PDA

View Full Version : Refugees


SLF 999
8th Aug 2001, 12:10
A contentious subject at the moment here in Glasgow, where the locals are up in arms due to the local refugees being afforded (as they see it) special treatment.

To an extent I agree with them, that the refugees (I dont know their history or circumstances) have been placed in a run down part of the city and given new furnishings etc to start a new life when the locals are struggling to make ends meet.

My point in this is, it seems that the UK is seen as an easy target for the refugees, and while I have sympathy for what some of them have been through, and they are genuine, the current system is not working.

This is obviously not a very politically correct view but when are the government going to overhaul the whole review process to ensure that only those under real threat are protected not just those who want to start a better life for themselves in a country which will give them homes, furnishings and social security handouts before helping its own needy.

Maybe its time to stop taking refugees in?

tony draper
8th Aug 2001, 13:10
Its ironic, Glasgow council sent a load of their own down and outers and problem families down to the N/E, people they couldn't or wouldn't house,in Glasgow of course my local coucil volunteered this service , after all it filled some of their empty properties they were payed for this , of course the people who already lived in these area's didn't have much say as usual.
I guess housing refugee's has more, look at us aren't we enlightened factor about it, makes the luvies who rule, us hug themselves burble and coo at their goodness.
Its bloody insanity.

[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

FlyingForFun
8th Aug 2001, 14:38
I welcome any immigrants, rufugee or not, so long as they are prepared to work for a living and contribute to society.

I object to my taxes being used to support gravy-train immigrants, regardless of where they have come from and how much, if any, persecution they have suffered.

Unfortunately, this ideal is difficult to implement.....

FFF
-----------

WeatherJinx
8th Aug 2001, 14:39
I have to disagree with you, TD and SLF - this is yet another issue that is exaggerated out of all proportion by certain elements of our wonderful media.

I personally think putting refugees/asylum seekers into sink areas only compounds the situation. OK, before you flame me to death, I'm not saying we should put them in the Ritz, but don't add to existing social problems by putting them with people (apparently knuckle-draggers in the Sighthill case) who are least likely to understand the bigger picture.

As for what happened at Sighthill, with the death of the Kurdish man and the stabbing of the Iranian man last night, it would make me ashamed to be Glaswegian. It certainly makes me deeply ashamed to be British.

OK, so these people get a helping hand with basic furniture and accommodation on arrival (clue: it's not from Habitat and Sighthill doesn't look too pretty to me either) - I also understand they get around £10 cash and £20 in food vouchers per week to survive on.

Furthermore, they are not allowed to work (an awful lot of these people are well-educated and qualified - we could and should make use of this asset, even if ultimately they do not end up being allowed to stay).

Above all however, this is a matter of basic humanity. How would you like to walk into Tescos and hand over food vouchers to the cashier? How dignified do you think that would make YOU feel?

Is this country so poor (4th largest economy in the world and improving all the time) that it cannot accommodate people who are suffering appalling atrocities in their own lands? Are we so uncultured, uncivilised and uncaring that we allow tabloids, mobs and hooligans to dictate policy and make these people's lives here (often a brief visit) even more miserable?

Although I do not disagree that there may be a high number of bogus economic migrants - that is another matter altogether.

Our treatment of people fleeing persecution and oppression overseas should be a mark of our civilisation and self-respect - a point which is obviously lost on the rabble which seem to make up much of our populus these days.

We live in one of the greatest, freest, fairest and most democratic nations on Earth - perhaps we should bloody well ACT like it for a change.

WxJx :)

[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: WeatherJinx ]

You want it when?
8th Aug 2001, 14:44
Ditto FFF - I pay into the welfare state a shed load of holding folding. I object (but accept) to it being used to support non nationals. Some limits should be set however, but lord knows how they would be defined and I would hate to be given the brief.

What peeves me more is cultural assimilation - learn English, learn English manners (don't laugh) and don't push your ethnic religion and methods onto us. You came to the UK don't expect us to have to accommodate your life choices - otherwise go back home. I'm speaking here about schooling, religion (believe what you want- begin agnostic I expect to got to hell), treatment of woman, children etc..

henry crun
8th Aug 2001, 15:28
Living a long way away I cannot pretend to understand the scale of the problem you face over there, but one thing puzzles me.

These refugees fleeing persecution, or looking for a better life seem to travel through a lot of other well heeled democratic countries to get to UK.
How many do these other countries take ?.

SLF 999
8th Aug 2001, 16:10
Thanks for the data on what the refugees get, I was unaware of the details.
Your right Sighthill is not the greatest area in Glasgow, Im happy to drive through it, but walking would be a different matter !

One of the main problems is integration and I think this is what has happened here, a lack of understanding on the part of the locals and a tightening of ranks from the refugees, therefore two cultures at loggerheads.

Also the UK isnt the easiest place to get to these people must have travelled through other countries to get here, whats the difference between somewhere like France or Germany and here.

Tartan Gannet
8th Aug 2001, 19:19
Like SLF I welcome any immigrants who will work hard and contribute to the British Economy. Just look how the Jews who came here have prospered and become an asset to themselves and the country, likewise the Asians who fled East Africa in the 1970s.

Each group has to be considered on its merits, there shouldn't be an open house policy, although I am well aware that as part of the EU we must accept any citizens of a member state and vice versa.

Obviously if people are destitute having had to flee in little more than the clothes they stand up in then common deceny decrees that we must give them basic assistance. I do however, being a Glaswegian myself and knowing the Sighthill area, understand the frustrations of the indigenous populace at the apparent preferential treatment of these immigrants. This however does NOT excuse violence far less murder.

As to the ethnic and religious customs of the immigrants, a difficult one this. People should be free to follow their own beliefs and culture AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT OFFEND AGAINST THAT OF THE HOST COUNTRY. We have to forego alcohol in Saudi Arabia and some other Islamic Countries so when in Rome.

(Puts on tin hat and flack jacket to await incoming from certain pissy panted "Liberal Consciences")

Foyl
9th Aug 2001, 12:24
It's a huge topic here in Australia for much the same reasons. Refugees here are placed in detention centres until such time as their bona fides are checked out, then, if circumstances warrant it, they are either released or deported. Unfortunately the process of checking whether or not these people are allowed to enter the country takes some time, and if they are determined against they can appeal and keep appealing to the full extent of our Courts, which again, takes some time. In the meantime, lobby groups are protesting that they should be allowed to be released into society until such time as their status has been determined.
Recently some refugees broke out of one of the detention centres and one of the television stations here managed to contact on of them. I can't quote verbatim, but in the sound bite he basically said that he didn't care about the Police or the law, he would only obey God. It didn't exacly demonstrate that he was willing to abide by the Terms and Conditions of being in this country (especially noting that what is acceptable to God has a wide interpretation).
I truly believe that anyone who has suffered under an oppressive government for their beliefs should be entitled to protection. But I do not believe that I should work to support someone who has come here with the intention of sponging off our welfare. :(

under_exposed
9th Aug 2001, 16:20
I thought those who did not care about police and the law were supposed to go to Australia. :D :D

Red_Devil
9th Aug 2001, 16:49
I agree with some of the sentiments expressed above - I believe that anyone should be able to live in the UK provided that they are willing to work and contribute positively to society.

I do have a friendship with someone in Glasgow - this person has been in the UK for a year and a half and works very hard to support and educate himself. His fear at the moment is horrible to see. We were out this week and I can see how this has affected him. He is afraid as are a lot of other people in this city.

Unfortunately race and religion are seen as barriers by some on both sides. How are we going to survive if we can't accept each other as fellow human beings sharing the same country? Or planet for that matter? Bit of a cliche but we do enjoy destroying ourselves.

Anyway, enough of my Thursday afternoon ramblings......

vulcanb1
9th Aug 2001, 17:28
Enough trouble at home allready. Shut the doors send them all back the UK is full. Now ruggeb off, the lot of you. :mad:

Velvet
9th Aug 2001, 23:48
Was it a racially motived crime - to look at his picture, he would pass for any other British or at least a European citizen. It would also appear that he was here initially as a tourist and then changed his name and applied for asylum when the visa ran out. This does not excuse his murder, but may mean that the racial motive is being used to stir up trouble.

Even if they are willing to work, I believe it is one of the rules of being an asylum seeker that you can't even look for work until your application has been approved and that can take years.

No doubt the £110 million the Glasgow Council is receiving from the Government is a sweetener to take several thousand refugees, but one does wonder why the Government thought this would push the problem away from the South East and hence not be an issue for them.

I don't know much about the Sighthill Estate on Glasgow, but it would seem that the numbers of asylum seekers are increasing exponentially, thus causing an ever greater burden on the British Taxpayer. The Government doesn't seem to have much idea how to manage the situation. Apart from dumping these poor people anywhere they can (and whether they are economic or political refugees they are still strangers in a foreign land separated from everything they hold dear), until they melt into some nebulous no man's existence.

However, one should never forget the people on whom the are dumped who have to suffer from the influx of people who perhaps can't speak English or not very well, have different customs and are used to a completely different lifestyle and environment. They are expected to be hospitable, kindly, tolerant and welcome the newcomers with open arms. Then they are blamed if things go wrong.

Squawk 8888
10th Aug 2001, 00:42
Well, vulcab1, if you want to send 'em back can we send back all the brits who flooded this country?

As for the refugee issue, it could be solved overnight in four easy steps:

1) Drop the quotas, work rules and all the other bureaucratic nonsense that immigration departments love so much.

2) Give all newcomers the right to work, but give welfare and all other tax-funded social services to citizens only.

3) Grant citizenship to anybody who manages to stick it out for a few years.

4) Give all the redundant immigration staff the job of finding and deporting undesirables :D

Velvet
10th Aug 2001, 02:21
that would be only the ones who entered illegally and claimed asylum, wouldn't it squawk :D


But tend to agree with the rest of your post, if only bureacrats weren't in love with the rules which justify their existence.

[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Velvet ]

Squawk 8888
10th Aug 2001, 04:11
Right you are Velvet. I can't for the life of me figure out how it can take a couple of years to process an application. I know some immigrants who came here the legit route, from the time they sent the paperwork to the Canadian office in their home country to the time they stepped onto Canadian soil was 2-3 years. Little wonder so many choose to flush their passports down the loo and utter the magic words "I am a refugee" the moment they step off the plane. Trouble is, it's almost as bad because it takes years to get a refugee hearing, and while they're waiting it's illegal for them to work so they sit around and rot on welfare. Then the locals think they're a bunch of lazy bums and quicket than you can say "send 'em back" we have race riots. Absurd. The worst thing is the priorities the enforcement people have; if a refugee claimant commits a crime in Canada he can play the system for years, but the ones who actually go out and get themselves jobs usually get deported within weeks of being caught :mad:. Nobody benefits except the bureaucrats. The worst thing about it is that it discourages people who would be an asset to this country from trying while those who want to milk the system dry are clamouring to get in. That's why I say scap the regulations and let anybody in- it couldn't be worse than what's happening now and would be a whole lot cheaper to administer.

Red_Devil
10th Aug 2001, 11:02
Squawk

You have my vote! :D

RD

FNG
10th Aug 2001, 12:13
If JetBlast is a conversation taking place in a hotel lobby, then it appears that the hotel is not always Claridges. Sometimes it seems more like a pub with some rather nasty rooms for rent. Elsewhere on pprune, in the aviation bits, people tend (although not invariably) to exercise a degree of caution before expressing trenchant views on subjects which they know little or nothing about. It is perhaps unrealistic to expect the same in "bloke in pub" style conversations, but on subjects like this, is is too much to ask people to obtain a minimum grasp of the facts before launching into rants which rapidly veer off in the direction of Nuremburg?

WeatherJinx: you put it very well, and I shan’t repeat what you have said.

In the opening post, SLF 999 asks when the government are going to overhaul the whole review process to ensure that only those under real threat are protected not just those who want to start a better life for themselves. Well, the review process is designed to do just that and, for the most part, that is what it achieves.

Terminology: all refugees are, at some point, asylum seekers, but not all asylum seekers are refugees. The system exists to identify those asylum seekers who are refugees. A refugee is defined as a person who has a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, social origin or political opinion and who cannot avail himself of the protection of her country of origin (usually because it is that country which is doing the persecuting). NB the fear must be a well-founded one, and the system is set up to examine whether or not a claimant really does have such a fear. It takes time, because it has to be done properly, and, as with most other areas of public service, resources are limited. Economic migrants tend to get detected by the system, and chucked out. Whether we should be refusing entry to people who have valuable skills and an energetic desire to improve their lot by working is another question, but one that would take us off-thread.

Along with some of my colleagues, I spend a fair amount of time representing the Government in Court on refugee cases. Such amusing banter: “smoking or non-smoking, window or aisle?” as we breeze into Court to chuck out three Kurds, four Kosavars and an Iraqi in a morning’s session. I do not think that those who represent the claimants regard the Government as a soft touch on asylum issues. What the Government does do is comply with its obligations under international treaties concerning refugees (and no, all you Euro-haters out there, this is not a Brussels thing). These obligations are themselves based upon simple humanity and a recognition that it the duty of civilised nations to afford protection to those who cannot look to their own governments for this. We should be proud that we live in a country that takes this duty seriously.

FlyingForFun
10th Aug 2001, 12:59
Well said Squawk!

Velvet, not sure what you mean about "only the ones who entered illegally." Under Squawk's suggestions, no immigrants would be illegal - everyone would be welcome, they'd all be free to look for work, they only thing they wouldn't be able to do is cream off the rest of us.

FNG, I understand the distinction between refugees and other asylum seekers, but don't understand why we should treat them differently. Regardless of whether an asylum seeker is a refugee or not, I (as a taxpayer) don't want to pay for him/her unless s/he is prepared to work for a living and pay into the system, the same as I do. But if an asylum seeker is willing to do that, I don't want to kick them out of the country, whether they're a refugee or not, because they are a valuable asset.

I do accept the point which some people have made about asylum seekers not being allowed to find work for several years while the paperwork is done - but by adopting Squawk's proposals this wouldn't be a problem any more!

To quote Arnold Rimmer (following on from Grainger's Dave Lister quote on the cloning thread) "Excellent, a plan with no drawbacks!"

FFF
---------

WeatherJinx
10th Aug 2001, 13:11
Eloquently put FNG....

How our perceptions would change if the government allowed these people to work and contribute to society, just like other immigrants before them (and you don't catch many of them living in places like Sighthill).

Most of these people WANT to work - right or wrong they consider the UK to be a land of opportunity and decency, not a 'soft touch'.

In a perverse kind of way perhaps we should be flattered that they try so hard to come here as opposed to our near-neighbours. The reality of this (literally) fatally flawed image was all too evident for one Kurdish man, his family and the Iranian man who got stabbed in the back.

Velvet - I feel your 'speculation' about this not being a racist attack was disingenuous to say the least, not to mention unexpected from what I have read of your contributions to other serious threads (even the Police are treating it as such). Racism is just as rife north of the border as it is down here - just ask any Englishman who lives there.

WxJx

TG - I'm convinced that you couldn't *possibly* be referring to me with your 'pissy panted liberal' remark..but I'd be more than happy to escort you outside anytime to show you how soft and liberal I really am :D :D :D :D

::: :p puts on own tin hat!::::

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: WeatherJinx ]

SLF 999
10th Aug 2001, 13:45
Thank you for the clarification FNG, I admit that I only have a minimum grasp on the facts, and as I said some of these people are genuine, and need help.

The tabloids are great at jumping on the bandwagon as a popular daily here has uncovered the fact that one of the refugees actually was not really under threat in his home country.

How did this come about because he was stabbed, so the focus seems to have been forget the violence this guy had inflicted on him, he shouldnt have been here in the first place.

Sorry being totally anti violence, the assumption that he souldnt be here is secondary, the fact that he was stabbed is a sad reflection on the attitude of some of the local population to the refugees and this is not helped by the media circus.

chips_with_everything
10th Aug 2001, 15:35
A slight diversion...

First up I say that I'm a bit emotional about being near-killed by an immigrant at start of last month. My much loved vehicle totalled, more critically neck and pelvis hurt. Still working reduced hours and vomiting. Quite an upset person presently.

Chap at fault did not speak English, and could not understand road rule violated even after 20 minutes of police explanation via an interpreter. He had a drivers license.


Now the thread stuffy...

Suggest that immigrants be required to pay a bond (say $50k) which is forfeited if the person fails to learn the language and assimilate to some specific standard by some specific time, also deportation results.

The money forfeited to help support for genuine refugees, admin and deportation.

Special arrangements for real refugees who don't have the bond to include payment of the same amount after becoming established after a somewhat longer period, so allowing for acquisition of that wealth. Boot out still applies, regardless of destination and fate.

Rules applied equally to English speaking immigrants, so even whingeing or bludging poms get the flick if they won't play the game.

Oh yeah, Aussie immigrant myself. And lived in non English speaking countries and learned enough of their languages. Seen both sides.

:(

Squawk 8888
10th Aug 2001, 17:53
Chips, the real problem in your case isn't the immigration bureaucrats, it's the wonks who issue drivers' licences. We have the same problem here- the Ministry of Transport provides the written exam in more than 20 languages, so even if you don't have a clue about what the signs mean you can still pass. That is no doubt the origin of the old joke about cross-breed members of two ethnic groups (who shall remain nameless) and ending up with a car thief who can't drive.

Tartan Gannet
10th Aug 2001, 19:35
Weatherjinx, I wasnt refering specifically to anyone be it you, or FNG or A N OTHER but to a generic group, however if the cap, (or should I say the pants) fits............ :p

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Tartan Gannet ]

Rollingthunder
11th Aug 2001, 03:53
I am in favour of helping refugees, real asylum seekers. Unfortunately the terms are being degraded by illegal immigrants who co-opt the classification for economic reasons. Further, and the question has been asked and not answered here, is why genuine refugees do not stop traveling when they reach safe haven? Example - people from mainland China ending up in the UK - half a world away. I thought the related conventions said that the first safe country reached had the responsibility to deal with the refugees. Fake refugees and illegal ecomomic migrants ruin things for immigrants who do follow the rules and lumber the destination country's citizens with costs well into the millions. This trend gets worse every year. :mad:

FNG
12th Aug 2001, 14:30
There is some debate amongst international lawyers as to whether the various treaties mean that a refugee should claim protection at the first safe country he arrives at, or whether he/she should be recognised as a refugee by all states, but the UK and EU have adopted the "safe third country" approach. This means that asylum claims are not entertained if the applicant has a safe country, other than the country of origin and the country where asylum is being sought, to which he/she can go. In the EU, the Dublin Convention of 1997 regulates the responsibility as between EU states for dealing with refugee claims.

This does not always work in practice. It is regrettably true that not all EU countries pull their weight in dealing with asylum claims. Still more regrettably, not all EU countries are safe havens for all asylum seekers. For example, Germany is not a safe third country for refugees from Somalia, and France is not a safe third country for refugees from Algeria, so if an Algerian refugee (a genuine one) arrives in the UK via France, he/she will not be sent back to France. NB it's not me that says this, it's the House of Lords, in a case decided last year.

Whilst an asylum seeker is here, he/she is liable to be detained, and some are. The detention centres are not fun places. Welfare entitlements are minimal. Employment is prohibited (even if the asylum seeker is, say, a doctor or a teacher).

Public perceptions, fuelled by the irresponsible tabloid media, of a huge wave of asylum seekers getting in for free and jumping the queue for housing and welfare benefit, are simply incorrect.

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]

NoSurrender
12th Aug 2001, 19:00
There are sadly 2.5 million muslims in this country, what the hell do we need that many for? It is no wonder pub chains are closing pubs in areas like Bradford. If people will not intergrate they have no business living in the Protestant homeland.

I`ll be quite happy to change my views once the first pub and church are built in mecca and the first Glaswegian assylum seekers start to claim their dole in saudi.

Now perhaps if we put Sikhs in charge of immigration and allowed one Sikh in for every two muslims/bosnians booted out we would see an end to this influx.

It`s about time we had the bollocks to look after ourselves again, if any bleeding heart lezbos want to admit all insundry then let them fianance them and accomodate them instead of dumping them in some Glasgow back water for the working class locals to sponsor via their council tax.

(With appologies to the one or two decent Muslims that I have met and those few who were oppresed in their own country and have genuine reasons for leaving) :mad:

Velvet
13th Aug 2001, 00:23
Firstly, FFF I was responding (not seriously) to Squawk about his wanting to send the 'flood of Brits back', as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) there are virtually no illegal Brits entering Canada.

Secondly, Wjx what is the evidence that this was a racially motivated crime (not just police and media speculation) - I like to keep an open mind rather than just jump on a convenient (media-inspired) bandwagon. If a coloured man mugged me, would that necessarily be racially motivated? This is a crime of murder whatever the motive - I don't have the full facts to make a judgement on it - however, I think the policy of 'dumping' large numbers of refugees on areas least able to cope should be held responsible in part for this crime.

Wjx surely you don't accept everything you are told, just because it is the 'authorities view', I have (with justification) a healthy scepticism of what both the media and the police believe. Yes, I am very aware of racial tension, hatred and prejudice faced by an English person in Scotland (and elsewhere). However, it should not stop me questioning what the media and police both claim to believe. You may not agree with me, but I am entitled to my point of view.

SLF999 quite right, that's the whole point - my concern is that the race issue will be concentrated on to the exclusion that this man was murdered. In doing so, they may not find the killers, or they may find a scapegoat just becaue they need a result.

Watching Airport the other night (sad I know), and was quite amazed by the way in which a South African was treated. Just because he had a large amoount of cash on him, he was almost considered a criminal. It took the Immigration official some considerable time (hours) before he thought 'Doh, perhaps if I ring this guy's company in SA, I'll find out that he is a genuine visitor'. Why did he have to put the guy through considerable and rather obnoxious questioning when he could have settled the matter within minutes. I just felt he was caught up in having to prove he was doing something for the cameras.

I don't know the answer to the immigartion problems, I do know that pretending there aren't any as the Government is doing, is not the answer. We have to face up to the facts that we are attracting vast numbers of immigrants (refugees) - political, economic and familial - can't we as a wealthy and advanced country solve this without just creating a sub-class of people in ghettos in the most run-down areas.

FlyingForFun
13th Aug 2001, 02:44
Velvet, thanks for clarifying, think I misunderstood you...


NoSurrender, I found your comments extremely offensive, and I do not wish to be associated with anyone who harbours thoughts such as these. I do not see how number of Muslims in the country is "sad", nor do I see how it is at all relevant to this thread. The reason that we "need" that many is because that's the number that we currently have (according to you it is, anyway - I have no idea if the number is correct or not, nor do I care) and they contribute as much to our society as anyone else - no more, no less.

Yes, immigrants should integrate into society, but there is no law in this country which says that drinking is compulsory, therefore if anyone (Muslim or otherwise) chooses not to drink, for religous or any other reason, that's entirely their choice. As for pubs closing in Bradford - it's several years since I've been to Bradford, so I don't know if it is the case or not, but if that's true, it's a simple case of supply exceeding demand, no different to coal mines being closed due to there being less demand for coal, local butchers being closed due to most people preferring supermarkets, or any other case where supply exceeds demand.

I honestly hope that no one else on PPRuNe agrees with your comments. If they do, I will continue to argue my point of view. But if you are the only person who holds these views, I refuse to comment any further because I will not waste any more of my time on one bigot such as you.

FFF
--------

PS - No, I'm not Muslim, but that doesn't make your remarks any less offensive.

boredcounter
13th Aug 2001, 03:53
FFF

I honestly hope that no one else on PPRuNe agrees with your comments. If they do, I will continue to argue my point of view. But if you are the only person who holds these views, I refuse to comment any further because I will not waste any more of my time on one bigot such as you.

Sorry to have to tell you this but NoSurrender speaks for an increasing number of the British population.

Putting aside radical movements such as the NF, I think you will find the average man in the street is becoming more and more frustrated with lax immigration laws that burden the taxpayer beyond belief. That is on top of the £tax spent policing the the worlds hot spots in an attempt to protect these people in their own Country.

To what degree do we continue to welcome the free loaders pleading persicution....Our own Heath Service is falling apart, Education is stretched to breaking point, but remains multicultural to a fault, Homeless on every street corner and OAPs dying every year through inability to eat and heat themselves.
Call me a Bigot, but I know where I would prefer my £tax pound to go.......

Where will it lead, Christmas is renamed Winterval, for fear of offending 'The British'.........

HugMonster
13th Aug 2001, 05:58
bored (and NoSurrender) yes, you are right - there are many people who think the way you do. Like you, they are blind, ignorant bigots who cannot see any further than their noses, and cannot be bothered to find out any true facts for themselves.

Firstly, immigration rules are far less "lax" than at almost any time since the 1950's. Check what has been done in recent years - Hansard is a good record. Or can't you be bothered?

Secondly, have you checked out recently how much the country actually loses from tax "exiles"? Rather more than we spend on either asylum-seekers and economic migrants. Treasury Spending figures are a good source here. Or can't you be bothered?

Next, there is a BIG difference between asylum-seekers and migrants. You'll find the Home Office can provide you with definitions and rules for each category. Or can't you be bothered?

Next, the UK is a net exporter of people. More people emigrate from this country annually than immigrate. There are figures available from the open.gov.uk website here. Or can't you be bothered?

Your background is shaky, your debating skills non-existent, your thinking is unreasoning, your morals degraded beyond belief, and your political theory based around the ideals of the booted, skin-headed, Rottweiler owner whose only idea of how to improve the country is to pick on a minority and persecute them, and whose only idea of a good time is to kick in the heads of a few "Pakis".

Your bigotry is out of step with anyone qualified to be a human being.

Tartan Gannet
13th Aug 2001, 08:40
Warning! Warning! Wet alert! Wet alert! drip! squelch! dribble! I could have put next years salary on it, H.M. the resident tortured conscience of JB would go steaming into No Surrender in his usual sneering, patronising manner that we have grown to know and hate so well, unleashing that great intellect which lives beneath his kilt!

Now let's drop the knee jerk reaction of studied indignation to an apparently racist posting and try to see what No Surrender, (I just love that handle, is he from Ulster?) :D , is trying to say, albeit in very immoderate language. He is annunicating the fears of many people.

As to there being too many Islamics in the UK, whether that is true or not is irrelevant. Many were BORN here, they are BRITISH CITIZENS as much so as a Scot like myself or any Englishmen, this is their native land . They cannot be "sent back". Where? To Bradford? Slough? Leicester? Also one cannot condemn the people for the faults of the religion. I work with many people of all three groups from the Indian subcontinent and have found most to be hard working, diligent, law abiding, decent people who I am happy to have as my co-workers.

The problem lies not with the man but the faith. As I said on another thread Islam by its nature is totally bound up with the way of life of its adherents and demands that they follow its tenets in their everyday life 24/7 . Its not like the mainstream Christian religions of the UK, to which most pay only lip service and discard in their everyday life till next Sunday morning. Thus conflict with the customs and mores of the indigenous and largely secular British population can and does occur. By and large the other Indian and Pakistani ethno-religious groups such as Sikhs and Hindus, while reserving their customs and faiths, do not make many demands, as long as they are left to follow their own practices. The last special requirement of the Sikhs that I can recall was to wear the Turban instead of crash helmets or uniform caps, an easy matter to accomodate, which affects nobody else, and which is now enshrined in UK Law many years ago. In contrast Islamics have demanded many concessions and seem to be far less willing or able to adapt to the UK way of life than the other two groups. This makes them higher profile and will lead to greater conflict with the white population and any such special provisions made for example by local authorities or educational bodies will be targetted and amplified by racists as examples of preferential treatment, particularly in deprived areas where the white population have poor schooling, housing, health care facilities etc. Thus the problems in Sighthill, Glasgow.

I feel that adaptation is needed on both sides. When one moves permanently to a country with a different culture one has to abandon some old customs. I offer the Jewish community as an example of people who came to the UK in the 19th and 20th centuries, who have kept their own religion, culture and practices but have not demanded any special treatment, merely withdrawing their children from any Christian Acts of Worship in State Schools, ( as any parent has the right to do), and maintaining their dietary laws etc. They handle their own religious instruction, Hebrew tuition, etc.

I would have hoped that over time the younger generations of Islamics would have adapted, dare I say secularised, and assimilated, but unfortunately the reverse seems to be the case and the more militant forms of Islam are gaining ground.

Im sad to say that once again religion is proving to be a source of conflict between citizens as is only too evident in other parts of the world.

I have to ask you, No Surrender, do you know any Islamics personally? Put aside any distrust and try to meet some as PEOPLE. As I have said, most are very decent types. In some matters, such as their care and respect for their elderly, they put us to shame.

Finally, H.M, spare me the pompous hollier than thou lectures, Im just not interested! If I want that sort of thing I'll buy the Guardian. :mad:

Unwell_Raptor
13th Aug 2001, 10:53
Well done Huggy. You have managed to get under the thickest skin this side of the River Bann. To repeat what I said about the pompous fool some time ago: I wish that I was as certain of anything as he is of everything.

I am afraid that reasoned argument is entirely wasted on those whose minds are closed. As always, the discussion has degenerated into little short of plain racism on one side ("why do we need so many Islamics?").

I don't think that the racial undertones on this thread belong on an essentially fun forum like this one. And it is particularly disgusting on an aviation BB; surely aviation is the world's most international business, an which all races and cultures get on together to produce a safe industry.

Anyone got any jokes?

SLF 999
13th Aug 2001, 12:39
TG, I have to agree totally on your point on schools, my first 2 years in secondary were in a Roman Caotholic school which had space while the non denominational school was full, so the only time pupils were separated was for RE. This worked well and the puplis intergrated well and there was very little trouble.

The same must be done to communities, Im against ailenation, these people need support and they can get that from those who have either been through the process or are part of a support structure but Im also totally against building ghettos, where the refugees are Dumped (for want of a better word) in an area and are seen as a threat by the local population and of course close ranks for nothing else than self protection.

Im not saying that integrations is the full answer, but it must be one of the first steps.

FlyingForFun
13th Aug 2001, 13:06
Boredcounter,

If you had read my other posts on this thread, you would know that I am very much against "free loaders" who "burden the taxpayer".

To repeat what I've said in other posts on the thread, I don't care what religion, colour, sex, etc. people are - I'm happy to welcome anyone into this country if they are prepared to work for a living and pay into society. I am not happy to have immigrants in this country who are here purely to sponge off the rest of us.

I don't care if they are Muslim, Jewish, Australian or Martian, I will treat everyone by the same standards.

FFF
----------

Tartan Gannet
14th Aug 2001, 00:49
Good heavens, a left and a right! I have managed to initiate simultaneous defecation from both of the resident ar**holes of JB! What a way to celebrate my 48th Birthday!

:D :D :D :p :p

HugMonster
14th Aug 2001, 01:06
Hmmmm - a post from TG that doesn't inform, doesn't debate any of the points raised, doesn't further the discussion, merely insults. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes - I remember - TaxiDriver and his pals...

Now you've finished congratulating yourself on nothing, TG, care to argue the point?

Velvet
14th Aug 2001, 03:17
Off subject I know, however,


HAPPY BIRTHDAY TG


raises a glass - 'Cheers'

Tricky Woo
14th Aug 2001, 04:03
Simultaneous defecation cheers you up, TG? What a sh*t way of getting through life. You really must get out more.

TW