I don't want to hate it, I mean, I love so many things about our country and I seem to be one of the few people who keeps our heritage going, but I am frequently feeling more and more like I just hate Britain. Not as a whole, but a huge section of the people in it.

I don't want this to degenerate into a debate on Asylum seekers, basically because if I see one more post on 'get back to your own country', 'they're all scroungers', 'they're filling up our schools/hospitals/jobs/council houses', I'll cry.

However, I feel something desperately needs to be done about educating people on the truth about this subject. The inherent racism in the media and complete lies and propaganda that create paranoia and prejudice (have a look at T020's thread on 'Boy refused nursery place - "too English').

Do these people have ANY IDEA what an Asylum Seeker is? They have FLED THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE KILLED. The recent asylum seekers exhibition in Sheffield put it perfectly: "We only think about where we are trying to get away from - not where we are going to".

I nearly cried today, after hearing this from someone close to me: A Somalian boy, with very little English and who has been completely rejected by his peers at his new school, has been chanted at by a WHOLE CLASS of children - racist abuse. The teachers were uncaring and indifferent.

What have we become? I am, disgusted by so many of the people of this country for being so unsympathetic and unwelcoming to people who have been through such traumatic times.

I could make this post a lot longer believe me, but I'd rather more people read it than were instantly put off by the length.

The trouble happens when they group "them" all together in one place. It just causes whole areas to be "consumed" as they'd like to put it causing racial tensions.

Glasgow, Hull and Wrexham. 3 places which have a big Asylum Seeker "Problem" because they are herded into ghetto like environments.

It's far more convenient to have society blaming other sections of society for their problems. Be it asylum seekers, the unemployed, single mothers etc.. than to have people look deeper into the root causes of social problems.

in other words, Divide and Rule

Your Somalian boy example - why is propaganda so acceptable when used to support the argument you favour? And don't try to deny that it isn't propaganda. A "tear jerking" tale of the little Somalian lad who did no wrong. It's just the flip side of the the tale about the Somalian lad who came here and raped women. Both are just propaganda tools.

With regards the claim that asylum seekers are fleeing because their life is in danger, this may be true of the majority but there is also a minority who leave for financial gain. There is also the fact that to get to Britain from such war torn countries, one has to cross the borders of several other wealthy, developed Western countries. If you were running for your life would you really add another thousand miles and a channel crossing on to a journey when you'd already reached safety?

I accept that we must accept asylum seekers. On an individual basis if I were to meet one I would have no problem at all because I regard myself as a "nice" person, despite how I sometimes like to come across on here. The concept in general though annoys me that SOME (a minority yes) will abuse the system to leech off UK taxpayers. We already have enough benefit fraudsters so it annoys me that we are importing more. Somehow we need to stop the bogus ones that ruin it for the majority.

Blunketts Permanent secretary John Gieve admitted last night that the UK is very generous to Asylum seekers.

He also conceded that the economic climate and the slow process of decision making was also a likely attraction for them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3854963.stm

Originally posted by t020

I accept that we must accept asylum seekers. On an individual basis if I were to meet one I would have no problem at all because I regard myself as a "nice" person, despite how I sometimes like to come across on here. The concept in general though annoys me that SOME (a minority yes) will abuse the system to leech off UK taxpayers. We already have enough benefit fraudsters so it annoys me that we are importing more. Somehow we need to stop the bogus ones that ruin it for the majority.

I agree T020. The bogus ones are the problem. They are a real threat to the legitmate ones.

Originally posted by t020
Your Somalian boy example - why is propaganda so acceptable when used to support the argument you favour? And don't try to deny that it isn't propaganda. A "tear jerking" tale of the little Somalian lad who did no wrong. It's just the flip side of the the tale about the Somalian lad who came here and raped women. Both are just propaganda tools.

Nice try, but this isn't a load of codswallop, it happened to one my mum's pupils at one of the schools she teaches at today. I'm not going to name the school (I'll probably get in some right s***), but needless to say, I wasn't trying to be 'tear jerking'. I was just trying to tell people a bit of real life evidence, rather than the warped image the media presents.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Nice try, but this isn't a load of codswallop, it happened to one my mum's pupils at one of the schools she teaches at today. I'm not going to name the school (I'll probably get in some right s***), but needless to say, I wasn't trying to be 'tear jerking'. I was just trying to tell people a bit of real life evidence, rather than the warped image the media presents.

But that is a warped image. Very few ethnic minorites suffer racial abuse these days. Very few asylum seekers commit rape, but that has also happened so is fact. The Daily Mail could use this to try to portray all asylum seekers as being rampant sex beasts just as much as you can use your story to portray asylum seekers as suffering victims. It's all propaganda.

Sorry guys but this time I feel that T020 is actually talking sense. I feel pretty annoyed by the fact that Britain does seem to be a 'soft touch'.
Other countries accept smaller amounts of asylum seekers and some countries ie Australia, only accept people who earn a certain (massive in my view) amount of money per year!

I know that Britain ruled the world and that the people of the conqured countries helped build the British Empire long ago so perhaps they have the right to live here. BUT I object to 'bogus refugees' using our country - and benefit system, as a free ride.

Plus people such as the 'Muslim extremist Captain Hook guy' only stir things and create bad public feeling.

Also I feel that a refugee who commits sexual crime or drug related crime while under this country's protection should be instantly deported.

Sorry if this isn't worded correctly guys. Its late y'know. ;)

Hmm I also have a few tales to tell about me and my friend's personal experiences with refugees although I don't wish for this to be a slanging match so I'll shut up for the moment.

Sorry Nosey, it's coming up to midnight and the creatures of the night are coming out from under their rocks. I'd put an argument together to support you but I feel it would be wasted on these neanderthals. Sorry again, you're not on your own but I just get dispirited by the narrow minded attitude of some people on here.

Originally posted by max
Sorry Nosey, it's coming up to midnight and the creatures of the night are coming out from under their rocks. I'd put an argument together to support you but I feel it would be wasted on these neanderthals. Sorry again, you're not on your own but I just get dispirited by the narrow minded attitude of some people on here.

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? As a forum for Sheffield surely Sheffielders should be able to speak their minds? When hanging around in town quite alot of the time the subject of refugees and the immigration system are heard on peoples lips.

Just peoples views thats all. Surely the amount of threads dedicated to this subject suggests that it must be quite a hot topic in Sheffield at the mo.

And all people are not narrow minded. Maybe people who try to silence others for airing their views, however right or left wing they may be, are the narrow minded ones.

Sorry but I just want people to have freedom of speech - no matter how nutty they are.

Impressed with your post, Nosey. I wish there was more coverage of the realities that causes most asylum seekers to flee, rather than the handful who exploit the system.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Do these people have ANY IDEA what an Asylum Seeker is? They have FLED THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE KILLED

This is simply not true in most cases

Originally posted by Smiler
Impressed with your post, Nosey. I wish there was more coverage of the realities that causes most asylum seekers to flee, rather than the handful who exploit the system.

Her post wouldn't be bad, but to denounce propaganda by the right wing media in one sentence and then later move on to use propaganda for her own argument is hypocrisy beyond belief.

Just incase you're confused nosey:

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause


Using tales of victims of (minor) racial abuse to try to support your argument is no "better" than the Daily Mail using tales of asylum seeker crimes to support theirs.

Originally posted by mojoworking
This is simply not true in most cases

Care to give us the facts?

Nomme

In my view, there is a considerable difference between citing an example from personal experience on a website and the portrayal of events in the mass media for political ends.

Originally posted by Smiler
In my view, there is a considerable difference between citing an example from personal experience on a website and the portrayal of events in the mass media for political ends.

So howcome people who cite personal examples of black on white racial abuse are instantly dismissed as racists?

Propaganda is propaganda. It doesn't matter if a forum user uses it or a newspaper. You can't deny that asylum seekers don't commit crimes and there have been cases where some have been charged with rape. It would be easy to make out that all asylum seekers are like this, but it would be wrong. It would also be easy to make out that all Somalian kids are innocent and suffering victims, but that would be equally wrong.

Originally posted by t020
So howcome people who cite personal examples of black on white racial abuse are instantly dismissed as racists?

Propaganda is propaganda. It doesn't matter if a forum user uses it or a newspaper. You can't deny that asylum seekers don't commit crimes and there have been cases where some have been charged with rape. It would be easy to make out that all asylum seekers are like this, but it would be wrong. It would also be easy to make out that all Somalian kids are innocent and suffering victims, but that would be equally wrong.


I agree with this somewhat.

Originally posted by t020
Her post wouldn't be bad, but to denounce propaganda by the right wing media in one sentence and then later move on to use propaganda for her own argument is hypocrisy beyond belief.

Just incase you're confused nosey:

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

Using tales of victims of (minor) racial abuse to try to support your argument is no "better" than the Daily Mail using tales of asylum seeker crimes to support theirs.

Actually, propoganda :

"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

Relating a personal story on a web forum is hardly the same as as something published in the Daily Mail.

Try tackling the subject matter rather than attacking the poster and crying 'hypocracy'. It's a lame argument and you know it.

Nomme

It's not a lame argument, mainly because I don't have an argument! I agree with some of what was said by noseyrosie but I just don't like the hypocrisy of denouncing propaganda that supports an opposing view whilst using propaganda to support her own. That's all!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'propaganda is propaganda'. However, I believe that the portrayal of a story in the mass media is different to the portrayal of a viewpoint on a website because:

* the coverage (x million readers of nespapers, versus 5,000 readers here at best);
* the interactive nature of such a website enables views to be challenged and debated, unlike newspapers who only have limited and highly edited readers letters than come out a day or so later; and
* the mass media usually have a vested interest in their perspectives and stories being believed. I don't think that posters on this site would have any vested interests.

T020 I am also concerned by your repeated use of the words 'rape' and 'asylum seekers' in posts. I accept some asylum seekers commit crimes and there has of course been a highly publicised allegation of rape. But the repeated use of these words together, in my view, is misleading. I doubt there is any reason to suspect asylum seekers are more likely to commit rape, so why do you continue to highlight this example?

Are we going off topic?

Originally posted by Smiler
T020 I am also concerned by your repeated use of the words 'rape' and 'asylum seekers' in posts. I accept some asylum seekers commit crimes and there has of course been a highly publicised allegation of rape. But the repeated use of these words together, in my view, is misleading. I doubt there is any reason to suspect asylum seekers are more likely to commit rape, so why do you continue to highlight this example?



T020s approach, whether conscious or not, bears a striking similarity to the black art of 'push polling' where you phone people up in the middle of a campaign:

pollster: "hello I'm so and so doing a political poll. If you discovered that Tony Blair was a paedophiliac transgender nazi, would you:
a)be more inclined to vote labour?
b)less inclined to vote labour?
c)equally inclined to vote labour.?"


punter: "er b)"

"thank you for your time" *click*

just planting seeds.

Originally posted by nomme
Care to give us the facts?

Nomme

Would you care to do likewise? What you're at it, perhaps you'd care to justify/prove some of the claims made in the original post.

It's interesting how you instantly jump on anything that doesn't comply with your own politics, yet you blindly defend stuff like the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread.

Originally posted by Rusted Root
Thats a bit harsh isn't it? As a forum for Sheffield surely Sheffielders should be able to speak their minds? When hanging around in town quite alot of the time the subject of refugees and the immigration system are heard on peoples lips.

Just peoples views thats all. Surely the amount of threads dedicated to this subject suggests that it must be quite a hot topic in Sheffield at the mo.

And all people are not narrow minded. Maybe people who try to silence others for airing their views, however right or left wing they may be, are the narrow minded ones.

Sorry but I just want people to have freedom of speech - no matter how nutty they are.

Fair comment, but aren't I allowed the freedom to make my comments? I'm not stopping anyone from airing their opinions just using my right to free speech and sympathising with nosey for the reaction she got from the usual less than sympathetic minority.

Originally posted by mojoworking
This is simply not true in most cases


Really? So political, and religious persecution does not exist around the world?

People aren't getting killed for their beliefs all over the world, or threatened and persecuted because of what religion they are, or what party they vote for?

Dang, so all the things I have heard about countries from Central and South America, Africa and Asia simply aren't true?

I'll be damned.

And as for the post who advocates accepting asylum seekers on the basis of income - that's just plain sad.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Would you care to do likewise? What you're at it, perhaps you'd care to justify/prove some of the claims made in the original post.

It's interesting how you instantly jump on anything that doesn't comply with your own politics, yet you blindly defend stuff like the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread.

It's called thinking critically. Not blindly accepting 'facts' like this without considering their veracity and implications.

"the majority of Asylum seekers are not fleeing persecution" is a 'fact' that has massive implications for people's view of them, media coverage and ultimately policy. If we have any sense of social responsibility at all we owe it to ourselves and other people to questio nthese claims before we condemn people.

I have worked with a few asylum seekers and 9 times out of ten they chose the UK as I quote" We get lots more money in england"

Originally posted by theflyingfish
Really? So political, and religious persecution does not exist around the world?

People aren't getting killed for their beliefs all over the world, or threatened and persecuted because of what religion they are, or what party they vote for?

Dang, so all the things I have heard about countries from Central and South America, Africa and Asia simply aren't true?

I'll be damned.

And as for the post who advocates accepting asylum seekers on the basis of income - that's just plain sad.

Let's get it right. The original (somewhat hysterical) quote was this: "They have FLED THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE KILLED"

While I'm not denying that persecution exists, that doesn't necessarily equal death. It could just mean they don't have freedom to worship, or any number of other variations of the word.

In any case, very many asylum seekers simply come looking for work and a better life with no threat of death or persecution at all. And who would begrudge them that?

Originally posted by Sony
I have worked with a few asylum seekers and 9 times out of ten they chose the UK as I quote" We get lots more money in england"

So it's OK for us to aspire to improve our lot, and take jobs that pay us more money? God forbid if someone from a country much poorer than ours should display similar aspirations and want more money, heavens above.

Originally posted by theflyingfish
So it's OK for us to aspire to improve our lot, and take jobs that pay us more money? God forbid if someone from a country much poorer than ours should display similar aspirations and want more money, heavens above.

Yes thats fine, but they were talking about were benefits...

Do these people have ANY IDEA what an Asylum Seeker is? They have FLED THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE KILLED

Bit late this reply but is it not the case that quite a few Asylum Seekers are Economic migrants, rather than people who would have been killed? Again, fair enough, still a very brave thing to do. I for one would not like to leave everything and head off to a new country hoping for a better life, but as T020 mentioned, it seems that some people are happy to overstate the flip side of the argument.

What amuses me is the way these people fleeing to avoid being killed keep fleeing for ages going through more than one country where they could claim asylum before coming to the UK. Surely if you really were fleeing for your life you would stop at the first safe place you came to?

We are definately a soft touch (although I do agree that without people immigrating to the UK a lot of our low paid service industries would be knackered due to lack of labour).

God forbid, anything happens in our country that we need refuge elsewhere. They are the terms that I think in.

Oh, and racial abuse does still exist in this country.

Propaganda derives from the word propagate (to grow). At the time of Hitler it became a negative word. Until then it wasn't. Only the user of the word determines wether it be negative or positive.

While I agree with some of T020's points, I do not agree that Noseyrosie was guilty of propaganda in the way T020 accused her.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Would you care to do likewise? What you're at it, perhaps you'd care to justify/prove some of the claims made in the original post.


Actually, I understood what you were getting at in your post and was merely offering you the opportunnity to expand and back up your statement for the hard of thinking. I see you have attempted that in a later post.

Originally posted by mojoworking
It's interesting how you instantly jump on anything that doesn't comply with your own politics, yet you blindly defend stuff like the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread.

If you find that interesting you should get out more.
Equally as interesting is your imagination of things I am supposed to have said. Where exactly have I defended "the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread"?

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme

If you find that interesting you should get out more.
Equally as interesting is your imagination of things I am supposed to have said. Where exactly have I defended "the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread"?

Nomme

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I mistakenly assumed you were taking an opposing point of view.

You know what? That post came from the heart (yes, sorry about that old cliche...). After hearing that story from my mum, along with numerous others, which I may state at a later date, but maybe not, for fear of being accused of 'propaganda'. I'm sorry T020, but I simply cannot see quite how you could call it that. If I had started a thread called 'Racist attacks on boy', without mentioning he was an asylum seeker, it wouldn't be propaganda, it would be 'a disgrace' and 'why didn't the teachers do anything'?

And if others want to question this:
Do these people have ANY IDEA what an Asylum Seeker is? They have FLED THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE KILLED.
fine, but in most cases they are likely to be killed or persecuted in some other way.

You lot need to get some bloody education on the subject.

This is simply not true in most cases

Oh isn't it? So is my mum lying now? This particular boy has barely a word of English, and the evidence in the school is of frequent, uneducated racial abuse that makes me sick to the stomach. Very few of the kids who come over here make friends easily, because the other kids/parents are fed the trash that the tabloids produce on the subject. SOmebody called this a 'minor' incident. Thank you, but to be honest, this is one of many similar cases, this just being the one that prompted me to start the thread. And if it was me, I wouldn't dream of calling it a minor incident. What are you on? Minor?! 30 kids screaming at one boy who has no friends to back him up, and has been forced to adapt to our society when he was a nomadic camel-herder before. (And yeah, go for it, I'm sure there were far too many emotive modifiers in that sentence.) Christ.

the emotion-charged, cliché-ridden, bleeding heart, lefty tripe that started this thread.

Thanks mate. It took me a while to write that post and it's how I really feel on a subject that is very important to me. Tripe it is then.

What amuses me is the way these people fleeing to avoid being killed keep fleeing for ages going through more than one country where they could claim asylum before coming to the UK. Surely if you really were fleeing for your life you would stop at the first safe place you came to?

Gosh, yes! Hilarious isn't it! So amusing! France takes in more asylum seekers than we do.

Also I feel that a refugee who commits sexual crime or drug related crime while under this country's protection should be instantly deported.

Is this even a related issue?

And one more thing, to settle the people harping on about benefits once and for all. The government states that asylum seekers cannot work for at least 6 months after they've entered the country. Most people who were affluent and middle class, highly trained doctors or teachers, in their previous country, come here and do low paid, semi-skilled jobs. It aint for the money.

Originally posted by noseyrosie


Gosh, yes! Hilarious isn't it! So amusing! France takes in more asylum seekers than we do.



And? We don't live in France, so however many they take in is irrelevant, they still have to pass through other countries before getting to the UK!

Originally posted by Sony
I have worked with a few asylum seekers and 9 times out of ten they chose the UK as I quote" We get lots more money in england"

thats funny, the ones I know, few in number admittedly, came to london because they have family and friends here. Just shows that anecdotal evidence is not really very useful.

centuries of colonialism mean that we have invited foreign immigrants from all parts of the globe whether as guest workers, slaves,highly skilled migrants, or simply quasi british subjects, over the last 300 years at least.

Small wonder then that Pashtuns, Watussis, Ibo and Ashanti, Maoris, Gurkhas, Persians and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians all have friends and relations in London and the rest of the UK.

Why would any refugee seek to come to Sheffield rather than say Köln or Venlo or Karlshamn ? Because they are likely to know kith and kin here. Especially with sheffields long industrial history of guest workers who have naturalised.

So sony, who are you quoting and where do they come from?

My friend Jags, who is from the Lebanon, says and I do actually quote here "We had an uncle and aunt who lived in Stoke (Newington), so it seemed obvious to try to get to them, as they could help us get sorted"

Originally posted by PuressenceUK
And? We don't live in France, so however many they take in is irrelevant, they still have to pass through other countries before getting to the UK!

Ok, ok, the stance on this from the asylum exhibition is somehting along the lines of: 'We don't think of where we are going to, only where we are running away from', therefore, they don't 'choose' england in particular, and come here because they may have heard that their family is there. And where's the harm in that. Surely if you'd been orphaned or persecuted oir something, you'd want to be with your family? I would.

I understand what your saying nosierose about them fleeing their country to avoin violence. However where will we flee to avoid the voilence that is braught to our country its not THAT bad at the minute but in years time when i have children i wont let my kids go in to town on their own or anything. Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9. Rape is the womans fault in their country this also scares me.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
thats funny, the ones I know, few in number admittedly, came to london because they have family and friends here. Just shows that anecdotal evidence is not really very useful.

centuries of colonialism mean that we have invited foreign immigrants from all parts of the globe whether as guest workers, slaves,highly skilled migrants, or simply quasi british subjects, over the last 300 years at least.

Small wonder then that Pashtuns, Watussis, Ibo and Ashanti, Maoris, Gurkhas, Persians and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians all have friends and relations in London and the rest of the UK.

Why would any refugee seek to come to Sheffield rather than say Köln or Venlo or Karlshamn ? Because they are likely to know kith and kin here. Especially with sheffields long industrial history of guest workers who have naturalised.

So sony, who are you quoting and where do they come from?

My friend Jags, who is from the Lebanon, says and I do actually quote here "We had an uncle and aunt who lived in Stoke (Newington), so it seemed obvious to try to get to them, as they could help us get sorted"

Lol, I was posting on the same subject as you at the same time. Makes us sound all conspiring...:wink:

SO much to comment on, so little time.....

The origin of the word Propaganda actually originates with Pope Gregory XV in 1622 who set up a group called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide which developed within a few years to become the arm of the church responsible for centralising missionary affairs of the Catholic Church.

The group eventually became known as the Propaganda, and the broader use of the word took off in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Anyway......

If an asylum seeker is in a position where their human rights (as defined in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights) then of course they should have a right to go to a safe country and plead their case. However. If you have someone turning up at Dover who's progressed through most of Western Europe to get here, then they've been through at least one or two other countries where they could apply for asylum. If they're that desperate, why not apply in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy?

If we wish to better ourselves abroad, I can't just up sticks and go to, say, Australia and expect to get in and claim benefits and work. I would have to be vetted, have the necessary required skills and 'points', have a job lined up, or, in some cases, have a truckload of money with me to start a new business there. If someone wishes to come and live here from the US, and work, they still have to get work permits and such. All economic migrants, regradless of colour, creed and background should be treated in the same way.

There might be a grey area where a family in, say, Somalia has immediate (not extended) family here who can support them. If so, OK - bend the rules and let them come.

To say that soemone who is in genuine fear of death can cross through several european countries and claim that they would not be as safe in, say, Paris as in London is laughable. The French Government does not have a policy of persecution, neither do we or the Italians or the Germans.

I'd like to be convinced of the suggestions that REAL economic and social benefits come to the country by allowing in economic migrants without suitable credentials. If I could be thus convinced, fine. But until then :

Political / Religious Asylum seekers who've arrived direct from the country they're fleeing - no problems.
Political / Religious Asylum seekers who've arrived after transit through another EU country, or country with no internationally recognised record of persecution - treat as economic migrants and deal with appropriately.

Joe

In the UK, wherever you come from in the world you are almost guaranteed to find a community that speaks the same language and comes from the same culture as you, more than any other country in Europe. If you were fleeing persecution you too would be minded to settle somewhere with at least some cultural and political and social security. Social security that is in the sense of social networks not welfare state.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
I understand what your saying nosierose about them fleeing their country to avoin violence. However where will we flee to avoid the voilence that is braught to our country its not THAT bad at the minute but in years time when i have children i wont let my kids go in to town on their own or anything. Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9. Rape is the womans fault in their country this also scares me.

Quite simply, you disgust me. I don't think I could even begin to point out why, and I don't think I need to. Anyone reading your post can work it out for themselves.

While we are at it:

It is true that there were a record number of applications for asylum in the UK in 2000, and that that was the highest number of any EU country. Where do UK's asylum seekers come from?
Afghanistan
Somalia
Iraq
Sri Lanka

However, if the figure is measured in relation to the size of the population, the UK comes behind Belgium, the Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland and Austria.

In other words, the UK is by no means alone in being somewhere asylum seekers want to be.

Asylum seekers are entitled to vouchers worth £36.54 a week in the UK, of which £10 is exchangeable for cash. This figure is 30% below the level of normal income support.

"People obviously for a long time laboured under the delusion that people came here for the social benefits. Even when asylum seekers were entitled to benefits this was not true, because other countries have much more generous systems," he says


from bbc.co.ukWow 36 quid a week, they must love it here!!

/sarcasm

Originally posted by fuzbuz
I understand what your saying nosierose about them fleeing their country to avoin violence. However where will we flee to avoid the voilence that is braught to our country its not THAT bad at the minute but in years time when i have children i wont let my kids go in to town on their own or anything. Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9. Rape is the womans fault in their country this also scares me.

You deserve to be told how ignorant, prejudicial and generalised this post is.

A few facts:

£37.77 a week is what a single asylum seeker gets. (Luxury? Who here could live on that?) Asylum seekers are NOT entitled to welfare benefits.

Britain takes in less refugees than Iran. We are 'ranked' 10th in Europe in terms of numbers.

GPs can accept whoever they want, and there is no question of asylum seekers skipping the queue.

Due to the way the population of the UK is declining, we actually need to take in migrants to keep a stable working population.

On average, people think that 23% of the world's refugees and asylum seekers are in the UK. The truth is, less than 2% of them are in the UK.

Hey all,

Sorry to jump in here but what really borthers me is this recurring theme of sexual assualt.

There is obviously a very dark part of the mind of the bigot. I have no figures to back up this assertion but I am sure that crimes committed by asylum seekers are disproportionately low. Why would someone who is fleeing persecution want to get involved in any illegal activity in the UK?

And much of what is said on this subject is incredibly offensive to a section of society who already have no voice or means of expressing their fears or hopes.

M

Originally posted by Mattski
Hey all,

Sorry to jump in here but what really borthers me is this recurring theme of sexual assualt.

There is obviously a very dark part of the mind of the bigot. I have no figures to back up this assertion but I am sure that crimes committed by asylum seekers are disproportionately low. Why would someone who is fleeing persecution want to get involved in any illegal activity in the UK?

And much of what is said on this subject is incredibly offensive to a section of society who already have no voice or means of expressing their fears or hopes.

M

don't apologise - I've have read some of your posts and your calm reason is very welcome!

Well nosierosie, i live near firth park and we were walkin home from a working mans club at around 11pm and this somalian lad who know hardly any english at all walked up to my dad who is 5 ft 6 and doesnt look threaterning to any one and pulled out a knife for no apparent reason if it wasnt for my boyfriend being a big hefty bloke i think he would have stabbed him so i told the guy we had not done anything and to leave and he walked of shouting the only aparent english he knew " stupid white bitch"
now would you feel safe letting your children out to that. I know you cant judge by one person but when i walk past the peice gardens and get slimy love songs sung at me rather threaterning its awfull!!!!!!

oh BTW i had and have no intentions in turning the post in to one of sexual assult im sorry if this is what it seemed it was just what i have witnessed!!

Originally posted by fuzbuz
I understand what your saying nosierose about them fleeing their country to avoin violence. However where will we flee to avoid the voilence that is braught to our country its not THAT bad at the minute but in years time when i have children i wont let my kids go in to town on their own or anything. Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9. Rape is the womans fault in their country this also scares me.


mmm, tasty reality tunnel.

You can keep it mate. We all live in a much nicer universe than you, count on it.

One day you will pick open a corner in the little cardboard box you call reality, and discover a whole world out there that is going to scare and confuse you a lot more.

A life of fear awaits you, have a good one.

[Just to add another ounce of opprobrium to this egregious effluent.]

oh and i wasnt slagging of how there cultur is if they marry at 14 and have kids and stuff then thats their option. But i wouldnt like to think of it becoming the norm here 2. i mean you just dont stand and gope at women and sing to random people all day. Im sorry if my 1st post got peoples backs up but im not casting much opinion just what i see every nite!!!

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Well nosierosie, i live near firth park and we were walkin home from a working mans club at around 11pm and this somalian lad who know hardly any english at all walked up to my dad who is 5 ft 6 and doesnt look threaterning to any one and pulled out a knife for no apparent reason if it wasnt for my boyfriend being a big hefty bloke i think he would have stabbed him so i told the guy we had not done anything and to leave and he walked of shouting the only aparent english he knew " stupid white bitch"
now would you feel safe letting your children out to that. I know you cant judge by one person but when i walk past the peice gardens and get slimy love songs sung at me rather threaterning its awfull!!!!!!

Well fuzbuz, the irony of you criticising anyone for their use of English has not passed me by. Thanks for the laugh.

I'm intrigued as to how you identified this 'lad' as Somalian, do you hold a qualification in anthropology which allows you to spot someone's nationality at 11 o'clock at night while in a state of stress? Alternatively, if you had seen this 'lad' before why did you not report him to the police?

(Apologies to anyone who recognises the anthropology argument from the previous thread on Kosovan burglars. :D )

to say this is an open forum and people put on their opinions whats the point in starting a post if all your gonna do is slag off what other people think and what other people see. And ill tell you what i find so amaizing is as much as this post in about asylam seekers the english are the only people i know who want to slag off and debate about other peoples views untill its a mass argument i give all the nations in the world credit for not doing that!!!!!!
Its my Point of view if it isnt yours then fair enough but do i slag off your points of view that possibly i dont agree with?

Think most of the arguments have been rehearsed. But I am actually proud that the UK is a place that asylum seekers want to come to - whether for social, political or economic reasons.

Of course id not seen him before and of course in some cases you can identify their nationality like the guy on here who made some somalian lads move for a lady so sit down on the bus did any one slag him off for assuming they were somalian!!!!

Originally posted by fuzbuz
to say this is an open forum and people put on their opinions whats the point in starting a post if all your gonna do is slag off what other people think and what other people see. ... Its my Point of view if it isnt yours then fair enough but do i slag off your points of view that possibly i dont agree with?

Ah you have now become a wanted person, on the Forum Thought Police blacklist. You will now be censored by mysterious invisible forces until you can no longer spew your filth into this unpolluted pool of clear thought.

If I see an opinion that I believe is founded in fantasy rather than fact (and it is a matter of my belief - not absolute truth) then I will often say so. And I will use confrontational language because I want a reply, and softly softly posts most often get ignored.

Only by calling you a muddled halfwit will I ever get you to try and fail to support your points of view, because they are based on a third hand picture of the events that surround you, as you seem to be incapable of taking facts in.

Now, if you disagree with me, I am hoping that you will rise to defend your assertions, and show my opinions and beliefs to be the shallow thoughts of a fantasist.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Of course id not seen him before and of course in some cases you can identify their nationality like the guy on here who made some somalian lads move for a lady so sit down on the bus did any one slag him off for assuming they were somalian!!!!

I apologise if you think I am slagging you off, I was merely asking how you identified him as Somalian. What distinguishes a Somalian from an Ethiopian or Kenyan, for instance? We do have refugees from these neighbours of Somalia so perhaps you were mistaken and he came from one of these.

After taking a deep breath and deciding to read the whole way through this thread, I am pleased to report that, I have been pleasantly surprised by the reasonable and thoughtful views most people have exhibited on this issue.

If someone is going to post on here and come up with a well thought out argument as to why we should treat asylum seekers more harshly I would be delighted to read it and write a thoughtful response, but it seems the only people who espouse this point of view would not know a cogent argument if they fell over one, and I suspect they are not interested in the debate only in simple finger pointing at asylum seekers as to why things in their own life are not better.

I wasnt sayin treat asylam seekers harshly because..... its just as per usual on this forum everything gets taken over board!!!!!

If someone tries to bring an argument down to personal attacks, or just is trying to have an argument for the sake of it just ignore them and the forum would be a happier place.

Yes some asylum seekers have no idea how to behave in a civilised manner, but when you consider the places they grew up it is somewhat understandable - they need education and understanding.

Equally a lot of Sheffield kids have no idea how to behave in a civilised manner, probably for pretty much the same reason - the poor circumstances under which they were raised. (I'm not using poor in the financial sense here before I am accused of being a snob)
and equally these kids need education and understanding.

If you just lump a whole group in together be it asylum seekers or "chavs" you are condeming those people to never being able to improve themselves, because you will always see them as just one of a bad lot.

Originally posted by theflyingfish
You deserve to be told how ignorant, prejudicial and generalised this post is.

And you need to be told how arrogant, pompous and superior you are.

In fact I am probably being unfair to isolate you. This forum is riddled with the like of you of the 'lets get together and demonise the oposition' mentality. Funny how you employ the same tactics as the bnp in that respect mind, they do say that if you go far enough left and far enough to the right the two will meet.

Originally posted by Mo
And you need to be told how arrogant, pompous and superior you are.

In fact I am probably being unfair to isolate you. This forum is riddled with the like of you of the 'lets get together and demonise the oposition' mentality. Funny how you employ the same tactics as the bnp in that respect mind, they do say that if you go far enough left and far enough to the right the two will meet.

So you don't think the phrase Rape is the womans fault in their country isn't ignorant, prejudicial and generalised?

I know we tend to disagree on many things Mo, but surely you wouldn't agree with a sentiment like that.

Originally posted by max
So you don't think the phrase Rape is the womans fault in their country isn't ignorant, prejudicial and generalised?

I know we tend to disagree on many things Mo, but surely you wouldn't agree with a sentiment like that.

If that was what fuzbuz said then I would agree with you Max but he/she didn't say that. As I understood it what fuzbuz said was that attitudes to women in their country of origin is very different to ours here and as such they may behave in a way that was acceptable at home but totally out of place here.
This idea is neither ignorant, prejudiced and gerneralised, it is as it is.

Originally posted by Mo
And you need to be told how arrogant, pompous and superior you are.

In fact I am probably being unfair to isolate you. This forum is riddled with the like of you of the 'lets get together and demonise the oposition' mentality. Funny how you employ the same tactics as the bnp in that respect mind, they do say that if you go far enough left and far enough to the right the two will meet.

Yes I probably am arrogant, pompous and superior. I value the fact that I have the ability to see issues holistically and to not take 'facts' at face value. I have a strong feeling for what is right and what is wrong and I will defend that.

I do not think it is right to demonise a whole section of society on the basis of half-truths, fantasies, media scaremongering, racist and sexist prejudice, especially when they are not present to defend themselves.

When we hear these statements we can either ignore them and allow them to be perpetuated, or stand up to them. If that makes me arrogant, so be it.

Originally posted by Mo
If that was what fuzbuz said then I would agree with you Max but he/she didn't say that. As I understood it what fuzbuz said was that attitudes to women in their country of origin is very different to ours here and as such they may behave in a way that was acceptable at home but totally out of place here.
This idea is neither ignorant, prejudiced and gerneralised, it is as it is.

but he did say exactly that (below). So you do agree with max?

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9. Rape is the womans fault in their country this also scares me.

If that is what he meant then of course I agree with Max. Or did he mean that rape is regarded as the womens fault. Perhaps fuzbuz could clarify his meaning.

Kudos to noseyrosie for putting what seems to have been a contraversial point of view forward, and one that I wholly agree with. To put some historical perspective, the UK has been accepting asylum seekers for a very long time. Not least thousands of French Hugenots in the 16th and 17th centuries, and a vast number of Jews from Germany and nearby territories the the late 1930's.

Both of these seem to me to be a good idea, but they were hugely unpopular at the time. The prevailing opinion in 1937 or 1938 was that there were enough Jews in Britian already, that they were spongers/stealing our jobs (sometimes both arguments intertwined), and that Jews were sub-humans who would rape our women. It is from this population movement, fleeing what is now commonly known to be genuine persecution, that many of the most prominent members of the Jewish community are descended.

I bet they are glad that they settled in Britain, rather than Holland, Belgium or France! I am aware that the situation is different today, but it saddens me greatly to see the same xenophobic arguments deployed.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
but he did say exactly that (below). So you do agree with max?

I would have thought it was obvious (especially to a supreme intellectual like you Phan) that fuzbuz didn't mean that at all.

He meant that in some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman. An accepted fact, I would have thought.

Perhaps fuzbuz could clarify his meaning.

I've been having trouble understanding fuzbuz's posts. I'm not the spelling police, but it is difficult to decipher one long sentance with no commas. The quote highlighted by Phan above could mean either of these things, but both meanings are tasteless.

Anyway what I wan't to know is why some assylum threads are considered OK and allowed to run and the likes of my thread here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6145&highlight=lincolnshire+health+authority) was closed down almost immediately.

Come on Geoff lets have some consistant Modding. Either the topic is off line or it's not.

You have to admit it does seem pretty unambiguous though: I fail to see what else he could mean when he writes

"rape is the womans fault in their country [somalia]"

I suppose he could mean that in Somalia, rape is the fault of the woman; but I think he means that in Somalia, rape is the fault of the woman, i.e the womans fault.

Originally posted by Mo
Anyway what I wan't to know is why some assylum threads are considered OK and allowed to run and the likes of my thread here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6145&highlight=lincolnshire+health+authority) was closed down almost immediately.

Come on Geoff lets have some consistant Modding. Either the topic is off line or it's not.

Your thread was open for 27 hours without a reply, hardly a case of immediately closing a thread.

The reason this thread is running is because it is probably the only one which was opened with a negative light on anti-asylum seekers. It's a matter of balance. As Geoff pointed out when he closed your thread there are plenty of current threads which attempt to paint immigrants in a negative light so there was really no need to start another.

Originally posted by max
Your thread was open for 27 hours without a reply, hardly a case of immediately closing a thread.

The reason this thread is running is because it is probably the only one which was opened with a negative light on anti-asylum seekers. It's a matter of balance. As Geoff pointed out when he closed your thread there are plenty of current threads which attempt to paint immigrants in a negative light so there was really no need to start another.

1. So in future will all threads without replies be closed after 27 hours?

2. As far as I can see this thread has developed in exactly the same way as all other asylum threads ie polarised views in which neither side gives an inch.

3. What was wrong with noseyrosie reintroducing an older thread to add her views? After all we are always been told to use the search button.

4. So this thread is running because it was pro assylum and mine was chopped because it wasn't. Very fair that isn't it? CENSORSHIP pure and simple.

5. The story which I mentioned was relevant to me because it was happening in my community and both news items came out as I remember more or less at the same time.

I just cannot see how you can fairly justify this.

Phan, do you take everything you hear totally literally?

The point that was trying to be made was that rape is in some countries a more acceptable way for men to act, and it is usually the woman who will be looked on more dimly in those countries.

Whether that is actually true or not I am in no position to judge. It seems to be a fairly patronising point of view, ie that people in this country are naturally more civilised than in whatever particular country these people came from.

Originally posted by Mo
1. So in future will all threads without replies be closed after 27 hours?

2. As far as I can see this thread has developed in exactly the same way as all other asylum threads ie polarised views in which neither side gives an inch.

3. What was wrong with noseyrosie reintroducing an older thread to add her views? After all we are always been told to use the search button.

4. So this thread is running because it was pro assylum and mine was chopped because it wasn't. Very fair that isn't it? CENSORSHIP pure and simple.

5. The story which I mentioned was relevant to me because it was happening in my community and both news items came out as I remember more or less at the same time.

I just cannot see how you can fairly justify this.

1. No - Geoff chose to close yours for the reason he gave at the time.
2. True.
3. See my previous post, it was coming at the problem from a completely different perspective.
4. No - see 3.
5. Maybe relevant but certainly not important enough for you to bother adding to an existing thread as suggested at the time.

This is rapidly turning into a non-debate. It has just degenerated into argument about theoretical sexual crimes.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I would have thought it was obvious (especially to a supreme intellectual like you Phan)
:cool:
that fuzbuz didn't mean that at all.

Only a pity he didn't express that himself more clearly, before you felt a need to explain to me what he really meant by it

He meant that in some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman. An accepted fact, I would have thought.

OK class, pay attention: :D

compare and contrast the following sentences -

1.rape is the womans fault in their country [somalia]

and

2. In some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman.

Which one is the ill-informed and vacuous generalisation? Which is the more reasonable, considered and well thought out comment that is undoubtably true. (but hopelessly nebulous in this context)?

Originally posted by oxbeast
This is rapidly turning into a non-debate. It has just degenerated into argument about theoretical sexual crimes.

Oh no it hasn't. That'll be £5 please.

Rite for starters im not a him im female. And yes il clarify what i meant about the "rape" statement. I didnt mean these women asked for it what i meant was if a woman gets raped or assulted and it went to court it would be seen as if she was the guilty one for perhaps "wearing lipstic" or "having a nice dress on" inother words as if she seduced (sorry about spellings here) him. I know its sad and a bad bad way to go about it but its true as our RE teacher at school was indian and she spoke about this as it happens all the time in Eastern places. Iv now realised i phrased it wrong and i understand a little why you all flipped.

Oh no it hasn't. That'll be £5 please.

In the words of Monty Python:
'That's not an argument, thats just contradiction!'

'No it's not.'

And thanks to fuzbuz for clarifying.

As id explained about its acceptable for 14 year olds to have sex and marry older men i just assumed that as it was in the same paragraph it was meant the same asin as they find it acceptable to accuse women of a crime that wasnt there fault. It just puts me about that they may think we live by these nasty ways.

Originally posted by oxbeast
In the words of Monty Python:
'That's not an argument, thats just contradiction!'

'No it's not.'

And thanks to fuzbuz for clarifying.

Ah, explicit Monty Python meets implicit Monty Python.

Well done fuzbuz, thought you'd gone away.:D :thumbsup:

Thanks Max.

Yea i wasnt but as its my last day on any way i dont see why not.


hx

Indeed, max.

Like greenback and mattski a couple of pages back, I'm just a bit dissapointed that discussion of asylum seekers just turns into discussion of sexual crime. I think it reveals some kind of deep seated fear of the 'other'. I'm reminded of the stories in the press about Somalians (or someone, I forget) eating donkeys and swans. The stories were later found to be completely fabricated.

Some foreigners do come here and commit crimes. This is undeniable. But plenty of British people commit crimes as well, and are not treated as a member of a homogenous group. I'm not suggesting that crime-related anecdotes above are untrue, just that they are unrepresentative. For example, women being blamed for rape has happened (and probably continues to) in Britain in cases where no asylum seekers were involved. See the record of Judge Pickles.

<quote>
The Claim

"Losing the war on asylum crime"
Daily Mail, 26 November 2002

The Facts

One of many alarmist headlines implying that all asylum seekers are criminals. A report published by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recently confirmed that there is no evidence for a higher rate of criminality among refugees and asylum seekers. In fact, according to ACPO, having fled danger in their home country, asylum seekers are more likely to become victims of crime in the UK. There have been countless attacks on asylum seekers around Britain, including the murder of an asylum seeker in Glasgow in 2001 and in Sunderland earlier this year. The murder in Glasgow prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to condemn the British media for provoking racial hatred.
</quote>

from http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/myths/myth001.htm

On a lighter note, cheers to the producers of Big Brother including a former asylum seeker. Anything to promote a positive image.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
:cool:

OK class, pay attention: :D

compare and contrast the following sentences -

1.rape is the womans fault in their country [somalia]

and

2. In some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman.

Which one is the ill-informed and vacuous generalisation? Which is the more reasonable, considered and well thought out comment that is undoubtably true. (but hopelessly nebulous in this context)?

What on earth is the point of just reproducing someone elses' post?

Hmmmm probably to get people ranting at me again!!!!

Last day Fuz?? where you going??

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
:
OK class, pay attention: :D

compare and contrast the following sentences -

1.rape is the womans fault in their country [somalia]

and

2. In some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman.

Which one is the ill-informed and vacuous generalisation? Which is the more reasonable, considered and well thought out comment that is undoubtably true. (but hopelessly nebulous in this context)?

Go easy on those mushrooms Phanny

Originally posted by oxbeast
What on earth is the point of just reproducing someone elses' post?

Quite obviously, it was a mistake. I accidentally pressed "enter"

Get a grip, we now know how it was intended to be read..

Originally posted by noseyrosie
The recent asylum seekers exhibition in Sheffield put it perfectly: "We only think about where we are trying to get away from - not where we are going to".

To be fair though, there are many cases of asylum seekers desperate to get to England from countries such as France or Holland. I agree, that there has to be provision for people in genuine danger but why do they not stay in any of the 'safe' countries they pass through before entering England?

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Well nosierosie, i live near firth park and we were walkin home from a working mans club at around 11pm and this somalian lad who know hardly any english at all walked up to my dad who is 5 ft 6 and doesnt look threaterning to any one and pulled out a knife for no apparent reason if it wasnt for my boyfriend being a big hefty bloke i think he would have stabbed him so i told the guy we had not done anything and to leave and he walked of shouting the only aparent english he knew " stupid white bitch"
now would you feel safe letting your children out to that. I know you cant judge by one person but when i walk past the peice gardens and get slimy love songs sung at me rather threaterning its awfull!!!!!!

So you are writing off every asylum seeker in this country based on one experience and an assumption that the person involved was an asylum seeker? That is extremely naive! Following your judgement, we should ban all men too for the amount of sexual crimes they have committed. We should ban beer for the amount of violence that can be associated with it. I was once bottled by someone wearing a cap. Lets ban all people that wear caps. Actually, lets not stop there, lets just ban people, they're all evil!

It is sad, that after numerous discussions on this topic, it seems that people will never budge on their views. I don't think peoples opinions will change until the media starts telling them to. How rarely do we see positive asylum reporting in the tabloids. There are obviously many positive stories that go unnoticed because they aren't printed. Maybe the problem is that, as a society we don't like reading nice stories. We prefer to read things that make us mad.
Maybe i'm just cynical, and lack faith in peoples ability to think for themselves.

Fuzbuz, I would advise you to keep away from all white people too. There have been reports on the news recently of white people being violent!

I think you're all being unfair on fuzbuz :mad:

To have a knife pulled on you must be quite a traumatic experience, and I'm surprisesd at the level of criticism and sarcasm aimed at her.

Well by gum I am impressed (in some ways) by the huge response to this post. Which I started late last night and now has 7 pages within about 20 hours! Got to be some kind of forum record, ey Geoff? ;)

On a more serious note, I am deeply worried about the views of people such as fuzbuz, partially in sympathy for their complete lack of education on the subject. Every post that attempts to clarify/clear up the previous one makes an even more ignorant statement. And I'm sorry if that sounds like a personal attack, but I know that this is a very widely held idea brought about by the media, fuzbuz being the perfect, indoctrinated example.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
I understand what your saying nosierose about them fleeing their country to avoin violence.

Evidently you don't.

However where will we flee to avoid the voilence that is braught to our country its not THAT bad at the minute but in years time when i have children i wont let my kids go in to town on their own or anything. Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9..

God forbid you ever do become a parent...
a)how did you know they were asylum seekers?
b)why did you come to the conclusion that these girls were not their children?
c)which country exactly is 'their' country (you seem to be saying that all asylum seekers come from one country....maybe it's one of these "Eastern places"?
d)I'm sorry, but are you honestly saying that you would rather let you children out in the vicinity of a load of alcohol crazed loons than an asylum seeker? On what grounds? That he might rape them with his voodoo powers?

Sorry if I'm getting a bit offensive myself here, but to be honest, there should be zero tolerance on racism, and maximum education.

A lot of the things I would have said (in general, not just on this post, which is one that particularly got on my tits) have already been iterated by Phan among others, so thanks guys :thumbsup:.

Yes of course white people commit crime, but do you realise that you are more likely to be mugged by a non-white person and that is a fact. Daughter not attacked but asked to part with her phone around Devonshire Green several times.
Do some of you with lefty/social workerish/ teacher type ideas not realise that now even the ordinary working class people who used to accept people from other countries with open arms are now seriously p.ss.d off and will gladly accept extreme parties.
You may not like ithe idea but political correctness has contributed to a lot of this.

Dragon

However where will we flee to avoid the voilence that is braught to our country its not THAT bad at the minute but in years time when i have children i wont let my kids go in to town on their own or anything. Everyday i pass the peice gardens and see large groups of asylam seekers eyeing up every passing woman & girl and i also commonly see 13 and 14 year old girls flocking round these men thinking its cool to be with older men but what these men dont realise is they can have sex with children and marry children in their country and culture but they cant here!!! I would personally feel safer walking through a bunch of rowdy football hooligans at mid night that i would a group of asylam seekers at 9..

...don't forget we'll have Rivers of Blood :roll:

..and I had a knife pulled on me in Nottingham so I now am justified in a deep-rooted mistrust of everybody from Nottingham. You see Nottingham has a crime problem so people from Nottingham think it's OK to go round threatening people.

(Not really, apart from the bit about having a knife pulled on me, but I'm just applying the same logic that seems to be used by some in this topic)

Originally posted by dragonsoup
Yes of course white people commit crime, but do you realise that you are more likely to be mugged by a non-white person and that is a fact. Daughter not attacked but asked to part with her phone around Devonshire Green several times.
Do some of you with lefty/social workerish/ teacher type ideas not realise that now even the ordinary working class people who used to accept people from other countries with open arms are now seriously p.ss.d off and will gladly accept extreme parties.
You may not like ithe idea but political correctness has contributed to a lot of this.


Another generalisation based on limited experience. Funnily enough, i've only ever had trouble with white caucasians. However, i don't think we should kick them all out of the country. Anyway, I digress. Race is not the topic of this thread, asylum is. I suggest that you start another thread if you wish to argue something based purely on race.

Oh, and please don't turn this into a PC debate.

If a newspaper ran the story of an asylum seeker raping a woman, the lefties would instantly accuse the newspaper of trying to create a hatred towards asylum seekers, using propaganda. So why is it different the other way round? The story noseyrosie used didn't even have a link, it was just hearsay. If I came out with a story about how an asylum seeker my mate knows ran around one night mugging old ladies, you'd be right to doubt the story without proof, so the other way around should be no different.

PS. noseyrosie, where is the source for your claim that France takes more asylum seekers than the UK?

Oh, and please don't turn this into a PC debate.?

Ill turn it in to whatever I like, do you own the forum or what? and as for my comment being based on limited experiences as you suggest in your post, youre very wide of the mark.

Dragon

Well observed, no i don't own the forum. I was suggesting that, if you wanted to go off on a tangent, then you'd be better off doing so on a dedicated thread. That way the title will attract people who want to talk about your topic.

I would also suggest that everyone's experience is limited, on the grand scheme of things.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that you are more likely to be mugged by a black person than a white person, but i wouldn't accept that most muggers are asylum seekers.

I don't believe that that fact is due to the mugger's skin colour though. It could be due to other circustances... ie, where they live, social background etc etc.

It works both ways ... for example if you live on the Manor estate then you are more likely to have your kids mowed down by a white-skinned car-thief than a black-skinned one

While being used to sarcastic scousers having met plenty on building sites i.e. not owning the forum etc. ( if you did own it youd have nicked it by removing the wheel nuts)
Can I just ask why any topic is not allowed to stray even slightly, say from asylum, to colour to crime etc. thats what a debate is, no topic can stay on the same narrow track indefinately. Certain people can digress at will as long as it fits in with the views of the loony left which seem to dominate this board.
Just have a look at Fannyrythmes posts for gods sake, is he /she Brainy or what!

Dragon

I'm quite into letting threads degrade into good natured name calling, it's quite good fun.

However, I don't own the site, Geoff does.

The reason that there are so many, as Dragonsoup so eloquently puts it " lefty/social workerish/ teacher type ideas" around on this forum is simple.

The right wing string em up hangem and floggem authoritarians have a much harder time with computers because they are still living in the 19th century.

Simple see?
Lefty=intelligent
Righty=stupid

(mojo - what i mean to say is that *some* right wing people are stupid, and *some* lefties are clever - in case you got the wrong idea :) )

Does anyone remember the early 1070's and a certain dictator called Idi "dadda" Amin, from Uganda? he died recently, and I am sure that there were very few who could manage to shed a tear for him.

I was eight or nine years old, and was totally oblivious, at this time, that someone could be prejudiced against another simply because of his/ her ethnicity/ colour/ religion etc.

An "indian-looking" family, moved into the house across the road from mine. I remember being amazed at the beautiful, colourful saris the women of the family wore.

I got chatting with them, and found out their story.

The family were Ugandan Asians, business people, who, in Uganda, were well-off, and moderately successful.

For reasons known only to Amin himself, he decided to take it upon himself to issue an edict that all ugandans of asian ethnicity had (IIR the timescale C) just 72 hours to get themselves and their families the "heck" out of Uganda,.

They could not take any of their wealth with them, they really had no more time than to throw a few meagre possessions and clothes into a suitcase, and flee.

They and others like them arrrived in the UK with only the few posessions they could carry with them. they were left virtually destitute.

I was aghast at the treatment that Amin had meted out to them. I was incredulous, as I said, that someone could make another suffer such persecution.

I am saddened that scandal rags like The "Stun" cannot use the phrase "asylum Seeker" without automatically adding the qualifier "Bogus". I accept that there are illlegal immigrants who are "economic migrants", but they are not the "flood" that rags like the Stun would have us believe.

these people come to us, genuinely in need, and it is our duty, under the geneva convention (i think), to give them asylum, if they need it.

Most asylum seekers have been fleeced, by "agents" who have "promised" to get them safe-passage to other countries, mostly EU. (Usually having given the "agent" everything of value they posess:- look at the Cubans who tried to get to America, or the Vietnamese boat-people, as examples)

Most asylum Seekers *are* fleeing persecution, in their home countries, whether by reason of civil war (eg Kosovo or Somalia) or religious/ political persecution (eg iraqi Kurds, or the Iito {SP?} people to whom the murdered poet, Ken Saro-Wiwa, belonged, in Nigeria)

We do not realise how lucky we are in the UK. we have freedom of speech, (to a lesser or greater extent ;) ). we can vote whichever way we chose:- we are not presented with just one candidate, and told, "You will vote for *him* or no-one."

there are many of the arguments raised, that hold no water; the AS's are not rich, they are not taking *our" houses or "our " jobs. they only get 70% of teh benefit level that a "native" claimant would be entitled to. Tthe housing they recieve is not normally in the "better" areas, it is usually in "sink" estates. They are not permitted to work, either.

PT

I used to feel a certain amount of compasion for the asylum seekers.... untill I started my job a few years ago with the d.w.p. now after seeing the majority of them for the scrounging micky takers they are my veiws are totaly changed, i'll give credit to the few legitimate cases I have seen but the majority are hear for the "free money"

Originally posted by dragonsoup
While being used to sarcastic scousers having met plenty on building sites i.e. not owning the forum etc. ( if you did own it youd have nicked it by removing the wheel nuts)
Can I just ask why any topic is not allowed to stray even slightly, say from asylum, to colour to crime etc. thats what a debate is, no topic can stay on the same narrow track indefinately. Certain people can digress at will as long as it fits in with the views of the loony left which seem to dominate this board.
Just have a look at Fannyrythmes posts for gods sake, is he /she Brainy or what!


The intelligence of your posts absolutely astounds me dragon (for a change). They always end up with some stereotypical insult. If you could hold a decent discussion then i'd probably take you seriously. However your debates pretty much always degenerate into personal insults. I wasn't being sarcastic, I was offering guidance as you seemed to need it.

If the 'loony left' seem to dominate this board, then I suggest that there are more people sharing that viewpoint. I'd imagine that this board covers a good cross section of society, meaning that you are in a minority. Shame that. I think it's just a case that there happen to be a few people here that can think 'outside the box' so to speak. Some make their opinions based on their own experiences and some people can see past their experience to form opinion.

In the future, can you please make any scouse jokes more original. I have quite an impressive repertoire of scouse jokes and you haven't come up with anything new to me yet. Please feel free to keep trying though.

Anyway, pub time.

There you have it from the mouth of a real intellectual 'Simple see?
Lefty=intelligent
Righty=stupid..........'
From the speed Fannyrythme answers posts and the breathtaking wit and intelligence which comes back, I reckon it is a massive brain in a jar with a cable straight into the back of a p.c. or maybe an arty farty Apple.
Fannyrythme ,the Swiss Tony of the intellectuals.

int 19th century BRILLIANT

Jealous Dragon?

Jealous Dragon?

Of what, or who?

Thought you were off to the pub. No dont tell me you sit in there with yer mates with a laptop (stolen obviously)

if i was at war with a country id not run away to another one and leave women and chldren behind wich a lot of these kosovans seem to do so id add coward to economic migrant

Originally posted by Plain Talker
Does anyone remember the early 1070's and a certain dictator called Idi "dadda" Amin, from Uganda?

Is anyone on the forum that old ? I'll ask my mum.... she's ancient :P

Hmmm.

To anyone actually interested in reading about the subject of asylum seekers rather than off-topic ramblings and personal bickering you could probably do worse than look a this. (If you have read this thread this far!)

Asylum Myths and Reality (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/asylum/0,1084,536799,00.html)

Yes, its a lot of reading so why bother? Everyone 'knows' they are 'right' so why bother with facts, research or 'alternative' opinions to their own.

Oh and before anyone says its a 'leftie' source be sure to provide an equally balanced comprehensive counter example.

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
Hmmm.

To anyone actually interested in reading about the subject of asylum seekers rather than off-topic ramblings and personal bickering you could probably do worse than look a this. (If you have read this thread this far!)

Asylum Myths and Reality (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/asylum/0,1084,536799,00.html)

Yes, its a lot of reading so why bother? Everyone 'knows' they are 'right' so why bother with facts, research or 'alternative' opinions to their own.

Oh and before anyone says its a 'leftie' source be sure to provide an equally balanced comprehensive counter example.

Nomme www.migrationwatch.co.uk
that ones good for facts and figures:D

if i was at war with a country id not run away to another one and leave women and chldren behind wich a lot of these kosovans seem to do so id add coward to economic migrant

:o

There's been some unthinking rubbish spouted on this thread, but for pure stupidity, this takes the biscuit.

Incredible.

Originally posted by Greenback
:o

There's been some unthinking rubbish spouted on this thread, but for pure stupidity, this takes the biscuit.

Incredible.
im entitled to my opinion

Absolutely. And I'm entitled to say your opinion is based on ignorance.

Of what, or who?

Thought you were off to the pub. No dont tell me you sit in there with yer mates with a laptop (stolen obviously)

You don't do yourself any favours, do you? If you're going to use a tired cliche, at least inject some humour into it...

Also dragon, please describe what you mean by "political correctness". Because in my experience, it's usually shorthand for "I hate the fact that it's not polite to express racist views in public any more".

Originally posted by panda79
im entitled to my opinion

Wish I were ! Working for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office I'm not allowed to comment on anything in the thread. Some laws stink :(

Originally posted by Greenback
You don't do yourself any favours, do you? If you're going to use a tired cliche, at least inject some humour into it...

I stopped doing favours for myself a long time ago, how about you?

Also dragon, please describe what you mean by "political correctness". Because in my experience, it's usually shorthand for "I hate the fact that it's not polite to express racist views in public any more".

When you use the " ............" I can actually imagine you sticking your fingers up each side of your head and making the waggling movement , only found in teachers and comedians. As for " Also Dragon please describe etc. etc.. I dont have to do anything that you ask .Arrogant git.

When you use the " ............" I can actually imagine you sticking your fingers up each side of your head and making the waggling movement , only found in teachers and comedians.

Teachers and comedians, eh.. those pinko lefties, they're taking our country DOWN!!!

As for " Also Dragon please describe etc. etc.. I dont have to do anything that you ask .Arrogant git.

It could come across as arrogant, I guess. Sorry if it did. On the other hand, it could come across as asking you to elaborate on your point and engage in debate. But if bad jokes are more your bag, so be it.

I agree with the point you make rosie about national pride... having lived away from England for a while, i am very proud of my country, just not always the people in it. I feel so sorry that the people of England are becoming like the people of America, willing to believe anything that is told to them without them having to do any thinking for themselves.

The image we now give out as a country is of a lot of racist football yobs who have too much money and don't care about anyone else. We have one of the best lifestyles in the world, we are the fourth largest ecconomy, and yet we are so worried about helping people from other countries that are less fortunate.

I have no problem with people taking offence at bogus asylum seekers, but there is a trend now in this country to attack anyone who is different and it is very unhealthy. If one of your relatives was in fear of their lives, would you not take them in and give them shelter food and money if they needed it?

Why, also, are we not worried about the thousands of Americans who come to live here every year? Maybe we should have an investigation into those pesky Austrailians who are coming over here and stealing all our bar-work.

I don't really see how anyone on here, with internet access, can complain about the hardships of their lives... especally when half of the worlds population had never even used a phone, we should be so lucky as to sit here complaining on a web-board.

Hey Rtapper,

So you work for the IND eh? Interesting!

Don't suppose you have anything to do with FLR?

M

noseyrosie

I'm a little confused - was this child abused bceacause he's the son of asylum seekers or because he's black ? Are there no other black kids in his his class ? Is the problem his lack of English ?

Whatever...this sort of thing needs sorting and it won't get sorted unless it's reported to the the head-teacher _and_ the LEA.

I agree completely that something needs to be done; intolerance will always be with us if it is allowed to take root during a child's early education. Sadly in this kind of circumstance (and if the abuse was not condemned by the teaching staff it was tacitly condoned) it falls to the witnesses to the incident to blow the whistle.

Originally posted by dragonsoup
There you have it from the mouth of a real intellectual 'Simple see?
Lefty=intelligent
Righty=stupid..........'
From the speed Fannyrythme answers posts and the breathtaking wit and intelligence which comes back, I reckon it is a massive brain in a jar with a cable straight into the back of a p.c. or maybe an arty farty Apple.
Fannyrythme ,the Swiss Tony of the intellectuals.

int 19th century BRILLIANT

posting on sheffield forum is like making love to a beautiful woman - first you have to stroke and caress an idea until it becomes soft and malleable, then probe it deeply whilst constantly turning it over, until you finally ejaculate your pearls of wisdom onto the thread

:D

(note to self - 2000th post - crack a bottle of Seaview!)

So. Basically I'm sick and tired of all the racist **** that goes on. You all know that. But for T020 to continually say things like this:

The story noseyrosie used didn't even have a link, it was just hearsay.

is also really starting to get on my wick. Are you BLIND man? How many times do I have to tell you that said story was personal experience of my own mother?!

Why should there be a 'link' at all? What reason would I/she have for lying about such an incident?

Judas priest!

Hi Rosie,

Actually, I'd say that the attitude that is expressed towards Asylum Seekers or Economic Migrants is more often one of Xenophobia than racism - irrational fear of the strange and unknown. yes, it often leads to racism, especially when people are either kept ignorant, stay ignorant or do not believe what they are told by the powers that be.

I have to admit that I probably exhibit some xenophobia towards newcomers to this country - I think it's sort of natural for any member of a commnity to experience some fear and concern about the impact on their current life by the newcomers.

You cannot ignore this, and whilst educating people about the issues is vital, it still has to be acceptade that some people do come here as asylum seekers having travelled their way through three or four other democratic nations. That some people come here as economic migrants and WILL have a draining effect on the economy. At the same time, some people will come here who need help, care and protection, and some people will come here willing to work their arses off and put us to shame.

Even within the UK it can take people years to assimilate in to new places - and these are situations where the people are the same colour, religion, race, economic standing, nationality, have the same cultural values and also the same language. It's not common, but it does happen - the twon to country transition, north to south, etc.

To expect assimilation of people who differ in most of these areas to take place painlessly and with open arms by the existing population is to expect a lot. We shouldn't be surprised if we don't get it right.

Joe

(devils advocate time)

Noseyrosie, you are missing T020's point. The experience was your and your mothers personal experience, NOT anyone elses on this forum (probably). So to some it is as much hearsay as if we read about it in the newspapers. So why should we then believe that your arguement about how asylum seekers are treated is any more valid than those presented to us by the newspapers?. Who should the common man or woman believe?. To someone who has had no experience to form an opinion on the matter both sides can seem like propaganda.

As a side note....where did your mother hear it from?. Did she see it personally?.

Does this kind of thing happen to kids born in this country too?. If yes then the story could just be one of kids bullying kids and teachers being useless (hardly unbelievable). If it had never happened to a local kid (which I seriously doubt) THEN the story might be far more telling about the way asylum seekers and their families are treated in this country.

(devils advocate off)

Did you seriously expect everyone to have the same opinion as you?. If you're going to post your feelings you are inviting people to discuss them and possibly disagree with them. Try to hold your disgust in check when they do :) :)

Originally posted by Mattski
Hey Rtapper,

So you work for the IND eh? Interesting!

Don't suppose you have anything to do with FLR?

M

If you're a member of the press .... then the reply is 'no comment' :P

Originally posted by panda79
im entitled to my opinion

No panda you're not, i'd have thought you would have worked that out by now.

Originally posted by Mo
No panda you're not, i'd have thought you would have worked that out by now.

You'd never get a trendy, tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, lefty, do-gooder denying you your right to free speech. That takes a right winger.

Trouble is....asylum is meant to come into effect when a person has to leave his/her homeland because they are in fear of their lives.......they are supposed to seek asylum in the NEAREST AVAILABLE friendly country...............................
not travel accross Europe/the world to England !

Originally posted by deanprez
Trouble is....asylum is meant to come into effect when a person has to leave his/her homeland because they are in fear of their lives.......they are supposed to seek asylum in the NEAREST AVAILABLE friendly country...............................
not travel accross Europe/the world to England !

That promts a different slant onto the asylum seekers debate..

Is it that we are "too soft", or is it that other countries are too harsh. Are we taking more than our "fair share", whilst other countries are not?

If it is such a problem, should those pressuring for an end to the supposed floods of immigrants, rather direct their efforts to pressuring their MEP to take the asylum issue up in the European parliament with a view to pressuring stricter countries to reviewing their policies.

First of all this country has no such thing as a asylum seeker as such,what it does have is economic migrants.
A genuine asylum seeker woul'd seek asylum in the first safe country they come to,they woul'd not contimue their journey to the UK.
The goverment has calculated that about%85 of people who come here are economic migrants,no one is going to blame them for wanting a better life after all it's human nature but at the end of the day we need to face up to the fact that our little island is full up.
The people who need to take responsibility for this state of affairs are the politicians who have burried their heads in the sand for far too long.
And finally the people had the opportunity to change the way the country is in the recent elections and did not do so ,so it's no good moaning about it now.

Originally posted by royjames
First of all this country has no such thing as a asylum seeker as such,what it does have is economic migrants....The goverment has calculated that about%85 of people who come here are economic migrants,no one is going to blame them for wanting a better life after all it's human nature but at the end of the day we need to face up to the fact that our little island is full up.


My best mate's from Glasgow but he moved to Sheffield to get a job. That makes him an economic migrant too. Should we stop people moving from Scotland to England?

We've often relied on people coming from overseas to work in the UK. Many people were recruited from the Yemen for example, to work in Sheffield's steelworks, because there were not enough local workers. London Transport once had a recruitment office in Jamacia because they couldn't get enough bus drivers in London. Our NHS would fall to pieces were it not for doctors and nurses of many nationalities coming to the UK as economic migrants.

Is our country really full? I doubt it.

Originally posted by JimmyNailgun
(devils advocate time)

Noseyrosie, you are missing T020's point. The experience was your and your mothers personal experience, NOT anyone elses on this forum (probably). So to some it is as much hearsay as if we read about it in the newspapers. So why should we then believe that your arguement about how asylum seekers are treated is any more valid than those presented to us by the newspapers?. Who should the common man or woman believe?. To someone who has had no experience to form an opinion on the matter both sides can seem like propaganda.

As a side note....where did your mother hear it from?. Did she see it personally?.

Yes actually, and on Friday an Iranian boy and his friend reported a girl that had attacked them the evening before and kicked them to the ground, etc, to my mum. It's in her line of work, this isn't just media gubbins, as I said, she, or I, have no reason to lie about this kind of thing.

Originally posted by JimmyNailgun
( Does this kind of thing happen to kids born in this country too?.

Sure it does...strange question...kids get abused for all kinds of non-conformist reasons, but this surely doens't make it any more acceptable?

Originally posted by JimmyNailgun
(If yes then the story could just be one of kids bullying kids and teachers being useless (hardly unbelievable). If it had never happened to a local kid (which I seriously doubt) THEN the story might be far more telling about the way asylum seekers and their families are treated in this country.

This is a pretty redundant point (see above) if one kid's getting bullied for being a refugee, and one for being 'ginner' or a 'four eyes', how does that make it any better/worse or more/less telling?

Originally posted by JimmyNailgun

(devils advocate off)

Did you seriously expect everyone to have the same opinion as you?. If you're going to post your feelings you are inviting people to discuss them and possibly disagree with them. Try to hold your disgust in check when they do :) :)

I can be as disgusted by racism/xenophobia as I want. It's disgusting.

Just thought of a slighty new angle on the debate.

Ten years ago, say, (cast your mind back, try to get into an early 90s mindset....but without the big t-shirts and leggings...and don't go around saying 'ACIIIIIIID!') the word 'refugee' uttered in Britain would, generally, have been followed by sympathetic, pitiful 'isn't it terrible what's happening in Rwanda/Bosnia/etc'. These days, the word conjures up 'bloody scroungers, get em out, they're all violent rapists who just come here for the benefits...'. Is this just a product of the media?

This is just my (obviously slightly exaggerated with the examples) outlook on this particular thing. And I have been drinking a bit earlier. :hihi:

i think we do have sympathy for genuine refugees but the sympathy ds not extend to ilegals............. i mean would you want those scruff bags in your street i know i wouldnt

Originally posted by panda79
i think we do have sympathy for genuine refugees but the sympathy ds not extend to ilegals............. i mean would you want those scruff bags in your street i know i wouldnt

If you know where there are illegal immigrants living then it's your responsibility to report them to the authorities. If, however, they are genuine refugees or asylum seekers then they would thank you for your sympathy.

Originally posted by max
If you know where there are illegal immigrants living then it's your responsibility to report them to the authorities. If, however, they are genuine refugees or asylum seekers then they would thank you for your sympathy.
well if i lived in dover id be able to wouldnt i:D

Originally posted by royjames
First of all this country has no such thing as a asylum seeker as such,what it does have is economic migrants.
A genuine asylum seeker woul'd seek asylum in the first safe country they come to,they woul'd not contimue their journey to the UK.
The goverment has calculated that about%85 of people who come here are economic migrants,no one is going to blame them for wanting a better life after all it's human nature but at the end of the day we need to face up to the fact that our little island is full up.
The people who need to take responsibility for this state of affairs are the politicians who have burried their heads in the sand for far too long.
And finally the people had the opportunity to change the way the country is in the recent elections and did not do so ,so it's no good moaning about it now.

So, you are trying to tell us, then, that the people who fled Kosovo, or the friends of mine who fled uganda, and my friend Maggie, who was a Liberian National, who fled to the UK in 1991/2 on the last safe plane out when the civil war there began, were not genuinely in fear for their lives? are you seriously trying to say that all they came here for was the chance to open a corner shop, or something similar?

What pure, unadulterated BILGE you are talking. what TRIPE!

Fleeing for your life from an opressive regime is not being an economic migrant. There is a huge difference. I cannot believe that someone could extrapolate such an absurd hypothesis as yours, "a few people come here as illegal/ economic immigrants to find work and a better standard of living, therefore all immigrants and asylum seekers have come here for the same reason".

No, people are fleeing Kurdistan becausssse they were being killed by nerve-gas attacks.

People fled kosovo and bosnia because of the ethnic cleansing.

My friends fled Uganda because they would have been slain by Idi Amin or his associates had they stayed there.

Maggie would have probably died in Liberia had she remained. (BTW, her brother, who fled at the same time, and who split from her as they were making their escape bid, escaped over the border, directly into Sierra Leone)

Also, sometimes, it is not possible to stop, and claim asylum in the next nearest country, if your courier is transporting you in a container, say, on a lorry. you can't exit until the destination is reached, and the transporter releases you.

I could be unkind, and suggest that you cancel your subscription to The Sun, as it's becoming apparent that it is rotting your brain cell, somewhat, but I won't.

PT

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Yes actually, and on Friday an Iranian boy and his friend reported a girl that had attacked them the evening before and kicked them to the ground, etc, to my mum. It's in her line of work, this isn't just media gubbins, as I said, she, or I, have no reason to lie about this kind of thing.



But you're still missing the point. Why is the story (true or not, but I'll take your word for it that it's 100% true) any more valid than a story used by a newspaper which is also true? This is just the experience of ONE lad, not the majority. I'm not going to believe that all Somalian lads are intensely bullied by whites on the basis of one example any more than you would believe that all asylum seekers are rapists on the basis that some have been criminally convicted of rape. Can't you see what I'm trying to say? Why is your propaganda any better than the Daily Mails? It's all emotionally charged tale telling to try to support a point of view.

I just want to add,to my comments, above:-

if all the billions of people who live on the earth could all fit, comfortably onto an area of land the size of the Isle of Wight; then I do not see a few refugees' arrival at Heathrow airport as any great threat to triggering my claustrophobia off.

PT

Define "comfortably". If all the people in the world were really on the Isle of Wight, they would barely be able to move, definitely not be able to lie down, etc etc. I don't see how a piece of trivia is in any way relevant or useful to the asylum debate.

Originally posted by Andy
My best mate's from Glasgow but he moved to Sheffield to get a job. That makes him an economic migrant too. Should we stop people moving from Scotland to England?


What a dumb thing to say. Scotland and England are both part of the UK - ie the same country. Citizens are free to pass between them.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
as I said, she, or I, have no reason to lie about this kind of thing.


I don't think that line of defence would stand up in court. "I have no reason to lie, your honour".

"Oh, OK then. You have an honest face. Not guilty!" :)

Originally posted by max
You'd never get a trendy, tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, lefty, do-gooder denying you your right to free speech. That takes a right winger.

You know that's not true max. The extreme lefties are just as intolerant of an opposing point of view as are the rabid right wingers

Possibly moreso sometimes. It's like religion - they KNOW they are right, because they couldn't possibly be wrong. ;)

Xenophobia is disgusting...

Xenophobia is surely an instinctive reaction developed over thousands of years of living in a tribal societies, when survival depended on a suspicion and distrust of strangers.

I've been the target of it as an Englishman living in Wales and a Yorkshireman living in Cornwall.

It's perpetuated as much my parental attitudes as it is by the rabble-rousing press.

Yes, xenophobia is disgusting.

But not as disgusting ss intolerance, racism, theft, cruelty, murder, rape - any of the myriad vices to which humans are prone.

Xenophobia, as you said, evolved from a survival trait over thousands of years. You see it in animals today - ants, for example, will send an ant from the same species but of another nest packing, or in extremis kill it. Albino birds and animals are frequently picked on because they're different.

Where we differ from animals is that between stimulus and response we have the chance to think. It's by excercising that ability that we show what sort of people we are.

I would describe myself as slightly xenophobic but tolerant - if someone wishes to come here and make a case for being here, great, I'll listen and tolerate those people provided that they're willing to play the game by the rules the rest of us play by.

I've experienced racism as a white man living in a black neighbourhood and xenophobia as a well spoken 'geeky' kid at school surrounded by people who occasionally had trouble stringing sentences together. It's not at all pleasant and that's why I try to show tolerance. But it works both ways - incomers have to be sensitive to the cultural norms of the place they're entering.

Joe

Originally posted by mojoworking
What a dumb thing to say. Scotland and England are both part of the UK - ie the same country. Citizens are free to pass between them.

Funny how you think what I said was dumb, but you didn't say the claim made earlier (the majority of asylum seekers are here as economic migrants) was dumb. :huh:

The point I was trying to make was that economic migration, in any case, is not always evil. I never denied that people were free to pass between Scotland and England.

Originally posted by Andy
Funny how you think what I said was dumb, but you didn't say the claim made earlier (the majority of asylum seekers are here as economic migrants) was dumb. :huh:

The point I was trying to make was that economic migration, in any case, is not always evil. I never denied that people were free to pass between Scotland and England.

The difference is I have absolutely no idea how many migrants come for economic reasons and how many are fleeing from persecution. I don't think any of us know what the true figures are.

However, what I do know is this: comparing immigration into the UK (illegal or otherwise) with Scots moving to England is simply asinine. You haven't thought this one through, have you? ;)

Originally posted by mojoworking
The difference is I have absolutely no idea how many migrants come for economic reasons and how many are fleeing from persecution. I don't think any of us know what the true figures are.

However, what I do know is this: comparing immigration into the UK (illegal or otherwise) with Scots moving to England is simply asinine. You haven't thought this one through, have you? ;)

I really do not understand why the comparison is not valid, and your closing sentence is one of the most arrogant things I have ever read.

Originally posted by Yodameister
I really do not understand why the comparison is not valid, and your closing sentence is one of the most arrogant things I have ever read.

er, OK mate. If you say so.

You obviously don't read nearly as much as you should, in that case.

Jesus, is that the time... :loopy:

If you have nothing to add other than dismissing someone's arguments without giving any reason for it and thinking that you can just say "well, you obviously don't know what you are talking about" and thing that proves it, yes, I would say that is fairly arrogant.

Originally posted by Yodameister
I really do not understand why the comparison is not valid, and your closing sentence is one of the most arrogant things I have ever read.

I don't understand why the moderators on this forum allow so much personal insult to be posted. :(

Originally posted by Yodameister
If you have nothing to add other than dismissing someone's arguments without giving any reason for it and thinking that you can just say "well, you obviously don't know what you are talking about" and thing that proves it, yes, I would say that is fairly arrogant.

Where is your argument? I haven't heard one yet

Originally posted by Greybeard
I don't understand why the moderators on this forum allow so much personal insult to be posted. :(

MOD: If people report posts as offensive we will do something about it. If we edit posts or move or delete them using our own judgement we get accused of censorship.

Originally posted by Greybeard
I don't understand why the moderators on this forum allow so much personal insult to be posted. :(
Mod: Well if we removed every post that might disagree with someone there would be no Sheffield Forum worth reading. I'm sure that people can fend for themselves and it usually makes for good debate. In extreme circumstances we do remove posts and / or ban offenders.

In the post you cite I don't see anything to even think about taking action for - other moderators may have a different opinion.

3 Mods all at once! its like Mainline Buses ;)

Ive yet to see anyone report a post on this thread, we cant be everywhere hence why the report a post system is in place.

I havent seen anything which warrents an report on this thread yet.

Originally posted by mojoworking

However, what I do know is this: comparing immigration into the UK (illegal or otherwise) with Scots moving to England is simply asinine.

Why?

So noseyrosie your story to us about racism/xenophobia is a 3rd hand account (of a girl beating up two boys no less.....xena eat your heart out!). Probably about the same as if I'd read it in the newspaper. Apart from your belief that everyone should believe you because you have no reason to lie (apart from having a heart rending story to tell to support your disgust), why should I take your word over that of the newspapers if I have never witnessed any such act against an asylum seeker?.

Let me tell it you from another angle. Two iranian boys act like jerks because they have no conception on how to treat women like human beings and then quite justly get their asses kicked. If I were presenting an arguement for the BNP then the same story of an attack AGAINST asylum seekers just became a story about the attack against a white girl by two unholy savages who should never have been let in the country in the first place. After all, in their country of origin they stone women to death don't they?. Even worse, they then cry racism and conspire to blame it on the poor innocent white girl!!. (followed by lots of gasps! and shock horrors!!)

Now, even to the fairly un-xenophobic average brit....which do you think is more likely to be believed?. Which angle is true?. I don't know, I wasn't there. Your 3rd hand account just turned into a 4th hand account and totally changed perspective.

That's propaganda baby!!.

Anyway....how many asylum seekers does each person here plan on inviting over from their country of persecution directly into their very homes?. Not many I take it. Idea seems a bit odd I suppose, having a 12year old kid from somalia,who used to wander round with an AK47, moving into your spare room. How about playing with your kids?, oh s**t whats he gonna do if he doesn't win at football? after all he could have killed people for less in the past!!. Well some people feel like that....not just about their own home, but about their country. If you're not willing to invite asylum seekers directly into your own home, don't automatically villify those that feel equally uncomfortable about it happening in their counties, city's or streets. They're just worried how things are going to turn out, trying to do their best to protect their families and their futures. Educate them, don't throw your disgust in their faces.

Not many people like being called racist, the BNP doesn't call the average brit a racist, calling someone a racist because they are concerned/opposed to immigration is just driving them into the hands of the real racists and making them feel justified about it!!!!

This idea has been suggested on Nick @ Night before, that is, council tenants taking an asylum seeker into their homes in order to give something back to the country. I think this is a splendid idea.

I never said I wouldn't take in a refugee, I think this is also a splendid idea (although it's my mum who owns the rights to the house!), even though, as a homeowner, I would have less obligation to. If our house was big enough (it isn't even big enough for us, however!) then sure, why not?

Glossed over the whole propaganda issue smoothly there, rosie. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
Glossed over the whole propaganda issue smoothly there, rosie. :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm more than fed up of repeating myself. If people think I'm as untrustworthy as the Daily Mail then they can go...well i'll get banned for saying what I was going to say. ;)

So in summary, propaganda is OK so long as it supports your point of view? I see......

Originally posted by max
MOD: If people report posts as offensive we will do something about it. If we edit posts or move or delete them using our own judgement we get accused of censorship.


Sorry Max....my bad. I just read the posting rules again and basically there aren't any, except for the automated removal of certain words.

Other message boards I use generally prohibit personal abuse as it discourages lurkers from taking part.

But of course I'm just an old fogey who sees unbridled rudeness as a hallmark of the chav.

...oh, and if personal abuse were against the rules, removing it wouldn't be censorship...just an application of the rules.:P

Originally posted by noseyrosie
This idea has been suggested on Nick @ Night before, that is, council tenants taking an asylum seeker into their homes in order to give something back to the country. I think this is a splendid idea.

How would a council tenant taking an asylum seeker into their home give something back to the country ?

I Thought the majority of council tenants paid rent, electricity, gas, water, bought their food and clothes etc i.e. paying their way in society.

Whats an asylum seeker given to this country, a fat nothing other than trouble and drain on economy and resources, and dont bleat on saying they are skilled workers or doctors as the vast majority are not.

I might bow out of this thread for a while. If anyone actually read the initial post it said 'if I hear another person saying 'asylum seekers are 'this that and the other' I'll cry. The above post comes under this category. Luckily I'm too preoccupied to be brought to the point of tears, but I'm still saddened.

So do you disagree with mega_montys claim that most asylum seekers are NOT skilled workers?

If I hear one more "tear jerking" tale about how whites are so racist I will cry.

Originally posted by Andy
Why?

You're having a laugh now, aren't you?

It's simple really, Everyone that believes that our country is being overtaken by immigrants, should keep thinking the way they think. I should move out of the country, because my family were immigrants, the same as the Irish immigrants. If you can prove 1000 years worth of your heritage, then you can stay here. After all, all these people that look different to us will obviously rape and kill us eventually. ***** that, i'm scared just thinking about those strangers. The Daily Mail has told me that they will rape my mother. I don't think i should put up with that at all.

it's great to live in this free country. A country that is free to do what the Daily mail says, or the sun. The sun is the same just with breasts. Keep obeying the papers, they obviously lead us in the right direction.

I only hope that one day we all are civilised white people. It scares me what those different coloured people could do to us.

Edit:

Drunken Rant. the above is a little over the top. Although it's the way I feel about the situation, maybe i could have worded it better. oh well, it's not the first time i've let my feelings be known when tipsy.

Originally posted by Andy78
I think this thread should be locked. It's simple really. Everyone that believes that our country is being overtaken by immigrants, should keep thinking the way they think. I should move out of the country, because my family were immigrants, the same as the Irish immigrants. It's really simple. If you can prove 1000 years worth of your heritage, then you can stay here. After all, all these people that look different to us will obviously rape and kill us eventually. ***** that, i'm scared just thinking about those strangers. The Daily Mail has told me that they will rape my mother. I don't think i should put up with that at all.

it's great to live in this free country. A country that is free to do what the Daily mail says, or the sun. The sun is the same just with breasts. Keep obeying the papers, they obviously lead us in the right direction.

I only hope that one day we all are civilised white people. It scares me what those different coloured people could do to us.

Excuse me for saying so, but that type of all-embracing, over-the-top response is the internet equivalent of stamping your foot, taking your bat and ball and going home in a strop.

As far as I can see, nobody here has said any of the things you claim in your post. However, are you suggesting we simply throw open the doors of the country to all-comers? There have to be checks and balances, surely?

Have you ever tried getting in to countries like the USA or Australia? It's hard enough even with all the requisite qualifications. Getting into the UK is easy by comparison

yup I am stomping my foot in a tantrum. Can't help it sometimes. Maybe i'm exaggerating. Maybe i'm just echoing the beliefs of certain people on this thread.

*my stomping isn't aimed at you mojo. As much as we argue, I know you do think deeper than that most of the time*

Actually, I'd probably agree - lock the thread.

With any thread like this, sooner or later it goes off in to the realm of emotional reaction rather than reasoned debate.

We're there right now - and while there's nothing wrong with emotional input in to debate it eventually gets to the point where we're just having the same argument again with different people.



Joe

Originally posted by mega_monty

Whats an asylum seeker given to this country, a fat nothing other than trouble and drain on economy and resources, and dont bleat on saying they are skilled workers or doctors as the vast majority are not.

famous asylum seekers who have given back to the country who gave them safety include:

Andrew Sachs, the fantastic comedy actor (manuel from Fawlty Towers, anybody?) who came to this country in 1938, as a seven-year-old Jewish refugee from Nazi germany.

No-one could deny that he has given us many hours of delight, and laughter at his antics with John Cleese and the rest of the csat of "fawlty Towers"

His brother, also:- Leonard Sachs who used to compere "The Good Old Days" (music hall/ variety show from the 60's and 70's)

What about Albert Einstein? the notable genius and scientist, who gave us the theory of relativity, amongst other things. Another German Jewish refugee who fled the Nazis

Who could not have failed to be moved by the story of Anne Frank? the Jewish girl who hid from the nazis in the secret attic, in Amsterdam.

Her businessman father, Otto, took her, her mother, and sister as refugees to the Netherlands, from Germany, beleiving that they would be safe from the Nazis. Unfortunately, the Nazis invaded Holland, too, and Otto was the only one to survive the concentration camps. He eventually published Anne's diary, a harrowoing and moving account of life under persecution. Her life, although cut short, enriched the lives of millions through her writings.

I realise that the above four examples all stem from the same era, and the same reigime; Jewish people who fled Nazi oppression.

there are more:- The russian dancer, Rudolph Nureyev fled Russia for asylum in the west. his grace and talent in Ballet enriched many lives.

Sigmund Freud, the Psychoanylist, also was a refugee.

Gloria Estefan, the singer... she and her parents were refugees from the regime in Cuba (I think it was Cuba, it might have been Puerto Rico) where her father was a politician who spoke up about injustices. (I seem to remember reading somewhere that her father was shot , and left paraplegic by the regime he fled)

There's Ken Saro Wiwa, whom I have mentioned before, a poet from Nigeria (or kenya) a spokesperson for the Ito people who were a minority, opressed in his country.

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, also is a refugee, banished from his own country by the opresssive occupying forces.

Marlene Deitrich, the actress, from the 1930's and 40's, also was a refugee from germany after speaking out against Naziopression.

Victor Hugo the writer of Les Miserables, was a refugee.

Peter Lorre the actor was , too.

Thabo Mbeke, the african leader, in more recent times is, also a refugee.

the Von trapp family... they escaped from the Nazis.

so, you see, there are many many people who were refugees who contributed so much to society, just a few of whom are listed above.

so, any one else care to explain how refugees in their entirety have nothing to contribute to the society which takes them in?

PT

Originally posted by t020
So do you disagree with mega_montys claim that most asylum seekers are NOT skilled workers?


Disagree or not here is a link to The National Organisation for Adult Learning's website. It's a report on research into just this subject. A snippet from here reveals:

....researcher Fiona Aldridge and Development Officer Sue Waddington discovered that 85% of the asylum seekers held qualifications, from school certificates to higher and professional qualifications and 80% had been in employed in a variety of jobs including the professions, skilled manual trades, business and the service industries.
85% spoke more than one language and many had taken part in voluntary work.

For full details:
Dispelling the myth (http://www.newvision.org.uk/dispelling.htm)

Originally posted by Plain Talker

there are more:- The russian dancer, Rudolph Nureyev fled Russia for asylum in the west. his grace and talent in Ballet enriched many lives.

PT

You can hardly count Nureyev. The only thing he was running away from was the inability to make a lot of money in his home country. No other country promotes the arts - and especially ballet - like Russia, so he had everything given to him on a plate and was treated like royalty at home. Nureyev defected for no other reason but greed. He made millions in the West performing down-market dance productions and appearing in tawdry films.

How would a council tenant taking an asylum seeker into their home give something back to the country ?

I Thought the majority of council tenants paid rent, electricity, gas, water, bought their food and clothes etc i.e. paying their way in society.

Whats an asylum seeker given to this country, a fat nothing other than trouble and drain on economy and resources, and dont bleat on saying they are skilled workers or doctors as the vast majority are not.

It's been covered earlier in the thread that asylum seekers receive far, far less money than is popularly perceived, and that they're not entitled to welfare benefits.

Still, to combat the argument, isn't it about time the government allowed those who are having their applications processed to pay their own way? It would not only enable them to put something back into the economy, but also mean that those gangsters employing immigrants illegally (like the cockle-pickers) would have a tougher time of things.

equally a lot of asylum seekers find alternative ways of making a living - not just now but have always had. You need only look back in history to see that.

Originally posted by max
Disagree or not here is a link to The National Organisation for Adult Learning's website. It's a report on research into just this subject. A snippet from here reveals:



For full details:
Dispelling the myth (http://www.newvision.org.uk/dispelling.htm)

But is that 85% of legal asylum seekers or 85% of *all* asylum seekers?

Originally posted by t020
But is that 85% of legal asylum seekers or 85% of *all* asylum seekers?

Do I have to read the article for you? Could you not have read it yourself and found the following:

All 440 Leicester-based asylum seekers were invited to complete a basic questionnaire

Note the word all, it's a bit of a giveaway.

Sheesh, modern education, can't even be bothered to read the supplied text.

Well with a sample size of 440, this is a very comprehensive study. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
Well with a sample size of 440, this is a very comprehensive study. :rolleyes:

It's difficult to have a larger sample than 100% :roll:

But the UK takes in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers every year - to assume that 85% of these are skilled and trained not only overlooks differing languages and working practices, but also uses a study of 440, which can't simply be applied to the whole asylum intake IMO.

Originally posted by t020
But the UK takes in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers every year - to assume that 85% of these are skilled and trained not only overlooks differing languages and working practices, but also uses a study of 440, which can't simply be applied to the whole asylum intake IMO.

I give in. You complain when someone makes an assertion without backing it up and when the proof is given you still won't accept it.

What a marvellous way of debating things. :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by t020
But the UK takes in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers every year.

Hmm, is that Tory lies or have you been reading the Sun t020? Go and check the facts before posting untruths. :loopy:

61,050 applications in 2003.

reduced from... wait for it... drum rollllllllllll...

103,100 in 2002!!


Oh yes... and that figure includes dependants (children, spouses, family etc) not just the applicants.

The Home Office also report a 23% rise in failed applicants removed from the UK.

Here is a good website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/destination_uk/default.stm) that will help to allay some of your irrational fears. :thumbsup:

Well, even at 61,050 the 440 Leicester asylum seekers make up 0.72% of the total. The hundreds of thousands I mentioned was a rough estimate (some of us don't have the time to trawl Google 24/7). So, 85% of 0.72% of asylum seekers are "skilled" workers. 440 is just not a large enough sample to assume that 85% applies to ALL asylum seekers. And even if they are skilled, those skills will have been gained in a foreign country where standards and practices will vary, and they might not even be able to speak English.

Originally posted by t020
Well, even at 61,050 the 440 Leicester asylum seekers make up 0.72% of the total. The hundreds of thousands I mentioned was a rough estimate (some of us don't have the time to trawl Google 24/7). So, 85% of 0.72% of asylum seekers are "skilled" workers. 440 is just not a large enough sample to assume that 85% applies to ALL asylum seekers. And even if they are skilled, those skills will have been gained in a foreign country where standards and practices will vary, and they might not even be able to speak English.

I'll give you one thing, you're a jolly determined halfwit. Even if you can't use Google properly, you could easily find what you need to support your assertions. If your assertions were even faintly reflective of reality, that is.

I'll grant you that .72% does not a statistically significant sample make, unless that is a broad sample accross 100% of the total intake.

Especially when you consider that out of the 440 asylum seekers in the survey, only 121 returned the questionnaire.

It's a snapshot, and the survey calls for and gets a good reaction from other local NGOs to conduct their own, thereby building up a better picture of what is going on nationwide.

Originally posted by Tony
Hmm, is that Tory lies or have you been reading the Sun t020? Go and check the facts before posting untruths. :loopy:

61,050 applications in 2003.

reduced from... wait for it... drum rollllllllllll...

103,100 in 2002!!


Oh yes... and that figure includes dependants (children, spouses, family etc) not just the applicants.

The Home Office also report a 23% rise in failed applicants removed from the UK.

Here is a good website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/destination_uk/default.stm) that will help to allay some of your irrational fears. :thumbsup:

awww, come on, surely you cannot expect to spoil a good story with the facts....?

you will dissapoint T20, dreadfullly, on that one!

PT

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick to bloody death of these scrounging arrogant sods invading our country!
Why can't the Liberal minded idiots who are letting them into Sheffield/Leeds and the UK see that Britain is quickly turning into a slum in certain areas because of these people! Taxes are going up because of them and people have just about had enough of getting crapped on! No more money for hospitals, OAP's getting left out (apart from the odd extra quid here and there for the heating blah blah...) and police under-staffed due to funding but there seems to be a bottomless pit from where the cash comes from for the scroungers who come here!
The council seems to think if they put them in decent area's, they will blend in and become at ease there... but the opposite happens. They bring the area down! All you have to do is look around at area's such as Pitsmoor, Darnall, Firth Park etc.
Pitsmoor used to be a beautiful place to live, beautiful houses, clean and a joy to walk through.
Try walking through there at night now and you will be bombarded with the dregs of society trying to sell you crack cocaine/heroin.... and before you start, yeah, i know their not all asylum seekers who are doing this!

Its bad now, its only going to get worse... trust me!
The huge majority of Asylum seekers don't offer this country
anything!

Freedom of speech is going through the window because of them too! If any politician speaks against them, their struck off and made to look like racists! Its pathetic!
:loopy:

Originally posted by Plain Talker
awww, come on, surely you cannot expect to spoil a good story with the facts....?

you will dissapoint T20, dreadfullly, on that one!

PT

What facts? The fact that a survey of 0.72% of the 2003 intake of asylum seekers shows that 85% have skills? Wow, what a fact that is. And please, its t020. Also learn to spell "disappoint".

i am sorry, T20, did I dissapoint you with my spelling ? hmm?

I don't know, (shakes her head in shame and woe at the heinous and capital crime she has apparently committed) it must have been so bad that my point must have been totally unintelligible to you, no?

It must be dreadfully hard to be completely unable to comprehend a comment because of a missing "p" or a superfluous "S" in the word disappoint. (ooh, I am slacking; it is spelt correctly there!)

I do not mix up there, their and there... I do not often place an apostrophe in an inappropriate place... If I do make a mistake, it is usually a slip of the finger, an inconsequential transposition of letters, a minor typo. the comment is still lucid, and makes sense, despite the typo. or the occasional omission of a punctuation mark at the end of the paraggraph, or a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence or on a proper noun. It neither adds nor detracts from the sense of the point I am making.

(The light bulb of realisation suddenly appears above PT's head!!)

Maybe *that's* what is wrong with the asylum seekers!
(PT illuminates self, with a bright and cheery, children's tv presenter-type, fixed grin)

Lets send them all back to "Fuzzy Wuzzy Land", until they obtain a good grounding in the Queen's English, spoken and written, and tell them that they must stay living in that oppressive regime until such time as they can conduct themselves as proper english gentlemen, (including the females of the species) and are deemed fit to purchase a property on a nice suburban estate in Sheffield eleven

What say you, t20? or would that diSSaPoint you also?

(sarcasm ends)

and btw, we aren't discussing the finer points of grammar here, despite my response to your hijack.... we are discussing refugees and asylum seekers, and the reasons why we should give them "succour" and a haven for the short time they are to be among us.

you will notice, the people of Kosovo, to whom we gave our hospitality after the balkans conflict, and the ethnic cleansing there, have made their ways home, now that their home lands are safer. so it is only for a time, we are not being swamped or overrun by them...

PT

The point about your bad spelling wasn't the only point I made in that post.

PT you're brilliant. I've just had a lightbulb moment too. t020 is an opionated bigot. He suffers from the worst sort of bigotry in that when presented with a valid argument he stoops to criticism of someone's ability to spell. Phanny, you do him a disservice, he's not a halfwit, he is a barely witted person.

Originally posted by Space
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick to bloody death of these scrounging arrogant sods invading our country!
Why can't the Liberal minded idiots who are letting them into Sheffield/Leeds and the UK see that Britain is quickly turning into a slum in certain areas because of these people! Taxes are going up because of them and people have just about had enough of getting crapped on! No more money for hospitals, OAP's getting left out (apart from the odd extra quid here and there for the heating blah blah...) and police under-staffed due to funding but there seems to be a bottomless pit from where the cash comes from for the scroungers who come here!
The council seems to think if they put them in decent area's, they will blend in and become at ease there... but the opposite happens. They bring the area down! All you have to do is look around at area's such as Pitsmoor, Darnall, Firth Park etc.
Pitsmoor used to be a beautiful place to live, beautiful houses, clean and a joy to walk through.
Try walking through there at night now and you will be bombarded with the dregs of society trying to sell you crack cocaine/heroin.... and before you start, yeah, i know their not all asylum seekers who are doing this!

Its bad now, its only going to get worse... trust me!
The huge majority of Asylum seekers don't offer this country
anything!

Freedom of speech is going through the window because of them too! If any politician speaks against them, their struck off and made to look like racists! Its pathetic!
:loopy:

"not sure whether to prescribe therapy or olanzapine in this case"

"looks terminal"

"i agree - probably for the best"

if drugs worry you, dont buy any. I literally cannot live without mine.

Since when were politicians struck off? Perhaps you are confusing them with your doctors.

How do you make someone look like a racist? Make them wear a big hat with the legend "RACIST" written on it in sparkly lettering?

Taxes are going up because the govt needs money to pay for more expensive things than asylum seekers; like foreign wars and a nuclear deterrent. Asylum seekers are cheap, and then we can employ them for 50p an hour picking fruit. No minimum wage namby pambyness here, just a fair going rate for slave labour.

We could all live the life of riley with these poor saps working for a roof over their head and a bowl of dumpling.

Just think we could all afford to emigrate to some nice sunny spot like Croatia, or maybe Egypt or even Ethiopia, whilst our slaves did the job of creating wealth in our economy. We would only need to work 3 days a week in executive positions, and have big houses, whilst we filled tenements with eygptians, somalians, kosovars, afghans and kurds - tenements nice and close to the industrial ghettoes.

Asylum seekers - a Wasted Resource!

I'll have my tincture now please nurse.

Originally posted by max
PT you're brilliant. I've just had a lightbulb moment too. t020 is an opionated bigot. He suffers from the worst sort of bigotry in that when presented with a valid argument he stoops to criticism of someone's ability to spell. Phanny, you do him a disservice, he's not a halfwit, he is a barely witted person.

Just because I discredited your "facts"....

PS. Are moderators really supposed to behave like this? What happened to setting an example?

Originally posted by t020
Just because I discredited your "facts"....

PS. Are moderators really supposed to behave like this? What happened to setting an example?

t020 you did not discredit my facts, you ignored them. The fact that I'm a mod does not have anything to do with my personal opinions. You are a barely witted bigot.

Originally posted by max
t020 you did not discredit my facts, you ignored them. The fact that I'm a mod does not have anything to do with my personal opinions. You are a barely witted bigot.

I didn't ignore your facts, I revealed that 440 was only 0.72% of the total 2003 asylum intake for the UK, so hardly a reliable or comprehensive basis from which to provide facts. As for your personal insults, I'm pretty sure that someone in your position should not be resorting to them.

Infact this really annoys me. I have this "nasty" reputation but here is an example of what really happens. I have an opposing opinion and argue my case, and since my viewpoint differs from the powers that be I suffer a torrent of personal abuse. Do I resort in throwing personal insults back? VERY VERY rarely, yet I'm expected to take all this s*** just for daring to differ in opinion.

Ho ho ho...T020 baiting...it could become a new blood sport.

thank you, Phan and Max, you have saved me some time, as your latest posts (in particular) have covered pretty much what I was going to add. and, yes, i am in complete agreement with you, max, in certain quarters, some, definitely, have to have upward aspirations, in order to achieve halfwit status.

(PT goes back over her spelling, in case t20 is reading, and then decides that she doesn't really give a monkey's, actually, and ceases to do so)

PT

I fail to see how I've lost this debate. Resorting to personal insults (and from a mod too) shows that max knows his "facts" are based on a flawed study and his frustration shows clearly.

Why is there a need to stoop to name calling just because people dare to have differing opinions?

just to add,

t20, do you know who you remind me of?

have you ever read Sue Townsend's hilarious book, the secret diary of Adrian Mole, aged 13 & 3/4...?

you *so* remind me of Adrian Mole.

He was so "up himself", too, are you sure that you are not him, masquerading as a teenager from an estate in sheffield 11?

have you written an indignant letter, on the subject of "The paucity of grammatical education" to the Prime Minister, yet?

love, "Pandora plain-talker"

Ooh yet more petty, personal insults. Say what you like about me but I refuse to stoop to your low standards.

Originally posted by t020
I didn't ignore your facts, I revealed that 440 was only 0.72% of the total 2003 asylum intake for the UK, so hardly a reliable or comprehensive basis from which to provide facts. As for your personal insults, I'm pretty sure that someone in your position should not be resorting to them.

Infact this really annoys me. I have this "nasty" reputation but here is an example of what really happens. I have an opposing opinion and argue my case, and since my viewpoint differs from the powers that be I suffer a torrent of personal abuse. Do I resort in throwing personal insults back? VERY VERY rarely, yet I'm expected to take all this s*** just for daring to differ in opinion.


No t020, you ignored MY facts - it's got nothing to do with your wonky opinion.

You said...Originally posted by t020
But the UK takes in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers every year. That is untrue nonsense, as I demonstrated.

The problem is that you choose which half-truths to believe, then make up a few lies to support your bigotry (I've not used that word for ages ;))

So I ask you again, was your statement Tory lies or are you just incapable of using the truth in your arguments?

When you've answered that one (or eaten your words) we can get on to the facts of how immigrants contribute significantly more to the UK economy than they take out.

By the way..'infact' is in fact two separate words. Use your spellchecker before criticising others.


Tony, setting an example to others.

As I explained, the hundreds of thousands was a rough estimate since I don't have the time or inclination to trawl Google all day. Either way, 61,050 is a large number compared with a study of 440, and you yourself conceded this was too small a sample on which to base any concrete fact. FYI I did NOT ignore your fact - I accepted it, but it doesn't make any difference to the point I was making that 85% from a sample of 440 cannot simply be projected on to a population total of 61,050.

Thank you for pointing out my incorrect use of "infact". Unlike some, I welcome the chance to improve my writing skills so thank you for pointing out my error.

Ok, so here's my review of the article from said website, in light of the arguments. I'm going to try and be objective using my (only A-level Sociology based, mind) knowledge in the area.

Firstly:

All 440 Leicester-based asylum seekers were invited to complete a basic questionnaire about their education, qualifications and previous work experience.

This report was carried out solely in Leicester. So we shall presume that it wasn't meant to be a reflection of the whole country. It also makes it pretty explicit that this is a *pilot* study, and therefore as it was successful will be reproduced nationwide:

This research has demonstrated the wealth of untapped talent amongst asylum seekers in Leicester. We are pleased that it has encouraged others to undertake similar audits in different parts of the country.

Secondly:

As there is no example of the questionnaire sent out, we cannot rate the validity of the results, as the questions may have been 'loaded', or the situation that it was carried out in, or language barrier, may have affected the results.

Thirdly:

In-depth interviews were then carried out with over 70 of the respondents from 21 different countries, who were selected at random.

What we can get from this research, hopefully, is that in Leicester (which, I would say, is an average UK city, so therefore is quite typical), is that a representative sample (indicated by the use of a random sample, though whether this is stratified to produce a more representative sample is not stated) of asylum seekers has been surveyed, and given some insight into the area. You may say that only a very small percentage of the total number of refugees have been shown in this survey, but with a number as large as 61, 050, the sample size is respectable (especially for a pilot study), depending on funds, and the response rate is average.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Ok, so here's my review of the article from said website, in light of the arguments. I'm going to try and be objective using my (only A-level Sociology based, mind) knowledge in the area.
Secondly:

As there is no example of the questionnaire sent out, we cannot rate the validity of the results, as the questions may have been 'loaded', or the situation that it was carried out in, or language barrier, may have affected the results.



you can get the whole report here (http://www.niace.org.uk/projects/Asylum/Asylumreport.pdf)

No i can't, the link doesn't work ;)

the link is in the article quoted, not hard to find

t20, you will find that most polls that sample opinions etc (as in Market research, or the poll that determines the number of people who tuned in to a particular tv programme, for example) do not interview ever single consumer or tv viewer.

they take a representative sample of consumers/ viewers, who cover a broad range of social strata, or opinions. the same works for the national bureau of statistics.

their habits /opinions are then calculated, and extrapolated to give a representation of a societal x-section.

that seems to have been what was done with the 440 people polled at the leicestershire centre, of whom a hundred and twenty-odd responded.

where I work, we have polled the service users, and have had approx a 25% response to the poll.

from that, we have ascertained that, of the cross-section that responded, overall, the customers are saatisfied with the service our charity provides. only 7% were unhappy with any aspect of the service.

just because 100% response was not recieved, it does not mean the whole shebang needs to be scrapped or ignored.

edited to add- ooh, a simulpost! well nearly!

PT

Ooh I wrote about the woman who did this survey in my Sociology exam...

Originally posted by Plain Talker
efited to add- ooh, a simulpost!

PT

If you mean me - aren't we clever with our knowing stuff...!

Don't you think it's pathetic to gang up on someone simply because you don't agree with his point of view? I've seen it happen time and time again on the forum and it's not a pretty sight.

I'm sure many other forum members must hesitate to express their opinions after seeing the feeding frenzy of petty spite and nastiness that greets most of t020 contributions.

It's to his credit that he refuses to be put off by the constant barrage of s**t that comes his way (most of it undeserved, in my opinion).

In many cases, it seems that expressing an opinion on the forum is simply not worth the grief you'll receive in return.

Let's not forget the small matter of a net positive contribution to the UK economy from immigrants.

It seems that the asylum seeker bigots have nowhere to go except the Daily Mail lies.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Don't you think it's pathetic to gang up on someone simply because you don't agree with his point of view? I've seen it happen time and time again on the forum and it's not a pretty sight.

I'm sure many other forum members must hesitate to express their opinions after seeing the feeding frenzy of petty spite and nastiness that greets most of t020 contributions.

It's to his credit that he refuses to be put off by the constant barrage of s**t that comes his way (most of it undeserved, in my opinion).

In many cases, it seems that expressing an opinion on the forum is simply not worth the grief you'll receive in return.

Come on mojo, shall we not worry about the facts?

PT, I know how sampling works. I also know that 0.72% is a very small sample, and I would also question how randomly selected this sample was. I would also argue that the asylum seekers taking part may feel the need to exaggerate their skills. Having said that, even if 85% applied to all asylum seekers coming into the UK (which I highly doubt), what % would be in skills that we have shortages in? How transferable would the skills be? How proficient was their English? I ask this because nearly all skills require communication at some stage and different qualifications in different countries may not be instantly transferable.

Originally posted by mojoworking

In many cases, it seems that expressing an opinion on the forum is simply not worth the grief you'll receive in return.

Unfortunately this is becoming increasingly true.

Facts man, facts! Opinion is fine until there are facts.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
If you mean me - aren't we clever with our knowing stuff...!
i know, and we can read and write ;) too
shock horrors.

let's hope we cannot form our own opinions ;) , or we'd *really* be dangerous.

and stuff... (chortles)


PT

Just printed off the study to help with my sociology coursework on a similar topic. Either this or 'Does class affect religiosity?', what do we think?

May I refer you, T020, back to my post which said that yes, 0.72% is a small sample, but not for a pilot study, which this appears to be, in many respects. The validity of the research has also gone up in my mind, because the researchers are very highly esteemed social researchers. Just search for 'Fiona Aldridge' on Amazon. Lots of books.

Originally posted by Tony


Come on mojo, shall we not worry about the facts?

Factually correct or not, no one deserves to be publicly vilified in this way. It's this kind of thing that prompts smart-arse newcomers to get excessively abusive, as happened last week. They see the mods doing it, so they think that gives them the green light

Originally posted by mojoworking
Don't you think it's pathetic to gang up on someone simply because you don't agree with his point of view? I've seen it happen time and time again on the forum and it's not a pretty sight.

I'm sure many other forum members must hesitate to express their opinions after seeing the feeding frenzy of petty spite and nastiness that greets most of t020 contributions.

It's to his credit that he refuses to be put off by the constant barrage of s**t that comes his way (most of it undeserved, in my opinion).

In many cases, it seems that expressing an opinion on the forum is simply not worth the grief you'll receive in return.

gang up on someone?

great, just what we need - a prefect :)

t020 actively courts it, and has been doing so for years.

you're forgetting (perhaps) that this is one of the purposes of a forum, imo, that we can test our ideas. a little personalisation helps engender a response.

its not like anyone is actually hitting him or harming him.

Is it always t020 that gets toasted the most?Sure he posts inflammatory or controversial stuff quite legitimately to stoke a debate.

Thing is most of these posts have referred back to the main article quoted by max earlier.

And out of those 440 asylum seekers, only 121 (i think from memory) actually returned the questionnaire. So it is much more of a point sample than originally implied I think.

What that study does definitely establish is that of a mixed bunch of asylum seekers, about 90 of them had 'proper' jobs before they arrived in the UK.

Impossible to say whether that is representative of the national picture - I find it hard to believe that it could be.

You see, we are slowly approaching some truths here :D

Point taken mojo, but let's be honest, there are no other members that attract such attention - and it's hardly Mods ganging up on him - it's consistant across the board ;)

Maybe (virtually) everyone else is right and t020 is wrong?

Originally posted by Tony
61,050 applications in 2003.

reduced from... wait for it... drum rollllllllllll...

103,100 in 2002!!


Oh yes... and that figure includes dependants (children, spouses, family etc) not just the applicants.

The Home Office also report a 23% rise in failed applicants removed from the UK.


How do you know that these figures are actually reliable and are not fudged by the government to cover up their own blundering incompetence made to the imagration system, as rusult of public outcry.

I for one dont trust Tony Blair or his government, and therefore dont take any facts or figures as gospel.

Originally posted by Tony
Point taken mojo, but let's be honest, there are no other members that attract such attention - and it's hardly Mods ganging up on him - it's consistant across the board ;)

Maybe (virtually) everyone else is right and t020 is wrong?

nope

t020 is right (does he take sugar :( ) in questioning the validity of the report being used to support the nebulous assertion that asylum seekers are predominantly professionals.

The study does not refute the assertion
Whats an asylum seeker given to this country, a fat nothing other than trouble and drain on economy and resources, and dont bleat on saying they are skilled workers or doctors as the vast majority are not.


at all, in the least, one iota.

*Sigh* Pilot study *Sigh*








Off to bed :yawn:

But Phan, I was making a general post about t020's posting behaviour (and the response)

As for the report and the debate, the assertion is not that all AS are doctors, etc, but that they are generally normal people with extraordinary domestic problems, rather than benefit-cheating dole-scum rapists.

I wouldn't dispute for a second that there are plenty of economic migrants amongst them, but the hysteria around them is ridiculous and demeaning of a nation as successful and generous as Britain.

If we are being honest, we should be ashamed that we cherry pick the professionals from the immigrants whilst what we really need are labourers, brick layers, factory workers, etc, etc, whom we 'send back to where they came from' for political reasons.


I bet t020 is loving the attention!

t 20,

if you know how sampling works, then you will know that you cannot possibly sample a full 100%, you have to work with the results you obtain, having got the best x-section as you can to work with.

and to have answered the questions, they must have had some fluency, and/or understanding of english.

my Uncle, who came to Britain as something of a refugee from pakistan, at the time of what was civil war in india and pakistan (1947, partition of india an dPakistan)was very learned, he wa a doctor, a surgeon, but he was reduced to working in the steel works in the east end.

No one could say *he* was an economic migrant, as his standard of living dropped dramatically, and his housing was drastically differend, a huge house in Karachi, with servants, to a slum terrace in the east end

PT

Originally posted by Tony
But Phan, I was making a general post about t020's posting behaviour (and the response)

As for the report and the debate, the assertion is not that all AS are doctors, etc, but that they are generally normal people with extraordinary domestic problems, rather than benefit-cheating dole-scum rapists.

I wouldn't dispute for a second that there are plenty of economic migrants amongst them, but the hysteria around them is ridiculous and demeaning of a nation as successful and generous as Britain.

If we are being honest, we should be ashamed that we cherry pick the professionals from the immigrants whilst what we really need are labourers, brick layers, factory workers, etc, etc, whom we 'send back to where they came from' for political reasons.


I bet t020 is loving the attention!

the story so far.....
13 pages of discussion on AS myth/reality and then megamonty says
Whats an asylum seeker given to this country, a fat nothing other than trouble and drain on economy and resources, and dont bleat on saying they are skilled workers or doctors as the vast majority are not.


t020 puts it to max who comes back with a pilot study.

from then on t020 ineptly tries to refute it as a valid source from which further conclusions can be drawn, others weigh in for or against.

I stand up and shout
out of 440 AS approached, there were only 121 respondents, largely from Iraq, Zimbabwe and Iran - which is actually a survey of 27.5% of the AS in Leicester. The countries mentioned are noted for their emigrating professional classes (farmers, office workers, admisitrators etc) caused by current and ongoing 'situations'.)

This is a study, this only tells us about the people being interviewed - and nothing about the rest of the country - so no extrapolations can be made


no one notices that I am haranguing t020 for missing a golden opportunity to make some reading pay, and everyone else for pointing at the figures reproduced by max to allay t020's fears (rebut his arguments)

reproduced from report by max 85% of the asylum seekers held qualifications, from school certificates to higher and professional qualifications and 80% had been in employed in a variety of jobs including the professions, skilled manual trades, business and the service industries.
85% spoke more than one language and many had taken part in voluntary work.

mojo - if you think this is personal abuse you should read some of the PMs I get lol - this counts as the normal cut and thrust IMO

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

mojo - if you think this is personal abuse you should read some of the PMs I get lol - this counts as the normal cut and thrust IMO

But it's not the normal cut and thrust, is it? It's simply a gang of members queuing up to abuse another member.

I don't see that happening to you or anyone else (unless you'd like to share your PMs with us?) :)

We all get abuse from time to time. Even from you mojo. And more so from dragonsoup. He likes to forget all about the topic involved and start insulting people at a playground level. He often likes to belittle my place of origin, trying to point out that I'm obviously dole scum and steal cars for a living. Luckily such insults don't upset me. After all this is just an internet forum, and we aren't really hurt by such comments. Are we?

Originally posted by Andy78
We all get abuse from time to time. Even from you mojo. And more so from dragonsoup. He likes to forget all about the topic involved and start insulting people at a playground level. He often likes to belittle my place of origin, trying to point out that I'm obviously dole scum and steal cars for a living. Luckily such insults don't upset me. After all this is just an internet forum, and we aren't really hurt by such comments. Are we?

Point taken. There's nothing wrong with lively debate and the odd good-natured jibe, but how would you feel if a bunch of dragonsoup's mates joined in and started systematically abusing you after he'd started the ball rolling? Despite what you say, I suspect you'd feel a little persecuted.

I may not agree with t020's politics, but I don't like to see such a one-sided contest. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I apologise whole heartedly for my abusive post against t020. It was late at night and t020's inability to see past his bigotry and concede that not all is as The Mail says caused me to lose it briefly. That does not, however, justify my response, blame the Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc if you wish.

Mojoworking, no-one is ganging up on anyone. There are 2 sides to this debate, it seems to me, but unfortunately only one side appears able to substantiate their position with studies, pilots or academic papers the other side relying instead on apocryphal stories, entrenched bigotry and spurious "facts" gleaned from the more rabid press.

All I have to say on the matter is I can't see how anyone can pretend those figures represent the overall picture. Just over 25% of the official asylum seekers alleged to be living in Leicester bothered to reply for reasons best known to themselves, and I do not recall the originator of that statistic mentioning the fact that only 121 people replied... Hmmm… Any reason the original quote did not contain that little snippit of information? I guess it would not have been much of a defence if it was complete.
As for T020, he might get peoples backs up but I have to say, his points often get ignored in favour of attacking his character...

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
All I have to say on the matter is I can't see how anyone can pretend those figures represent the overall picture. Just over 25% of the official asylum seekers alleged to be living in Leicester bothered to reply for reasons best known to themselves, and I do not recall the originator of that statistic mentioning the fact that only 121 people replied...

I'm pretty sure that 25% is around the average in terms of survey response. Not being "bothered" to reply is hardly a useful tool to beat asylum seekers with when this country's electorate can't be bothered to carry themselves to the ballot box half the time!

I was not attempting to beat anyone with sticks! I believe the statistic was originally intended to be representative of the population, not just a small group in Leicester..

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
I was not attempting to beat anyone with sticks! I believe the statistic was originally intended to be representative of the population, not just a small group in Leicester..

Not just a small group in Leicester but 25% of ALL asylum seekers in Leicester. Big difference, I think you'll agree.

As to people's points being ignored that is due to the fact that those points are never, or very rarely, backed up with anything other than anecdotal experiences.

It was just the "for reasons best known to themselves" comment... agreed that it's unlikely to be completely representative but then again, at least it's in some way scientific – it beats spouting off inaccuracies based on half-truths and prejudice, that's for sure.

It was not intended as a dig, they have been asked for information about their history and education, some might be wary about filling in such information, some might have moved, some might have forgot, some might not be interested.. They alone would know why they did not fill in and return the form, I meant what I said, nothing more.

Here's a link to a report (published today) titled Migration and Development: How to make migration work for poverty reduction by HOC International Development Committee which may reassure some of those who believe we are being swamped:

Migration Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmintdev/79/79.pdf)

It's a 106 page pdf report so it may take a while to download for dial up. If anyone wants the 3 page summary let me know and I'll attach it here.

Originally posted by max
[B

It's a 106 page pdf report so it may take a while to download for dial up. If anyone wants the 3 page summary let me know and I'll attach it here. [/B]


The Press Notice gives a fair summary.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=migrat+hc+mp+04+stationeri+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/international_development/ind__040708__34b.cfm#muscat_highlighter_first_matc h

But from the recent utterances of Blair and Blunkett on the subject it's hard not to get the impression they look upon migration as a means of maintaining the low level of wages paid to those they regard as the servants of society.

I also doubt the report will do much to stop the National Health Service from plundering developing countries of doctors and nurses etc.

Just an after thought,the latest figures released by HMG show for the year 2002 net immigration to be over half a million which does NOT include illegal immigration,students on a visa and tourists.
I leave you to make your own mind up whether we are being flooded or not?

Well just to temper that afterthought... here are the facts about asylum seekers once again...
Originally posted by Tony
61,050 applications in 2003.

reduced from... wait for it... drum rollllllllllll...

103,100 in 2002!!


Oh yes... and that figure includes dependants (children, spouses, family etc) not just the applicants.

The Home Office also report a 23% rise in failed applicants removed from the UK.

Flooded? No I don't think so.

Well not wanting to get into an argument about this but I suggest you check on migration watch web site.

Well where is your evidence then Roy. I can't (yet) find any Home Office stat's like yours, and the second source you quote, migrationwatchuk.org, don't agree with your half million a year figure either. Nothing like in fact.

I'm very confused about your facts. :huh:

In fact, here is a little BBC article about Migration Watch, Immigration: Fact or hype? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2173792.stm). It is perhaps a little more balanced and contains interesting sources and rather casts doubt on Migration Watch's counting ability.

ok Tony please check the goverments national statistics office underthe series no issn0140-900y,yes I know it sounds vague but it gives us net immigration of 512,800 for the year 2002 and like I say does not include illegal and student immigration into the U K.