Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
People like Trevor Philips have voiced serious concerns about the segregation of communities, as in this speech. Is he doing any of the things you suggest? And I wouldn't call the recent riots "frictions"! |
But unlike other commentators, Trevor Philips proposed solutions to increase integration, rather than just repeating "rivers of blood" type speeches. If by the "
recent riots" you mean Birmingham Lozells, they seem very reminiscent of occurrences in Norn Iron in the 60's up to recently (or doesn't NI count as part of UK?), and that appears to be settling down nicely now. If you mean the riots in 2001, not very "r
ecent", are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
I disagree. I think as the country becomes more crowded, quality of life will fall for everyone here. But please be more specific. Which people are doing that and in what way are they doing so? Is anyone who expresses concerns about mass immigration doing that in your view? And just what is the agenda of the people who support mass immigration?
|
Oooh, to name but a few - BNP, UKIP; if you read their literature (and I am sure you do), you will find many instances of comments and language catering to the lowest common demoninator of fear of difference people and cultures.
I don't believe that everyone who raises the issue of immigration (loved the way you inserted "
mass" in there - nice trick using emotive language
) is crying wolf, just the ones who use the topic to incite fear in others for their own ends, appealing to those who feel uneasy and are looking for someone, anyone, to blame. btw, who said (besides you, twisting things round and using more emotive language) that some people support "mass" (there's that extra word slipped in again) immigration, and that they have an agenda? Is ther actually an organisation that exists whose stated purpose is to ensure "mass" immigration into our green and sceptered isle? Or is that the old political trick of creating and smearing non-existent opponents, in order to let the the smearers (uuurgh) make statements that would otherwise have no justification? (as in, we must stand against all these (non-existent) organisations and people who believe in "
mass" (love that word) immigration).
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
The British population before the Black Death was approximately 7 million, and even by the 1960s it it still hadn't reached 53 million, so immigration in the past simply did not have the impact that it does today. It has now reached over 60 million and official predictions expect it to reach 70.5 million by 2074 with a current official net immigration rate of about 180,000 pa. (But the government doesn't actually know the population of the country so official estimates should be treated with caution.) Given that we are already one of the World's most densely populated countries, would you expect Britain's future inhabitants to have a good quality of life?
|
erm, 48th out of 230 - not really "one of the World's most densely populated countries", is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
A total of only 50,000 or so Hugeunots fled to Britain when the population was still comparatively tiny and they integrated. It is also interesting to note that after the Black Death which almost halved the population, life for the surviving peasants improved in that their employers had to contend with the increased mobility in the labour market prompting wage inflation ... the opposite of what we see today.
|
Black Death = 14th Century; Hugeunots = 17th Century - the connection is? The plague outbreak in the 17th Century killed approx 100k in England, and the Hugeunots integrated over time, just like (I believe) recent immigrants will.
btw, the 14th Century Black Death also has some other social side effects (Wiki) -"
The Black Death had a drastic effect on Europe's population, irrevocably changing Europe's social structure. It was a serious blow to the Roman Catholic Church, Europe's predominant religious institution at the time, and resulted in widespread persecution of minorities such as Jews, Muslims, foreigners, beggars and lepers"
---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Surely we played a large part in creating the mess? I'm not saying things were good under Saddam, but they could hardly be worse than they are now?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Exactly, through lack of support, and by allowing militias etc to gain power, hence why we should remain until the Iraqi goverment are able to keep the peace, rather than withdraw and let things get worse.
It's all about thinking of your fellow man rather than sticking two fingers up at them and leaving them to be killed.
The likes of Locky have stated they'd prefer Iraqi's be left to kill each other (actually he said British business should profit from foreigners killing each other).
Pulling out the troops before the Iraqi government is able to maintain order would have that effect.
|
Xaccers, a lot of the present mess was caused by de-Ba'athification of the Iraqi Civil Service, and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army; this left a lot of trained, unemployed, discontented people who blamed the Coalition for their problems, and a lot of unguarded weapons facilities -this was a Coalition policy decision, which most people, including Paul Bremer and leading members of US and UK governments, realise was wrong.