Forget the Conservatives galloping ahead in Gallup polls, forget the downfall of Brown and his callous cronies.
If you forget immigration from the agenda, forget a Conservative government for the next twenty years.
The Conservatives, who have watched from the reserves, have seen the country fall into decline and depravity after 12 years of hellish rule with Blair and Brown at the helm. Yet despite now primed as a credible alternative and bidding for a take-over next May, the party are at real risk of throwing all their hard work away - door-stopping, shaking-up, shifting politically and geneaologically to new lengths and levels - by forgetting the one issue that the public, even the disillusioned, care-free voters care and give two hoots about. IMMIGRATION.
The one word which has MPs quivering in their boots. It's unpopular they say. A policy that breaks rather than makes a party. Michael Howard found asylum in the back bench and grassroots when he dared to bring immigration to the public arena back in 2005.
In the same way the man on Question Time who questioned immigration was last week, he was shouted down for daring to attack the immigration shambles that has plagued Britain for over a decade.
Now, with the borders effectively thrown open and scores and hordes of people moving in to Britain either to strive for a better life, to better themselves or in some cases to squander and take advantage, citizens are concerned. And they are entitled to worry.
Immigration is not just an economic issue. It has a social impact too. The landscapes of communities change dramatically as a result as builders rush to build blocks of flats and homes to house the increasing population. In metropolitan places, issues of schooling, religion, language and culture come into repute.
There simply isn't the space in this overcrowded country for a policy of open borders. Many forget that we are just a dot on the world map yet we are one of the most populated areas - the 75 million mark isn't that infeasible in the near future. But Alan Johnson doesn't worry his pretty head about it or 'lose any sleep'. While it would be wonderful to welcome the world on our doorstop, let's face facts, this inn is nearly full.
Of course, TTG expects to be hung, drawn and quartered for daring to attack the open all hours policy of Labour's in regards to immigration. You can't say you don't like immigration after all.
Even in political ideology tests, there is only one option for those who aren't cheerleaders for the all welcome cause. It's all or nothing. You either agree or you are deemed racist and dubbed a budding BNP supporter. But there is a middle ground and it is one that TTG sticks to. It's called sensible immigration. There should be a quota where immigrants who have a skill or profession we desperately seek are pushed to the front of the queue. The rest must prove their loyalty and earn a right to live in this great country of ours and they must contribute first to society before being eligible to the benefits being British entails.
Please do tell TTG what is wrong with that? Is it really that severe? You would think so with the yowls and complaints of racism often pointed in her direction. But what is racist about complaining about the levels of immigration - immigration is not a race or a racial issue. The creed and the colour and the name don't matter. It's the sheer size that people have a problem with! In this case, size does matter!
And it's not an uncommon view. Take your typical Joe Bloggs on the street and ask him what he has to say. No wonder people are disillusioned and can't even be bothered to vote or spoil their ballot paper if again and again their views are ignored. The public need to be heard and immigration needs to be the debating issue of the day.
The only reason the British Nasty Party poll votes is out of spite. It's a ploy by people for one last attempt to get their message across. This country prides itself on being a tolerant and diverse nation and it is disgusting that the public are treated and named racists on this issue.
And despite getting it so right on everything else, the Conservatives, still aren't getting the message. However unpopular, we must stop ignoring the 'i' word. It's not going away and that's the problem for many.
We have more down for policy on the countryside than we do on immigration and it isn't good enough. If Cameron really wants to lead the country, then he must take a stand at the dispatch box and say, hey, here's our policy on immigration. When the going gets tough, the tough gets going.
Yes, David, you deserve credit for making us electable and TTG is eternally grateful for that but now we must win the argument of the day. Stand up and be tough and we WILL be behind you and the public will follow.
Our future survival is at stake. Don't throw it away over one issue.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Cameron does not care two hoots about immigration,he want's to be Prime Minister and he is not going to let something that the whole Nation is crying out for stop him.i have alway's been a Conservative,because i thought they cared about our Country,but no more,a bunch of cowards the whole lot of them.
I don't like unrestricted immigration. I don't like a horde of people who arrive here with absolutely no intention of abiding by our laws, respecting our traditions and trying to overide our religion.
I don't like it at all - if while I have previously always voted Tory if the party ignores these issues much longer my vote goes to the BNP - so damn well WAKE UP!
Where to start?
1) Just quickly: Some people vote for the British National Party because they agree with the British National Party, as improbable as that may sound. Your claim that "the only reason they poll votes is out of spite" is just wrong. I wish people would stop making this argument. Some people are racist, ignorant, incorrigible and would vote for Hitler tomorrow morning. To clamp down on immigration in order to damage the BNP would be like cutting off a foot to deal with an ingrowing toenail.
2) The immigration system you describe, just for the record, is identical to the one now in effect under Labour. The 'points' system prioritises individuals with useful skills and all the rest of it. Whether this is desirable, or works, is another debate.
3) I admire your patriotism, but there is a limit. Your idea of 'our borders' and of a country that is 'full up' is founded on a 19th Century understanding of nationalist politics. This is inescapable. Increasingly, the nature of our governments and communities is becoming super-national.
4) It's time for you to decide what kind of 'conservative' you are. If you believe in equal opportunities, freedom of ideas and people and markets, and meritocracy, then you must also realise than these views are incompatible with the protectionism of the rejection of immigration.
5) It does no favours to our economy, and it does no good to the world, to reject the most capable (or the most capable of doing the jobs that many British people turn their noses up at) simply because they were born somewhere beyond an old and arbitrary geographical dividing-line.
my dad'
6) The country is not 'full'. It wasn't full when my mother came over to live and work here, or when my father's family did the same a few generations ago. It isn't full now. By what definition do you consider it to be 'full'? Do the big numbers worry you in themselves?
7) I don't think I need to rehearse the old, and good, counter-argument that without immigration our welfare system, our institutions and our economy would collapse over the weekend. You've heard it often enough, I daresay.
That's reasonably put Simon but misses one, very important point: nobody is saying stop all immigration. All the pros of immigration are perfectly understood by those who want LESS or reduced or just bloody well CONTROLLED immigration. To say that this and the other are already in place belies the fact that they are not enforced! London looks like a foreign city; bad and once beaten diseases are making a strong comeback; alien cultures are being adhered to with no attempts to stop even when UK laws are bent or broken; no-go areas and ghettos are growing (!!!) Immigration needs an iron hand in a silk glove, not jelly in a hand-shaped ballon.
Simon, just quickly:
1. "Some people are racist, ignorant, incorrigible and would vote for Hitler tomorrow morning"... if instead of a rational discussion he relied on hot-button rhetoric and smeared his political opponents as racist.
Clearly, when discussing subjects like economics, education, justice, immigration those who persistently use race for political rabble rousing are themselves racists. It is even worse when they are supposed to be doing their best for the British electorate but instead use them as subjects in an ideological experiment.
2. New Labour are proven liars. There's too much to say about their crookedness to go into it here; please read other newspapers besides the Graun.
3. The gap between the government and communities has grown to such an extent that people are no longer surprised by sudden reversals of poorly thought through laws, or even members of the government placing themselves above the law (for example, Harman leaving the scene of a car accident, and Smith's intentional false claiming of public money).
4. Trying to impose exclusion policies based on gender and reverse-racism (or racism as it is called) is clearly opposed to equal opportunities. New labour have a proven history of nepotism and Political Correctness, not meritocracy; no surprise then that upward mobility is at such a low.
5. "One in six rapes committed by foreign attackers, shock police figures reveal".
I could have got this from another source but, based on your comments, I thought you deserved a dose of the Daily Mail. Your idea of "most capable" is clearly wildly different to mine.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1167978/One-rapes-committed-foreign-attackers-shock-police-figures-reveal.html
6. Why then, when discussing population density rankings by country, do the pro-mass-immigration crowd persist in using the area of Great Britain, which includes the uninhabitable wilds of Wales and Scotland? It is manifestly manipulative and dishonest to avoid discussion of the number of immigrants in England, and the effect on the population density of England.
7. "I don't think[.] I need to rehearse the old propaganda."
There. I corrected that for you.
Unfortunately the people who we don't want to come are the people who are the most difficult to refuse. Family members, asylum seekers, you can't have a quota on these like you can for skilled people. The worst thing is that Cambridge University is lumped with something like Cam Bridge College of English in Wales. Obviously someone who wants to study will not be working illegally whereas someone who doesn't want to study finds a bogus institution as a convenient way to getting in then not leaving.
I'll presume to offer a rejoinder, Derek:
1. I agree wholly with what you're saying, here, so it's possible that I'm missing the drive of your comment. My interest is in disputing the thesis that there would be no BNP vote if the existing system somehow synthesised a 'perfect' policy on immigration and so on. This seems manifestly wrongheaded to me.
2. If my original spiel came across as a defence of New Labour then that was wholly unintentional. For the record, I don't read the Grauniad. My comment is merely that Alan Johnson appears to be presiding over a move toward an admission-by-merit model similar to the one that TTG speaks of.
3. I agree, though I'd also suggest that this is no new thing. People have never been surprised by moderate-scale corruption in politics.
4. I think that my argument - that a true meritocracy and a 19th Century understanding of the nation-state are incompatible - stands.
5. There is an unfortunate tendency to mistake correlation for causation in much of this debate. I don't believe that there is a link between race/origin/status of nationality and criminal behaviour. Rather, there is the rather older and better-documented connection between poverty and crime. Immigrant communities tend to be poorer, poorer communities are more likely to produce criminals. I simply will not reduce this to some kind of causal assertion about immigration and criminality.
6. This is clearly a point where we are arguing from differing perceptions. On that basis, I'll offer a twee recommendation: I encourage anybody concerned about the population density in England or Britain to pay a visit to the Indonesian island of Java. Java has roughly two-thirds the land area of our own island, and more than 130 million people live there. I would still hesitate to describe Java as 'overcrowded'. It boasts huge areas of wilderness. When we have more than 100 million people living in Britain, maybe we can start to have a conversation about this island's natural 'capacity'.
7. There is absolutely no question that high immigration has had a net-positive effect for this country's economy. Also remember that ours is an ageing demographic. If we want to sustain the way of life which we have now, we somehow need to find lots of people, at working age, from outside our own borders. Whatever could the solution be?
8. All of this is to say nothing of the obvious ethical argument. What I cannot understand is the propensity of self-declared patriots to reject others who come here with an idea of our country as a place of justice, opportunity, and hope. How can we be so cavalier as to sneer at this idealism? Surely the only greatness we possess, the only vision of this country worth recognising, is that reflected in the way that, year after year, we remain a beacon to so many in the world who are simply seeking to make a fresh start? To say that we 'do not want' such people is to be nationally selfish, and ultimately self-defeating. These economic migrants come here for a reason. They can, and do, make this country a better place. We need them.
Simon seems a typical person of left persuasion. Even a B'liar speech writer has said that the Labour Party deliberately have a policy of open door immigration for 2 reasons:
1. To advance multiculturalism
2. To rub 'the right's noses in it'.
There you have it. That is what the Labour Party are all about. It is them 1st, 2nd and them 3rd. Dont forget the BNP get more votes in traditional Labour areas than Tory. Why do you think that is? Is it because they can see that their areas (generally the poorer areas, not Islington) are almost completely foreign where English isnt even a 2nd language?
Simon, I agree with thespecialone as to me your comments seem typical of the Left. Let me address a few of your points:
1. New Labour cynically used the smear tactic of labelling people racist to close down political debate of immigration (apparently because they had an unannounced policy of open door immigration, as thespecialone mentions). Ordinary people did see significant adverse changes taking place around them, and yet ALL the main political parties and the MSM disdained their concerns. If the BNP suddenly get voters' support because they address those concerns that would explain success in the European elections, when before they had been a party with very little support, would it not? And it seems to be working as the issues are now being aired:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23761212-blairs-think-tank-airbrushed-link-between-crime-and-immigrants.do
2. As to a 'perfect' policy on immigration, there won't be one because conflicting interests are involved. Most of us believe our political repesentatives are supposed to put the interests of the country and its people first (unlike New Labour). I cannot be convinced now that New Labour have changed their priorities (especially Johnson) because of their lies, hidden agendas, and propensity to set up 'unintended consequences':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8245411.stm
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6892830.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
3. Moderate-scale is not the correct description; this crew want to rob us and make US criminals.
4. Meritocracy and controlled immigration are obviously compatible, complementary even. We should only accept the people that benefit our country - that is, they have skills we desperately need, will engage with our society and will abide by our laws; we definitely don't need any more violent criminals, thanks, however tough it is on them.
5. Plenty of poor people are honest and non-violent; some rich people have been shown to be criminally greedy and/or violent. Your theory only holds for those who are starving and steal to live. However, immigrants bring their culture with them - else why all this mindless praise of multiculturalism? Some of those immigrant cultures though are violent, non-democratic and misogynistic; so we now have an increase in rapes, gang-rapes and 'honour' killings (a great cultural import that we must respect - hence the mis-use of the word HONOUR!!). We didn't get this with earlier limited waves of immigrants because most of those came from countries which had already been strongly influenced by British values and came to the country to work (there was not the current dependent-vote producing welfare system, nor the 'despise-the-British' government policies).
6. So what? I'm concerned with what is happening to the people I care about. If you care for the Javanese in preference to the British then that is your business - but don't impose it on me.
7. Controlled immigration benefits this country, not mass immigration. If you think otherwise provide some proof. I'll be using this:
http://www.migrationwatch.co.uk/briefingPapers
8. The government and those on the Left announce, like you, that they believe in open-door mass immigration to help all those poor people, and want to impose that on the rest of US. Well, you first. If you sincerely feel that way I suggest you sell up, travel to those lands and use your assets to help those people.
But, no!
You want to feel ethical, be seen to appear ethical, but you want others to bear the brunt. You must be New Labour.
This is interesting, because I'm actually usually described as quite 'right-wing': I'm very economically liberal and I usually find myself interested in individual rather than collective rights. I'd operate as a part of the Libertarian party in the US, for example. It's actually kind of refreshing to be labelled a leftist for once. The truth, of course, is that none of these terms actually carry much meaning.
I think this is winding up a little - we're finding our absolute stances, as it were - but a few notes:
1. My point on Java wasn't intended to evoke sympathy. It was an example of a far more populous island which still isn't overcrowded. If Java isn't crowded, the UK can't possibly be either.
2. You can't price human potential, which is why labour's approach to immigration isn't going to work too well. Meritocracy only works where conscious filters disappear and people get to compete freely. Someone may arrive without skills and eventually become vital. What you're suggesting is a massive protectionist measure in favour of the less-meritous, simply because they happen to have emerged from their mothers' wombs in your corner of the planet.
3. The connection between poverty and crime is not simply true for those who 'steal to survive'. It's a cultural divergence, as I'm sure you're aware.
4. As for your comment about immigrants bringing undesirable cultural traits with them - I find that fairly objectionable. There are some seriously questionable behaviours out there, but there aren't many that weren't being carried on in this country long before the latest 'waves' of immigrants. As for your thesis regarding the instilling of British values in earlier 'waves' - I can only presume you're referring to individuals migrating from former imperial or commonwealth nations. This might be the definition of an imposed ethic, as you put it.
5. This whole country is composed of immigrants. We are all from one wave or another, and when they arrived, they were resisted in their turn as well. I comfort myself that your reactions are an unavoidable and possibly even beneficial part of a process which is ultimately unstoppable, and which has created, in fact, the very country which you seek to 'safeguard' today.
I'm not trying to impose an ethic on anybody. Change is very hard, sometimes. But it's intellectually lazy to blame the immigrants for so much.
Simon,
1. Re: Java - not a valid comparison and far from the idealistic picture you present.
From Wikipedia:
"Since the 1970s the Indonesian government has run transmigration programs aimed at resettling the population of Java on other less-populated islands of Indonesia. This program has met with mixed results; sometimes causing conflicts between the locals and the recently arrived settlers."
Aha - quelle surprise! And:
"Java is comparatively homogeneous in ethnic composition."
I think we can take it that if they had an influx of foreigners causing a population increase of approx 6% in ten years they'd have even more problems.
2. "Someone may arrive without skills and eventually become vital"...err, they might, or might not. Why not filter on what they've proven to have done already? What if their 'skills' include violent assault and rape? Are we, when weighing the value to our country and society, to view that as equivalent to mathematical inclination, medical skills, empathic nursing or a proven work ethic?
We do actually have an obligation to our own citizens. It is a New Labour perspective (again like you, Simon) that we don't, or that we should give it lower priority.
3. Your point actually argues against open-door mass immigration.
4. You 'find that fairly objectionable', do you? Well, tough!
If you believe some immigrants bring desirable cutural traits with them (multiculturalism, yay!) then it is only rational to recognise they will also bring undesirable cutural traits with them. Objecting to unwelcome facts is a New Labour trait (hence the frequent use by New Labour politicians of the phrase 'I don't accept that').
The idea that all immigrants have a positive value undermines any value structure the destination country might apply, and that, in effect and again like you Simon, is the New Labour view that any immigrants, even violent criminals, are of greater worth than any indigenous people.
Putting forward the idea that 'honour' killings were a significant issue before New Labour's ideological experiment is deluded (very New Labour).
Focus on empire imposition of law, rather than acknowledge that people can recognise the benefits of Common Law, and would consider such benefits when choosing a destination for emigration, is an outlook I would expect from New Labour.
5. By that rationale the whole world is composed of immigrants, so plenty of other countries to go to - Java, perhaps? Oops!
Choices have to be made, and we're in a position to make them; I don't feel guilty for that because I think our society, when it uses reason rather than ideology, makes things better, and if New Labour assert we didn't then why do all those people want to come here?
My inclination is to take in those who want to, and can, become a productive part of this county, and would actively support it in time of war (ultimate test really, eh Jack Straw?) - not those who want to turn it into another country, or another society. Your choice seems to be different (again like New Labour).
When you prattle on about historical waves of immigration you conveniently ignore any violent consequences of them (the New Labour approach is to pretend they don't exist, or are 'cultural' so good, God help us). Let's recap this quote about your Java example - "sometimes causing conflicts between the locals and the recently arrived settlers"; hmm, someone's tolerance was pushed a bit too far. Any chance you or New Labour could take a reality check?
Actually you are trying to impose an ethic when you want other people to make sacrifices to fit your ideology - and that is typical New Labour.
It is intellectually lazy and totally dishonest to ignore unpleasant facts to suit an ideology regardless of consequences, but it is typical of New Labour.
I can accept you know your own political leanings better than I do, but I hope the comments above show why I (and apparently others) think you are of the Left.
I'm enjoying this. Maybe a bit flamey towards the end there, but otherwise good!
1. I think it's telling that you should fixate upon Java's relative 'ethnic homogeneity'. Do you actually feel that Britain could sustain 100 million as long as they were ethnically homogenous? I think it's important to be honest: is the country 'full up', or is it just 'too full for non-brit-borns'?
2. There are plenty of 'originally' British people who are criminals as well. My argument is that nationality of origin should not constitute a defining or filtering characteristic. We have an obligation to our own citizens, yes, but not to entertain them to in every populist stance: the people are not always right. I think populist government is something New Labour have a dangerous track-record in, and their movement toward a more crowd pleasing immigration policy is part of that.
3. I don't think my point does do that, in that I'm suggesting an emergent 'cultural' difference between the poverty-stricken and those that are not, rather than problems associated with imported differences in ethics.
4. What I found objectionable was your implication that your assumed undesirable side-effects constitute grounds for the rejection of the humanity of others. But I do think the 'honour killings' question is very interesting, in that it's a crime that certainly does overlap with one or two specific cultural sub-groups. I hasten to point out, however, that the end of an honour killing is still a killing, that killing of any sort is a crime, and that an individualist perspective should allow for the persecution of individual criminals rather than groups. The dangerous, in every society, are always a minority: to punish or delimit the majority based on the actions of the minority seems irrational to me.
5. Precisely. The whole world is composed of immigrants, of one generation or another. My landlord a few years back was a nice guy - a Pakistani Muslim, born abroad - who had lived and worked in London for maybe 20 years. He used to come around and drink tea and complain about all the immigrants. In a sense, that's all anyone ever is doing - one generation of immigrants complaining about the next. Sometime's it's just a bit easier to tell them apart, that's all. This island, in particular, has never had a static ethnic or cultural population. That's a fact which is often ignored by those on the right.
I'm not sure about your 'actively support the country in a time of war' stance, as that strikes me as a pretty limited conception of the 'good'. 'My country, right or wrong'? Really? I think we can be more advanced citizens now. I also think that blind obedience isn't my idea of patriotism, war or no war.
Secondly, if the basis of our country or society is tolerant multiculturalism (as, I argue, it basically has evolved into since the second world war) then it seems that no number of growing, changing, old or new sub-communities can really obstruct the framework. Only intolerance of one group by another would represent a 'change' in British society.
But, as I said, change is a very difficult thing, and I certainly sympathise with your point of view. It's not easy to see the framework being redefined around you.
The delimited nation-state is probably only a very temporary arrangement - there's little evidence to suggest that it might last as long as, for example, feudalist superstructure models of the state - and so the nationalist 'culture and country' worldview is necessarily only useful within its own context.
Waves of immigration are always challenging. Tolerance, as you imply, is key. It is also, in my opinion, the central 'British value'. If we are intolerant, we cease to become identifiably British. I don't think someone is 'British' just because they're born in the right place geographically. Do you?
Ah, so Simon is a troll, and probably a New Labour troll going by the tactics, and by the support he gives to NL ideology and to Alan 'science-is-what-I-say-it-is' Johnson.
Naturally I won't be replying to Simon any more - DNFTT - but, quoting him in italics, I will briefly point out some of his ploys for trying to twist or poison discussion.
Smears
When I point out facts that show his Java example doesn't support his theory he promptly assigns the word "fixate" to me, a word implying neurosis.
Of course, he might simply be a fool, but then he smears again, more elaborately, like so.
"What I found objectionable was your implication that your assumed undesirable side-effects constitute grounds for the rejection of the humanity of others."
Rejecting them as immigrants is clearly not the same as rejecting their humanity, yet he explicitly attributes to me the view that some people are sub-human, apparently because I will not go along with his ideology-driven open-door mass immigration policy.
Loaded question
It's a fairly basic ploy, along the lines of 'Have you stopped beating your children, yes or no?'.
The obvious truth that if you cram people onto an island, there will be less trouble if they get on with each other than if they don't get on with each other, somewhat ironically, doesn't cause the sort of aggravation he'd like so he tries this:
"is the country 'full up', or is it just 'too full for non-brit-borns'?"
You may vote only when you agree with Simon
Simon has ideology so he 'knows' he's right, no proof needed, but for him "the people are not always right" as in they might disagree with Simon as to how they live their lives, or democratically form their society. NL 'know' they're right and for them that justifies calling the constitution a treaty so a referendum can be avoided, or producing a dodgy WMD dossier and rushing the debate & vote in the HoC.
False or inaccurate leading statements
"if the basis of our country or society is tolerant multiculturalism.."
It isn't, which is why the more rational of us do not have a problem with not humouring the irrationally intolerant. This particular NL/Simon argument founders where one or more of the various cultural groups is bigoted against other groups in society (such as homosexuals or women), or bigoted against other essential aspects of our society (such as free speech).
You agree with me and my wonderful ideology, really you do
So Simon comes out with this guff - "Waves of immigration are always challenging. Tolerance, as you imply, is key."
Naturally I implied no such thing but he sounds so plausible, doesn't he, as he tries to link me to his ideology? I'll just make clear that in my view practical reasoning is far more useful than dogmatic ideology.
Practical reasoning is a tool that allows for:
justified tolerance or intolerance (as in being intolerant of violent crime),
explains why we cannot fix all the world's problems and why we have to be selective who we take in from all those who wish to come here,
and recognises the limits of what we can do or influence to make the world better as we see it.
порно онлайн школьницы подростки http://free-3x.com/ жесткое порно девочек free-3x.com/ порно онлайн видео школьники [url=http://free-3x.com/]free-3x.com[/url]
Hi again Derek, on the off-chance that you read this (as you've already said you won't be replying any more):
I think it's important to engage in conversations like this without getting too het-up over the issues at stake. I feel passionately about these things as well, but I think it's unfortunate when one feels so under assault that they feel the need to react in a personal way.
I'm not a troll, by any definition. I'm a friend of Francesca's from university and a regular reader of (though only a very rare contributor to) her blog. I know that she holds little ill-will toward me for my ideas and political beliefs, just as I remain interested if detached from hers. Difference doesn't need to be a source of conflict (precisely the tolerant Britishness I was referring to).
I do apologise if you thought that I was misrepresenting your remarks in any way, as this was not at all intentional. I was offering, I think, a valid interpretation of what you said in several places, and of course you must reserve the right to offer your actual intentions if that is what you wish.
However I also find it slightly amusing that you consistently attribute to me some support of Labour or New Labour when in fact I've not once voted for Labour or offered them support in any arena. I don't object to your repeated suggestion that I'm a New Labour acolyte because from your perspective I'm sure this seems to be a perfectly fair analysis of my remarks. But if you have an issue with misrepresentation in this discussion, I should start there.
To then move to accusing me of being a 'troll' when I merely forward an opposed viewpoint, or to suggest that I am attempting to "twist" or "poison" a discussion which I, unlike you, Derek, have participated in with perfect politeness, is an unfortunate way to end things.
Your perception of "smears" in my comments suggests a certain sensitivity on your part. The word 'fixate' does not necessarily carry any such connotation, and I did find it geuinely interesting and telling that you introduced the concept of national homogeneity in the way you did. My point about the "rejection of humanity" could have been better-worded, but it merely adds up to the idea that all communities have their baggage, as it were, and that we're not trying to deport everyone living in Slough just because it has a high crime rate.
The disconnection here is quite fundamental: I cannot perceive a difference between individuals (or their best treatment) based on the place of their birth. You clearly can. I think our values are quite incommensurable.
I know you don't "agree" with me, but I'm keen to point out that people always resist change - it's what people do - but change tends to occur anyway. Toleration, which I still hold is the central British value if ever there is one, is surely the only way to accommodate everyone's opinion: yours, mine, the immigrants', and all the rest.
How apt that it is in such terms that you have so clearly demonstrated your intolerance during this discussion. Your disagreement with my point of view has led you to accuse me of being a machiavellian and untruthful correspondent. This is both unfortunate and, it must be said, hilarious.
Hi !.
might , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may commense to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
AimTrust represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your chance That`s what you desire!
I`m happy and lucky, I started to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a proper companion who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://owonudah.freecities.com/kyxebic.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Hi !.
might , probably curious to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with affiliates everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!
I feel good, I started to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a correct companion who uses your savings in a right way - that`s it!.
I make 2G daily, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://hybatyriwo.freewebsitehosting.com/cacado.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money
Hello !.
You may , probably very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no initial capital needed You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with structures everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you wish in the long run!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct partner who uses your savings in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://jikenoxy.greatnow.com/ecunyg.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Post a Comment