There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The first problem is if those are official statistics, they are not accurate. Several years ago Labour abandoned all immigration controls. Since there no longer are any controls noone is even counting. So nobody knows exactly how many have come in since then. The only thing that anyone can agree on is that the official numbers are the lowest guess and that the true numbers are much higher.

[/quote]

What total rubbish, of course there are still controls and records kept. Having gone through the British Immigration process for my wife a couple of years ago I would guess I know a little bit more about it than you do.

You really need to stop making these huge sweeping statements that can be clearly shown to be BS. It doesn’t help your argument at all.

And again with the racist sentiments. Why would the educated, skilled, productive people in the UK be only from the white skinned members?

Why don’t you just answer the question?

[quote]
The problem though is there have been a lot of legal immigrants who should not have been let in either. Whether or not it is their fault that Labour let them in isn’t what’s important. What is important is Labour has engaged in a massive social engineering project to turn the white British people into nothing but alcoholic white trash living on council estates. Which itself will only last until the country becomes a sharia state. Then what is left of the British will be repeatedly flogged for drinking alcohol and the women will all be stoned to death for adultry. [/quote]

Again with the histrionics.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The first problem is if those are official statistics, they are not accurate. Several years ago Labour abandoned all immigration controls. Since there no longer are any controls noone is even counting. So nobody knows exactly how many have come in since then. The only thing that anyone can agree on is that the official numbers are the lowest guess and that the true numbers are much higher.

What total rubbish, of course there are still controls and records kept. Having gone through the British Immigration process for my wife a couple of years ago I would guess I know a little bit more about it than you do.

You really need to stop making these huge sweeping statements that can be clearly shown to be BS. It doesn’t help your argument at all. [/quote]

You do not know what the hell you are talking about. If you would stop getting your Koolaid out of the Guardian and read a real newspaper like the Torygraph you would know what is going on over there. Just last year in April a house of lords report on immigration statistics caused a big scandal that was in a lot of the papers back in March and April of 2008.The report stated that the government did not know how many immigrants had come into the country because it had not bothered to keep count of them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/1583384/Poor-immigration-data-hindering-economy.html

Poor immigration data ‘hindering economy’
By Rosa Prince and Robert Winnett
Published: 12:01AM BST 31 Mar 2008

Britain’s economy and public services are being put at risk by the failure of the Government to keep track of the number of immigrants, a House of Lords report will warn tomorrow.

Key decisions on interest rates and the allocation of more than £100 billion of public money are being severely hampered by the “serious inadequacy” of basic data on those entering the country to work and study, it is expected to say.

The warning will be sounded after an eight-month inquiry into immigration by the Lords’ economic affairs committee, which has heard evidence from ministers, officials, academics, business leaders and trade unions.

Its report is regarded as the first comprehensive and authoritative analysis of the economic impact of immigration to the United Kingdom.

The worst criticism is reserved for the poor statistics kept on the number of immigrants and emigrants, which has serious ramifications.

The Lords found that the data was based on small, outdated surveys described repeatedly in the report as “seriously inadequate”, “intrinsically unsatisfactory”, “unreliable” and “incomplete”.

The report is understood to say: "There are significant unknowns and uncertainties in the existing data on immigration and immigrants in the UK…

“The gaps in migration data create significant difficulties for the analysis and public debate of immigration, the conduct of monetary policy, the provision of public services and a wide range of other public policies.”

The report will disclose that the committee was told by Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, that “we just do not know how big the population of the United Kingdom is”.

Changes in population are essential to the Bank when setting interest rates as they affect wages, prices and other key economic indicators.

Likewise, if it is not known how many people are living in the UK it is impossible to correctly assess how much needs to be spent on services such as health and education to meet people’s needs.

One peer on the committee told the Telegraph: “The more we looked at the flawed statistics, the more we felt the Government is flying blind on immigration.”

The committee will conclude that “the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run”. It also questions whether the introduction of a new points-based system for immigration will improve the situation.

But the Government will challenge these findings. Liam Byrne, the Border and Immigration Minister, said: "We’re crystal clear that we need to take into account the wider impacts of migration and that is why for the first time ever we’ve set up an independent committee of front line public servants to tell us what those impacts are, but there’s no escaping the fact that the business community is telling us carefully controlled migration is good for the economy.

“The best studies available show migrants pay in more than they take out, with migration contributing £6bn to our national output in 2006.”

The Lords inquiry will call on ministers to “improve radically the present entirely inadequate migration statistics”.

Currently, estimates on emigration are based on an annual poll of fewer than 1,000 migrants as they leave the UK, which the peers will describe as “intrinsically unsatisfactory”. Information on immigrants is only recorded for those who say they intend to stay for more than a year.

The Labour Force survey, which studies immigrants in the workforce, also excludes short-term migrants and those living in communal establishments such as hostels.

The conclusions will be welcomed by council leaders who have repeatedly complained that inadequate information about population was used to distribute public money, leaving areas with high numbers of immigrants with funding shortfalls.

Figures released last year showed that immigration is currently fuelling the biggest rise in Britain’s population for almost 50 years.

The Government is currently predicting that the population will rise by about 190,000 people a year.

By 2028, the population will be more than 70 million and reach 71 million by 2031, the ONS predicted. Statisticians said immigration would be responsible for at least 70 per cent of the rise over the next 20 years.

The ONS has told the Lords committee that it is committed to improving migration data. It is also under pressure to improve procedures for the 2011 census following criticism about the method of counting the population - particularly immigrants - in the last census.

Here is another report from 2006.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533283/Expert-warns-that-migration-figures-are-in-a-muddle.html

Expert warns that migration figures are in a muddle

No one is counting how many migrants come to Britain, how long they stay, or how many are here illegally, says a former Whitehall statistician and author of a study.

Official immigration figures give an “incomplete picture”, according to Denis Allnutt, in his report, “Review of Home Office Publications of Control of Immigration Statistics”, published by the Home Office.

The findings emerged after Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, told a House of Lords committee that his efforts to steer the economy were being hampered by a lack of reliable population figures.

According to Mr Allnutt: “There are examples of statistics being too inaccurate to publish, and the production of other statistics being delayed.”

Other aspects of border control which Mr Allnutt says go unmeasured include the number of failed asylum-seekers who remain in the UK, the fate of those deported, the whereabouts of foreign national prisoners, and the amount councils spend on supporting refugees.

The criticisms will fuel demands for the publication of official statistics to be taken out of the control of politicians and handed to an independent figure.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced last week that 565,000 foreigners arrived to live in Britain last year, while 380,000 British citizens left to live abroad. However, the 565,000 was widely seen as an underestimate.

The figures came simply from an international passenger survey, which involves questioning selected passengers at airports, sea ports and the Channel Tunnel.

Mr King said that he needed more accurate figures on the labour market in order to assess inflationary pressure when setting interest rates.

He told peers: “We need to know how big the population is and how large the number of immigrant workers is in order to help us form a judgment about the pressure of demand on capacity.”

In particular, he complained about the 2001 census, which may have missed a million people, and the ONS’s international passenger survey, which he said was “just not adequate”.

Critics claim that the Home Office has little incentive to publish more detailed statistics about the numbers of illegal migrants arriving or staying in Britain, when the findings would bring political embarrassment for ministers.

The Government has promised to restore embarkation controls, but the process of counting everyone entering and leaving the UK will not begin until 2014. Last year, the Home Office gave its first estimate for the number of illegal immigrants living in Britain, putting the figure at between 310,000 and 570,000.

Here is one from 2005. I didn’t paste all of this one. But there is more to it and it does undermine you even further.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1493122/Blair-accused-on-migrants.html

Blair accused on migrants
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 12:01AM BST 01 Jul 2005

Tony Blair was accused last night of “misleading the country” over immigration during the general election as the Home Office admitted for the first time that half a million illegal immigrants may be living in Britain.

Tories charged the Prime Minister with covering up the figure when controversy about the issue raged only a few weeks ago.

Then, Mr Blair said it was impossible to put a figure on the number of illegal immigrants - failed asylum seekers who have stayed on, visitors who have overstayed and clandestine entrants.

When an independent academic, Prof John Salt, of the Migration Research Unit at University College, London, suggested before polling day the true figure could be about 500,000 - equivalent to the population of Sheffield - he was shot down by ministers.

One called this “wildly inaccurate” and denied there were any official estimates.

But now it is clear that Prof Salt was helping the Home Office in its research and had contributed to earlier drafts of yesterday’s report, which estimates the unauthorised migrant population at between 310,000 and 570,000.

The Home Office said the central estimate for the number of illegal immigrants was 430,000, or 0.7 per cent of the total population.

The figure does not include up to 772,000 asylum seekers whose applications are being processed or who have launched an appeal.

[quote]
So the overall effect of your numbers on the demographics of Britain is over 700,000 of the educated, skilled, productive, cream of the white population gone and over a million third worlders either taking their place or competing with the lower class whites who don’t have the job skills to emigrate.

And again with the racist sentiments. Why would the educated, skilled, productive people in the UK be only from the white skinned members? [/quote]

Are you really that clueless? The English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, just happen to be white people. They are the ones who are getting out. The whole reason why a lot of them are able to get into Australia or New Zealand easily is because they are white and because they have college education and or job skills.

Britain’s white middle class is being driven out and replaced with immigrants who have no reason to identify with the lower class whites who don’t have the education or job skills to get out. The percentage of what is left of the whites is increasingly just the yabos and welfare scroungers.

The White people of Britain are being socially engineered into an undesirable lower caste group who will be nothing but a burden to the rest of society. For saying this I am no more racist than Bill Cosby is when he speaks out about problems in the African American community.

[quote]

The issue of British born muslims is something that they need to take very seriously and they need to start right now. Just because they are born there it does not mean that they are somehow magically going to throw off their culture and become like the British. One of the traditional muslim strategies for taking over a place is outbreeding their neighbors. That is why the British need to get a handle on the problem now.

Whether or not they are part of the people isn’t going to be the issue of a persons status. The way things are going right now it is going to be the ethnic white British who are going to end up being the lower caste. Already now we hear comments from politicians about how “lazy” or lacking in morals the British are compared to the immigrants.

Why don’t you just answer the question?

The problem though is there have been a lot of legal immigrants who should not have been let in either. Whether or not it is their fault that Labour let them in isn’t what’s important. What is important is Labour has engaged in a massive social engineering project to turn the white British people into nothing but alcoholic white trash living on council estates. Which itself will only last until the country becomes a sharia state. Then what is left of the British will be repeatedly flogged for drinking alcohol and the women will all be stoned to death for adultry.

Again with the histrionics. [/quote]

Not at all. In muslim countries people caught drinking alcohol are flogged and women accused of adultry are stoned to death or in Iran they are hung. That is sharia law. There are muslims in Britain who openly state that they want to implement sharia law in Britain and the government is helping them. How is it histrionics to point that out when it’s true?

Here is an interesting article for you Cock.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/200000-pakistanis-have-applied-to-enter-britain/

Newspapers in Pakistan have claimed that at least 200,000 Pakistani nationals have applied to enter Britain over the past year.

The shocking figure â?? which cannot be justified in terms of student or any other sort of visa category â?? was revealed in a new spat between Britain and Pakistan during current talks.

According to media reports, the government of Pakistan plans to formally complain over the delays in processing the visa applications.

The rush of applications â?? most of them from people claiming to be students â?? has utterly overwhelmed the UK Border Agencyâ??s staff at their new processing hub in Abu Dhabi.

Despite the problem being generated solely by the Pakistanis, the meeting today between Labourâ??s Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Pakistanâ??s president and prime minister is likely to focus on the delay in processing the tidal wave of applications.

Even more disconcerting is that the visa issue threatens to overshadow the real reason for the visit, which is to discuss â??counterterrorismâ?? issues.

According to newspapers in Pakistan, â??angry visa applicants have complained of long delays, unfair refusals and of being unable to retrieve their passports for up to two months during the application process.â??

Some of the newspaper reports claimed that there were 200,000 Pakistani passports waiting at the British High Commission in Islamabad. If that claim is true, it means that there are literally millions of Pakistanis queuing up attempting to enter Britain.

Observers have pointed out that if millions of British people decided to swamp Pakistan with â??visaâ?? applications, that countryâ??s infrastructure would also buckle â?? never mind the demographic change which such a tidal wave of immigrants would entail.

In fact, it would be no surprise if Pakistan turned down such a large number of applicants on the basis of not wanting so many British people living in Pakistan. This was, after all, the very reason why the Indian subcontinent wanted independence in the first place.

According to an editorial in the daily newspaper, Dawn, entitled â??UK visa farceâ??, no â??other country â?¦ has such onerous requirement, whereas arguably the potential security threats they have to address are no less severe.â??

According to British intelligence, more than two-thirds of all terrorist plots in Britain originate in Pakistan.

â?? It was revealed earlier this year that fewer than one in 2,000 applicants from Pakistan was being interviewed at the UKBAâ??s Abu Dhabi hub.

â?? It was also revealed on this website that the British High Commission in Islamabad recruits local Pakistanis to do the initial processing of visa applications â?? despite Pakistan being listed as one of the most corrupt countries on earth.

And here is another one which shows why America has a better way than in Britain. Because in America a young woman who is threatened by a violent ex boyfriend can have a gun to defend herself and not have to rely solely upon the limited ability of the police to rush in and save her life.

Care worker stabbed to death by violent ex-boyfriend despite begging police for protection

A distraught mother has told how her daughter’s violent ex-boyfriend was freed to murder her despite the family’s desperate pleas for her to be given protection.

Care worker Nicola Sutton, 22, had been living in fear of Barry Stone who only served six months of an 18-month prison term for attacking her.

Convinced he would find her and kill her, she begged probation workers to bar him from her town, but was told that would breach his ‘human rights’, an inquest was told.

Just a month after he was released, 31-year-old Stone - who had a lengthy record of violence against women - tracked her down and stabbed her to death with a Samurai sword.

Police launched a nationwide manhunt and arrested him, but as he was in prison awaiting trial he hanged himself.

Today Miss Sutton’s mother Lynn told an inquest her daughter had been betrayed by the courts, police, prison service and probation.

‘I can’t believe that this can be allowed to happen in this day and age,’ she told the hearing.

‘My daughter was totally let down and was totally on her own.’

Miss Sutton, of Warrington, Cheshire, was repeatedly beaten up by Stone during their three-year relationship, the inquest on her death was told.

‘She lost weight and did start to appear with bumps and bruises and cuts and usually explained them away as accidents,’ her 52-year-old mother said.

But each time he attacked her, she would make up with him - on one occasion he pulled out huge chunks of her hair but then paid £400 for her to have hair extensions.

Mrs Sutton told how Stone told her daughter that as long as he was alive, she would not be able to escape him.

‘She would not be with anyone else - if he was not with her, no-one else could be, and wherever she went he would find her.’

Mrs Sutton wept as she told the inquest jury how her daughter made several attempts to break free from his influence, only for a series of legal blunders to prevent him from being brought to justice.

After one attack in 2005, she reluctantly gave a statement to police after being told it would result in his being locked up, only for him to be bailed the next day and confront her with details of what she had said.

Stone duly tracked her down and beat her up while ‘behaving like an animal’, fracturing several ribs.
This time she was persuaded to go to court and give evidence, only to pull out when she saw him wandering about the courthouse.

A further statement led to graffiti appearing near her home accusing her of being a ‘dirty grass’, while she received threatening phone calls and had bricks thrown through her window.

Finally in February 2006 he was jailed for 18 months after he admitted assault occasioning actual bodily harm and given a further three years on extended licence.

Shortly before he was due to be released in August that year, Miss Sutton and her mother met probation worker Julie Gibbons to discuss the conditions of his licence, she said.

The family requested that he be barred from Warrington as he had no ties there and that his passport be confiscated as he had previously followed her on holiday, but say these were refused for ‘human rights reasons’.

They later found that his release was discussed in a meeting lasting an hour and 40 minutes along with the cases of 19 other high-risk prisoners - with no-one from the prison service attending.

‘I just can’t believe that could happen,’ said Mrs Sutton.

She said her daughter was left physically shaking after seeing Stone driving through the area and later on a night out in Warrington.

In the early hours of September 26, 2006, he stabbed her to death. He was arrested later that day and charged with her murder, but on December 5 he was found hanged in his cell.

The hearing, in Warrington, continues.

Sifu posted

Walls and walls of cut and paste

Again!

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu posted

Walls and walls of cut and paste

Again![/quote]

Ha ha ha, you’re funny. So because you can’t dispute the fact that I backed up my statements and proved you wrong you just evade my reply instead. That’s weak Esse.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

OK quick lesson in set theory for you. All oranges are fruit does not mean that all fruit are oranges.

God, you can’t possibly be that simple.

OK, here’s a riddle for you:

How many Muslim extremists does it take to commit mass murder by terrorism?

Alternatively:

Not all the candy in the store is poisoned, but some pieces are.

How much candy would you buy in that store?

How about this:

Russian roulette gives you, what, 5 out of 6 chances to walk away unscathed (on the first try, anyway)?

Wanna play?

Oh OK so innocent until proven guilty only applies if you are a White Christian.

Are you really this dense?

Nobody is being pronounced “guilty.”

You act as though foreigners have some “right” to enter another country.

Who can and cannot enter is solely at the discretion of the host country. Only an idiot would allow in those who represent some threat to the native population.

You are gradually making clear just how far gone you are… [/quote]

You are totally hypocritical on this a few posts back you are saying that you can’t live your life in fear due to the risk of a lightening strike, now you are saying all people that are not White Christians shouldn’t be allowed into the UK. Which is it?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

You are totally hypocritical on this a few posts back you are saying that you can’t live your life in fear due to the risk of a lightening strike, now you are saying all people that are not White Christians shouldn’t be allowed into the UK. Which is it?

Wow.

Either you can’t, or you refuse to, read.

That’s what I said, huh?

OK.

You, Cockadoodle Do, are a waste of time.
[/quote]

This is a standard tactic of his. He twists around your statement and takes it to an extreme that no one suggested. It is why I keep accusing him of histrionics. The bad thing about it is there are more like him back in the UK and I have family stuck over there who are endangered by their bullshit mentality.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu posted

Walls and walls of cut and paste

Again!

Ha ha ha, you’re funny. So because you can’t dispute the fact that I backed up my statements and proved you wrong you just evade my reply instead. That’s weak Esse. [/quote]

No I have just got very, very bored with your cut and paste schtick.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

You are totally hypocritical on this a few posts back you are saying that you can’t live your life in fear due to the risk of a lightening strike, now you are saying all people that are not White Christians shouldn’t be allowed into the UK. Which is it?

Wow.

Either you can’t, or you refuse to, read.

That’s what I said, huh?

OK.

You, Cockadoodle Do, are a waste of time.
[/quote]

Cushin, you wrote that domestic terrorism is something that you can’t worry about because you can’t control it and you likened the chances as being like lightening striking on a rainy day.

However you see foreign terrorism as something that can totally be controlled by not letting them in. Well short of sealing the borders and not letting anyone in (which would destroy the economy), how do you go about controlling it? Someone doesn’t have to be an immigrant to set off a bomb, they can be a tourist or even born in the country like several of the London Tube bombers.

So please explain how you stop the terrorists getting in without wiping out the economy?

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/border-agencys.html

[quote]lixy wrote:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/border-agencys.html [/quote]

Miss-guided, yes.
Stupid, yes.
Very very dangerous idea, yes.
Just the kind of thing the UK government like to pull on their own citizens… yes

But at least someone is trying to do something about one of the many problems. Maybe when this idea gets canned as completely unworkable some slightly less crazy ideas will emerge.

Maybe one idea would be that refugees don’t have to make their way to Europe… A Somalian’s original standard of living is probably likely to be met in Kenya.

[quote]lou21 wrote:
lixy wrote:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/border-agencys.html

Miss-guided, yes.
Stupid, yes.
Very very dangerous idea, yes.
Just the kind of thing the UK government like to pull on their own citizens… yes

But at least someone is trying to do something about one of the many problems. Maybe when this idea gets canned as completely unworkable some slightly less crazy ideas will emerge.

Maybe one idea would be that refugees don’t have to make their way to Europe… A Somalian’s original standard of living is probably likely to be met in Kenya. [/quote]

That’s one idea. And if it wasn’t for that 1951 convention Britain strongly lobbied for, it may even be considered. Unless you want to get rid of the 1967 protocol and limit the scope of the “refugee” status to Europeans only as the 1951 was originally phrased.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Cushin, you wrote that domestic terrorism is something that you can’t worry about because you can’t control it and you likened the chances as being like lightening striking on a rainy day.

However you see foreign terrorism as something that can totally be controlled by not letting them in. Well short of sealing the borders and not letting anyone in (which would destroy the economy), how do you go about controlling it? Someone doesn’t have to be an immigrant to set off a bomb, they can be a tourist or even born in the country like several of the London Tube bombers.

So please explain how you stop the terrorists getting in without wiping out the economy?

  1. No thanks. I’ve wasted enough time on you. You can’t even present what I said accurately when you’re directly challenging it.

  2. Why is it that you leftists intellectual “Europeans” can’t ever spell my name correctly? [/quote]

So you have no answer to how, you like Sifu are just blowing hot air. Typical.

[quote]lixy wrote:
lou21 wrote:
lixy wrote:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/border-agencys.html

Miss-guided, yes.
Stupid, yes.
Very very dangerous idea, yes.
Just the kind of thing the UK government like to pull on their own citizens… yes

But at least someone is trying to do something about one of the many problems. Maybe when this idea gets canned as completely unworkable some slightly less crazy ideas will emerge.

Maybe one idea would be that refugees don’t have to make their way to Europe… A Somalian’s original standard of living is probably likely to be met in Kenya.

That’s one idea. And if it wasn’t for that 1951 convention Britain strongly lobbied for, it may even be considered. Unless you want to get rid of the 1967 protocol and limit the scope of the “refugee” status to Europeans only as the 1951 was originally phrased.[/quote]

Hmmm I’m not familiar with the legislation, international law is not my field really. I can’t support most of Britain foreign policies in the past though so I don’t see why I can’t disagree with that one. So yes rewriting those agreements sounds like a good idea.

How exactly do you define European here though? I would argue that whenever possible refugees should be in closely neighbouring countries (not necessarily just geographical but in history/social links) rather than pigeon-holed to a continent. Hopefully of similar culture. That way when the situation inevitably doesn’t improve and the refugees become permanent stayers there will be less of a cultural clash.

Of course one happy side effect should be that the neighbours, who are the one’s would should in the main be helping refugee type situations, will have a vested interest not to suddenly have a huge group of poor displaced and probably emotionally disturbed people turn up.

[quote]lou21 wrote:
Hmmm I’m not familiar with the legislation, international law is not my field really. I can’t support most of Britain foreign policies in the past though so I don’t see why I can’t disagree with that one. [/quote]

It’s not my field either. But that convention is central to this debate.

Besides, I haven’t said you can’t disagree with it. Merely that the British government can back out of it without looking like a giant cock. The UK did push for this convention quite agressively at the time.

I don’t disagree with that one bit.

But for that to have a chance of happening, Britain should first leave the EU. We can discuss that when it happens.

It’s not me. It’s the 1951 that granted protection to Europeans (as in, Western Europeans) only.

Argue away.