The Politics Thread

[Guest MattP]

What Alf says. So much better put than I have been doing.

 

But Alf is saying something totally different to you, he says we need ensure further checks are made on people and that we also need to apply reasonable controls to the number and nature of immigrants.

 

You generally say we should let anyone in because we only have fear to fear and accompany it with a snidy remark like baby bombers.

[Rincewind]

That's because Alf actually made a point.

Same as mine but read the right way.

Yes we do need better checks on borders. I have not said we do not. I am also saying we do not have to panic over it and go over the top. There should be a sensible approach.

[Alf Bentley]

I've not heard anyone claim a babies bottle could be a bomb yet, although I've barely seen a baby in the groups of migrants arriving, most families appear to be in the refugee camps according to the Red Cross, however people are rightly concerned about terrorism given IS have already told us they will use the crisis to smuggle people into mainland Europe and the cultural impact has already been seen with waves of mass sexual assault committed by a significant proportion of these people across Europe.

 

Though I suppose if you aren't a young women being violated is easy not to give a shit.

But Alf is saying something totally different to you, he says we need ensure further checks are made on people and that we also need to apply reasonable controls to the number and nature of immigrants.

 

You generally say we should let anyone in because we only have fear to fear and accompany it with a snidy remark like baby bombers.

 

 

To be fair to Ken, saying that we only have fear to fear is no more inaccurate than talking about mass sexual assault "committed by a significant proportion of these people" - and your comment has a much nastier edge to it.

 

Germany alone has accepted 1 million migrants. How many of them were involved in those sexual assaults? A few hundred, maybe 1000? So, maybe between 0.05% and 0.1%? Is that "a significant proportion" - and is it responsible to describe it as such?

Of course, it was a shocking and disgraceful series of events, committed by 500, 1000 or however many people who either shouldn't be here or who should be put on trial. It also stands as proof that much greater care should have been taken over precisely which migrants were given permission to enter the EU.

 

But who were "these people"? I'm not sure what you mean by "these people"? Migrants from Iraq/Syria? Muslims in general? The IS terrorist infiltrators you had just been talking about?

The last that I heard was that most of them were thought to be professional criminals from North Africa, who had nothing to do with the migrant flow from Syria/Iraq, but had just taken advantage of the failure of Germany and the EU to carry out proper checks before allowing people into Europe.

 

As for "snidy remarks", I reckon that your comment that Ken doesn't "give a shit" about "young women being violated" certainly outdoes his comment about bombs in baby bottles or whatever.

 

I'm not going to get drawn into lengthy debates here, but there have been some seriously nasty comments in this thread recently - and I'm not talking about Ken.

[Guest MattP]

To be fair to Ken, saying that we only have fear to fear is no more inaccurate than talking about mass sexual assault "committed by a significant proportion of these people" - and your comment has a much nastier edge to it.

 

Germany alone has accepted 1 million migrants. How many of them were involved in those sexual assaults? A few hundred, maybe 1000? So, maybe between 0.05% and 0.1%? Is that "a significant proportion" - and is it responsible to describe it as such?

Of course, it was a shocking and disgraceful series of events, committed by 500, 1000 or however many people who either shouldn't be here or who should be put on trial. It also stands as proof that much greater care should have been taken over precisely which migrants were given permission to enter the EU.

 

But who were "these people"? I'm not sure what you mean by "these people"? Migrants from Iraq/Syria? Muslims in general? The IS terrorist infiltrators you had just been talking about?

The last that I heard was that most of them were thought to be professional criminals from North Africa, who had nothing to do with the migrant flow from Syria/Iraq, but had just taken advantage of the failure of Germany and the EU to carry out proper checks before allowing people into Europe.

 

As for "snidy remarks", I reckon that your comment that Ken doesn't "give a shit" about "young women being violated" certainly outdoes his comment about bombs in baby bottles or whatever.

 

I'm not going to get drawn into lengthy debates here, but there have been some seriously nasty comments in this thread recently - and I'm not talking about Ken.

 

Well it's not really is it? Just saying "we have nothing to fear but fear" is complete and utter nonsense given the current state of the World.

 

We don't know what sort of numbers we are talking about but we do know the reality will be more shocking than what we already know, the media and authorities seem to want to play down these issues as much as possible, we certainly know it isn't hundreds as the police eventually admitted they were looking for a "1,000 strong mob" in Cologne, given this appears to have happened on quite a large scale all over Germany and in other countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden we can certainly assume the number is significant. I don't think it's fair to talk about what percentage is it of migrants as most of them have only been here a very short time, only that it's already too many.

 

What do I mean by "these people" - probably too broad a way to say it I admit but in general I mean young men from these areas who seem to have managed to make it into Europe despite not actually qualifying to get here, throw your passport in the ocean and start a new life.

 

I don't think my comment outdoes Ken's at all, I think it's completely fair to say he doesn't care about young women the way he has almost brushed aside these sort of attacks and even in the migrant thread try to claim it wasn't even happening.

 

Let's all just be thankful Cameron wasn't as stupid as Merkel.

[Webbo]

I don't mean to be nasty to anyone but I do get a bit tired of ken' s banal, meaningless and condescending platitudes in every thread. They add absolutely nothing to the thread.

[Rincewind]

I find some comments to be posted without thought TBH. I have never sunk to nastyness.  I have said the same things as others but they have been accepted. It is not my fault if my comments are taken the wrong way. I am not the one spreading fear. I believe their should be a calm sensible approach to the migrant problem. How is that banal?

[Alf Bentley]

I don't mean to be nasty to anyone but I do get a bit tired of ken' s banal, meaningless and condescending platitudes in every thread. They add absolutely nothing to the thread.

 

 

I didn't think you had been nasty, Webbo  - and my comments about nastiness related more to attitudes to migrants than to Ken. I'm sure Ken's quite capable of looking after himself ("rincing" people, even  ).

 

I can also quite understand why you find some of Ken's contributions annoying - and why you or others might sometimes find my contributions annoying, or yours, or Matt's or whoever. 

 

I won't say much in response to your last comment, Matt, as it's either uncontroversial stuff or arguments about detail. However, referring to "young men from these areas" is a bit misleading, if most of the perpetrators were criminals from North Africa, and not genuine war refugees from Iraq or Syria. Of course, that is proof that much better immigration checks should have been carried out on the migrants to avoid queue-jumping by economic migrants, never mind the arrival of criminals....but we agree on that, anyway.

[Thracian]

I find some comments to be posted without thought TBH. I have never sunk to nastyness.  I have said the same things as others but they have been accepted. It is not my fault if my comments are taken the wrong way. I am not the one spreading fear. I believe their should be a calm sensible approach to the migrant problem. How is that banal?

 

 

 

It's people like you who are preventing the calm, sensible approach that would sift out all who would pose or even potentially pose either a physical or philosophical threat to this country. Such people should find a haven in the countries that are suited to their thinking and which they don't want to attack either physically, verbally or through clandestine activism.       

[Webbo]

I didn't think you had been nasty, Webbo  - and my comments about nastiness related more to attitudes to migrants than to Ken. I'm sure Ken's quite capable of looking after himself ("rincing" people, even  ).

 

I can also quite understand why you find some of Ken's contributions annoying - and why you or others might sometimes find my contributions annoying, or yours, or Matt's or whoever. 

 

I won't say much in response to your last comment, Matt, as it's either uncontroversial stuff or arguments about detail. However, referring to "young men from these areas" is a bit misleading, if most of the perpetrators were criminals from North Africa, and not genuine war refugees from Iraq or Syria. Of course, that is proof that much better immigration checks should have been carried out on the migrants to avoid queue-jumping by economic migrants, never mind the arrival of criminals....but we agree on that, anyway.

I don't find you or anyone else who disagrees with me annoying. I respect anyone who says what they think and is prepared to argue for it. That's better than cheap shots and bland cliches .

[Rincewind]

It's people like you who are preventing the calm, sensible approach that would sift out all who would pose or even potentially pose either a physical or philosophical threat to this country. Such people should find a haven in the countries that are suited to their thinking and which they don't want to attack either physically, verbally or through clandestine activism.       

I still agree with Alf.

[Thracian]

To be fair to Ken, saying that we only have fear to fear is no more inaccurate than talking about mass sexual assault "committed by a significant proportion of these people" - and your comment has a much nastier edge to it.

 

Germany alone has accepted 1 million migrants. How many of them were involved in those sexual assaults? A few hundred, maybe 1000? So, maybe between 0.05% and 0.1%? Is that "a significant proportion" - and is it responsible to describe it as such?

Of course, it was a shocking and disgraceful series of events, committed by 500, 1000 or however many people who either shouldn't be here or who should be put on trial. It also stands as proof that much greater care should have been taken over precisely which migrants were given permission to enter the EU.

 

But who were "these people"? I'm not sure what you mean by "these people"? Migrants from Iraq/Syria? Muslims in general? The IS terrorist infiltrators you had just been talking about?

The last that I heard was that most of them were thought to be professional criminals from North Africa, who had nothing to do with the migrant flow from Syria/Iraq, but had just taken advantage of the failure of Germany and the EU to carry out proper checks before allowing people into Europe.

 

As for "snidy remarks", I reckon that your comment that Ken doesn't "give a shit" about "young women being violated" certainly outdoes his comment about bombs in baby bottles or whatever.

 

I'm not going to get drawn into lengthy debates here, but there have been some seriously nasty comments in this thread recently - and I'm not talking about Ken.

 

 

I've already referred to the flaws in the argument about numbers involved in crime. It's nothing to do with percentages but to do with the irresponsibility of unnecessary importing any crime on top of what we've already got (and which we can't seem to deal with as it is).

 

Furthermore the figures are lightweight. So much crime is not reported anyway for various reasons, particularly things like sexual assaults and that doesn't even consider the authorities covering some of the figures up.  

 

Let's take your 1000 offenders Alf.

 

That's 1000 more than there were before they arrived in Germany and who's to say they'll not commit further offences against women.

If each criminal were leniently jailed for one year that would amount to huge additional costs in keeping them, before we even mention legal fees, returning them home and other incidentals. 

 

Look at the map of offences against young and underage girls by foreign gangs in the towns and cities not only throughout  the UK but in Europe as well. It's worse than disgraceful.

 

Yet none of those crimes needed to have happened either here or in Europe.

 

I'm sick of the self-styled do-gooders who ignore the financial and social costs of their misguided thinking.

 

The strictest care - along the lines I've already mentioned - should be taken over the admission of anyone to the UK and any other country in the EU.  

 

There really are some well meaning people who mistakenly believe in the greater good of man and who chose never to see or acknowledge the kind of hatred that others (outside their comprehension) actually harbour for our freedoms and way of life.

 

Nor do they recognise how dedicated some of those people are to changing things and to meanwhile, mocking our laws as an arrogant statement of intent....aspects so plainly demonstrated in Germany where the offenders showed exactly what value they put on Western women.             

[Thracian]

I still agree with Alf.

 

 

I've agreed with Alf on occasions but have done so on the strength of his arguments rather than pre-conceived dogma.

 

I also presume you've got no kids that you hope to leave a future to.  

[Thracian]

Why do i ever get involved in the politics thread.

 

Have I ever known a Lefty to be swayed by any argument? Never. They never give over. Rincey must be chairman! 

 

Even having lost the election we hear more about them than from the government, showing they have absolutely no respect for the wishes of the British people but simply want their own flawed philosophies to prevail whatever anyone else thinks.

 

If the populace votes against them, change the leader, change the recipe and try to kid them to vote their way the next time.

 

Don't they ever get it?. The electorate don't want them and especially the kind of Labour Party we've got now, which is so riddled with convenience supporters who actually vote the way they're told in some communities.       

[Thracian]

Same as mine but read the right way.

Yes we do need better checks on borders. I have not said we do not. I am also saying we do not have to panic over it and go over the top. There should be a sensible approach.

 

 

Why don't you tell that to the families of those killed and maimed by terrorist action in this country or all those who spend their lives figuring ways to keep us save - and which never needed figuring in the past.  

[Alf Bentley]

I don't find you or anyone else who disagrees with me annoying. I respect anyone who says what they think and is prepared to argue for it. That's better than cheap shots and bland cliches .

 

 

Likewise, I don't find it annoying if someone says something that I disagree with - unless it's something truly hateful, callous or dishonest.

 

When I said that I could understand people being annoyed by any one of us, I was referring to style. Ken might spout a few bland cliches. I'm sure some people find me verbose, over-analytical and nitpicking. You can be a bit brusque and blunt. Matt has a talent for imprecision and conflating different issues meaning that dirt gets spread more widely than it should. We're all capable of being annoying in the style in which we express ourselves.

 

When serious accusations are made, I do think that there's an onus on all of us to be careful about precisely which groups we accuse. The flow of migrants has come from Syria, Iraq, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Pakistan and various other places. It has clearly encompassed a lot of genuine war refugees, quite a lot of economic migrants seeking to better themselves, some murderous terrorists and some misogynisitc criminals. Motives have ranged from safety via self-betterment through to terrorism and crime. Important to avoid generalising about migrants, Muslims, "these people", "these areas" and so on, I reckon, or we risk fanning hostility towards a lot of people who don't deserve it - as well as a few who do.

[Webbo]

It's hard to convey tone on the internet. I don't mean to be brusque or blunt (most of the time). Perhaps I am sometimes, it's not my intention to offend.

[Alf Bentley]

I've already referred to the flaws in the argument about numbers involved in crime. It's nothing to do with percentages but to do with the irresponsibility of unnecessary importing any crime on top of what we've already got (and which we can't seem to deal with as it is).

 

Furthermore the figures are lightweight. So much crime is not reported anyway for various reasons, particularly things like sexual assaults and that doesn't even consider the authorities covering some of the figures up.  

 

Let's take your 1000 offenders Alf.

 

That's 1000 more than there were before they arrived in Germany and who's to say they'll not commit further offences against women.

If each criminal were leniently jailed for one year that would amount to huge additional costs in keeping them, before we even mention legal fees, returning them home and other incidentals. 

 

Look at the map of offences against young and underage girls by foreign gangs in the towns and cities not only throughout  the UK but in Europe as well. It's worse than disgraceful.

 

Yet none of those crimes needed to have happened either here or in Europe.

 

I'm sick of the self-styled do-gooders who ignore the financial and social costs of their misguided thinking.

 

The strictest care - along the lines I've already mentioned - should be taken over the admission of anyone to the UK and any other country in the EU.  

 

There really are some well meaning people who mistakenly believe in the greater good of man and who chose never to see or acknowledge the kind of hatred that others (outside their comprehension) actually harbour for our freedoms and way of life.

 

Nor do they recognise how dedicated some of those people are to changing things and to meanwhile, mocking our laws as an arrogant statement of intent....aspects so plainly demonstrated in Germany where the offenders showed exactly what value they put on Western women.             

 

 

I haven't got the time or inclination to get drawn into wider debates about levels of crime or the Labour Party.

 

I've already agreed with your point that the criminals in Cologne and elsewhere shouldn't have been allowed in, and that better immigration controls should have been applied to the flow of migrants. I thought that before the Cologne outrages, too.

I'm also quite clear that we need to recognise and address problems associated with particular racial and/or religious groups: e.g. the prevalence of UK sexual assaults committed by men of Muslim Pakistani origin (many born here). Education of adults and children, immigrants and British-born, should be a priority so as to maximise mutual understanding - and to instil respect for others, particularly for Western women, as there is clearly a big problem there.

 

The minority who have a violent hatred for Western values and want to promote violence and reject democracy (IS sympathisers etc.) should not gain entry in the first place - or should be monitored, prosecuted or expelled, as applicable.

 

"The greater good of man"? I reckon there's a handful of saints in the world; most people are decent most of the time but have the potential to be pretty nasty, depending on the circumstances (Nazi Germany taught us that); a few have attitudes alien to our culture and need educating to fit in (e.g. misogyny in some Muslim communities); and a few are died-in-the-wool nasty bastards who need to be expelled or prosecuted. There'll be some difficult scenarios (e.g. refugees who genuinely deserve asylum, but will need to change certain attitudes) but that isn't beyond us. I don't know if that makes me a "do-gooder" or not....but I'd prefer us to be a country of do-gooders than do-badders or do-nothingers....while taking the strictest care over every aspect of immigration, as you say, including assimilation and mutual tolerance. That care should also include a fairer spread of the refugees accepted, so that they're not all sent behind red doors in cities like Middlesbrough or to struggling seaside towns. I wonder how many are sent to prosperous Home Counties districts where there's less potential for resentment?

 

I do see some positives in Cameron's policy emphasis on providing financial help to allow war refugees to remain in their own region. How practical that is long-term, though, I don't know, unless a solution is found quickly for the conflict in Iraq/Syria. I was reading somewhere that now 1 in 4 of the population of Lebanon is a Syrian refugee, which is extraordinary....and you can well understand why many head for Europe when you read about families living in shacks and tents, money running out, struggling to get enough to eat or to find viable work or a school for their children.  

[Alf Bentley]

It's hard to convey tone on the internet. I don't mean to be brusque or blunt (most of the time). Perhaps I am sometimes, it's not my intention to offend.

 

 

I don't mean to be verbose, over-earnest, nitpicking, over-analytical or over-sensitive either, mate! 

 

I think most of us learn to understand and tolerate one another's peculiarities most of the time. 

[Thracian]

I haven't got the time or inclination to get drawn into wider debates about levels of crime or the Labour Party.

 

I've already agreed with your point that the criminals in Cologne and elsewhere shouldn't have been allowed in, and that better immigration controls should have been applied to the flow of migrants. I thought that before the Cologne outrages, too.

I'm also quite clear that we need to recognise and address problems associated with particular racial and/or religious groups: e.g. the prevalence of UK sexual assaults committed by men of Muslim Pakistani origin (many born here). Education of adults and children, immigrants and British-born, should be a priority so as to maximise mutual understanding - and to instil respect for others, particularly for Western women, as there is clearly a big problem there.

 

The minority who have a violent hatred for Western values and want to promote violence and reject democracy (IS sympathisers etc.) should not gain entry in the first place - or should be monitored, prosecuted or expelled, as applicable.

 

"The greater good of man"? I reckon there's a handful of saints in the world; most people are decent most of the time but have the potential to be pretty nasty, depending on the circumstances (Nazi Germany taught us that); a few have attitudes alien to our culture and need educating to fit in (e.g. misogyny in some Muslim communities); and a few are died-in-the-wool nasty bastards who need to be expelled or prosecuted. There'll be some difficult scenarios (e.g. refugees who genuinely deserve asylum, but will need to change certain attitudes) but that isn't beyond us. I don't know if that makes me a "do-gooder" or not....but I'd prefer us to be a country of do-gooders than do-badders or do-nothingers....while taking the strictest care over every aspect of immigration, as you say, including assimilation and mutual tolerance. That care should also include a fairer spread of the refugees accepted, so that they're not all sent behind red doors in cities like Middlesbrough or to struggling seaside towns. I wonder how many are sent to prosperous Home Counties districts where there's less potential for resentment?

 

I do see some positives in Cameron's policy emphasis on providing financial help to allow war refugees to remain in their own region. How practical that is long-term, though, I don't know, unless a solution is found quickly for the conflict in Iraq/Syria. I was reading somewhere that now 1 in 4 of the population of Lebanon is a Syrian refugee, which is extraordinary....and you can well understand why many head for Europe when you read about families living in shacks and tents, money running out, struggling to get enough to eat or to find viable work or a school for their children.  

 

Eloquently put as ever and I wouldn't wish to argue with any of itl.

As for refugees - Lebanese or otherwise - I'm not sure if you can rationally discuss/evaluate them as a unit in any meaningful way.

Each seems to have their own story or agenda, whether apparent or disguised.

Instead I see a lot of questions and not too many unbiased answers, explanations or analysis.

[Guest MattP]

Quite big news this, unsurprisingly, as a few of us predicted on here, the postal votes were found to have been illegally and improperly handled.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36681475

 

 

[GaelicFox]

So the Nazi party will get thier man in now ??

[johnny the fox]

dodgy postal  voting...children and foreign national fraudulently got in on the act..tipped the balance ..

[Nick]

I think knowing whats at stake, people will be forced out of the woodwork to vote now - could be close mind.

[Guest MattP]

I think knowing whats at stake, people will be forced out of the woodwork to vote now - could be close mind.

 

Very important, an ex Green party politician would be a complete disaster.

[Nick]

Very important, an ex Green party politician would be a complete disaster.

 

 

 

But a far-right government would be better?