because we sell arms? You think they won't simply buy them elsewhere? Almost every country has a military. Selling arms is legitimate, and bombs bought from China are not any less lethal than bombs bought from the UK.
It's that Theresa May will just pour billions into Philip May's Private Internet Security Firm Ltd which then goes into Theresa May's off shore investment portfolio on not being PM.
Edit: The NHS stuff was about the same guys investing resources into their own firms rather than actually aiming to make anythign better. Like outsourcing cheap and easy operations to private companies leaving the NHS to pick up the bill for the expensive complicated operations.
Edit 2: There is nowhere what he says we create the war, just that certain folk are profiterring off it.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
What is the implication? That we are responsible for war and by extension terrorism because we sell arms? You think they won't simply buy them elsewhere? Almost every country has a military. Selling arms is legitimate, and bombs bought from China are not any less lethal than bombs bought from the UK. .
It's simple and it's called corruption at the highest level of power. No illuminati, just money. All of the political parties have circles of companies that fund them and as a result of that expect some decisions to be made. So, when these politicians make decision the first thing they think about is not how 20 people died in a bombing attack. They are more concerned about the size of their offshore account and how much bigger it will become after they make the decision. Nothing wrong with selling weapons. The question is where and why. Also, where do you send your army and why.
EPT
