Dutch to ban the wearing of the Burka?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

No I'll stick to stats which are presented without a political agenda and are drawn from a survey of the entire nation
__________________



An extraordinary example of political illiteracy.

Stats which just "happen" to support your own agenda?

And illiteracy? Oooooh! Nasty sentiment from a self-confessed bigot, whose jealous tendencies and hypocrisy have been exposed elsewhere...

Originally Posted by me283

Stats which just "happen" to support your own agenda?

Stats which are independent of my and your opinions

And illiteracy? Oooooh! Nasty sentiment from a self-confessed bigot, whose jealous tendencies and hypocrisy have been exposed elsewhere...

Oooh, gosh, you have cut me down to size. 1. Political illiteracy, nt illiteracy. Not a nasty sentiment, but an opinion of your understanding of political mechanisms. If you think democracy begins and ends in majority voting then you are indeed in need of an education. 2. No, you called me a bigot, not me. I disagreed with your analysis - as did from memory at least one other poster - but it doesn't bother me that you throw such nonsense about. 3. I'm certainly not a hypocrite, but I am opinionated and seek to justify my opinions with reasoned argument.

[idi banashapan]

just to take this back to the initial question about the views of the Dutch stance, personally I see nothing wrong with what they are proposing. At the end of the day, it is in Holland, and nowhere else. Surely the Dutch are intitled to have a country that THEY rule?

A point was also made early on in the tread about the dutch having seen the way over tolerance has made things in other countries. It made me think, our monarchy are meant to be defenders of the faith, but what faith are they defending these days?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudice against race / religion, etc. To be honest, I don't really follow religion myself, so I'm in no position to put down any sort of religion and would not attempt to do so, but I do feel this country (or the UK as a whole) has become far too obsessed with pleasing every other culture to the point it seems to steer away from pleasing the christians / English. For instance, in recent years, some schools have banned the flying of St. Georges cross during sports events and St. Georges day incase it upsets other cultures. Now there's this whole thing of banning 'Father Christmas' for the same reason. Who's country is this these days??? Can't fly The English flag in England? Come on...

I think that this is exactly the kind of thing the Dutch are trying to prevent before it's too late, and fair play to them, I say.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Stats which are independent of my and your opinions

Oooh, gosh, you have cut me down to size. 1. Political illiteracy, nt illiteracy. Not a nasty sentiment, but an opinion of your understanding of political mechanisms. If you think democracy begins and ends in majority voting then you are indeed in need of an education. 2. No, you called me a bigot, not me. I disagreed with your analysis - as did from memory at least one other poster - but it doesn't bother me that you throw such nonsense about. 3. I'm certainly not a hypocrite, but I am opinionated and seek to justify my opinions with reasoned argument.

1. Your opinion, not mine.
2. You said you were happy to be called one - want a link?
3. So you criticise others for doing something that you then admit you would like to do yourself? Sounds hypocritical to me...

[basa]

Originally Posted by andyl

Thanks - interesting source which also shows the highest recorded outflow of migrants from the UK to the EU; the highest level of immigration and emigration for a decade (global movement gaining pace?) and net migration at just 150,000;......

That was in 2003. I believe the popular figure now is 250,000 net.

Originally Posted by andyl

.....that 28% of employers seeking to employ migrants, with the number rising to 40% for organisations employing over 500 people;....

Cheap imported labour. Good for business and Govt, but bad for natives looking for work.

Originally Posted by andyl

Iraq, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan toping the asylum application list (can you spot any connection there?); only 13,000 people were granted asylum in 2003.

But how many denied asylum still remain here, including those using UK Tax payers cash to fight their case ?

Originally Posted by andyl

Yes, most migrant recruiters are in London; as I said before this is a conseqnence of economic not immigration policy.

Irrelevant .. there are ghettos all over UK. Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford.

Originally Posted by andyl

In response - an opinion; in suggesting we should keep out all Muslims and bar expression of the faith, we are over-reacting.

I don't know the answer to this, maybe better immigration checks. All I do know is I am uncomfortable living alongside foreigners who could well be harbouring bad if not lethal thoughts about my fellow natives and our beliefs.

Originally Posted by andyl

No, that's an opinion, not fact. An opinion not borne out by reality I might add (in my opinion!)

We'll have to agree to differ. I see many people supporting illegals right to challenge our immigration laws and Tax funded legal challenges in the Courts.

Originally Posted by andyl

More concerned about getting run over by a lunatic driver frankly; it's called risk assessment

That is a risk at least you have *some* control over by being aware whilst on the roads. Suicide bombers give no warning and as I said you can't identify a terrorist until the bomb has gone off.

Originally Posted by andyl

Who said anything about unregulated immigration? All I seek is a fair system which takes into account the real risk of persecution which people may face (in places like Congo, Zimbabwe etc to where we are currently repatriating with seemingly gay abandon) and does not discriminate according to race.

Likewise, but it appears to be very inefficient at present, possibly due to underfunding and overload.

Originally Posted by andyl

Well we are free to do the same across Europe. Do you think the word 'union' implies anything like, I don't know, unity?

IMO it appears the majority coming in are from the poorest EU nations of the old Communist Block, what are called economic migrants. It would be unusual if there was an equal exchange of Brits going out there. A great many of those from these countries are poorly educated and rely on UK Benefits.

My wife was recently in college alongside a Rumanian girl who stated that if she stayed in tertiary education for 3 years (free to her of course) she then also qualified for free housing. How can that be right ?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Who said anything about unregulated immigration? All I seek is a fair system which takes into account the real risk of persecution which people may face (in places like Congo, Zimbabwe etc to where we are currently repatriating with seemingly gay abandon) and does not discriminate according to race.

Really? A recent court case might suggest otherwise...

Originally Posted by me283

Really? A recent court case might suggest otherwise...

A welcome intervention by the courts to temper political ineptitude. Sadly the political intent shows no sign of diminishing in the face of a never ceasing onslaught by people who believe that the UK is "a soft touch" and sections of the media who never cease to demonise immigrants and asylum seekers.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

A welcome intervention by the courts to temper political ineptitude. Sadly the political intent shows no sign of diminishing in the face of a never ceasing onslaught by people who believe that the UK is "a soft touch" and sections of the media who never cease to demonise immigrants and asylum seekers.

An intervention that shows your post to have been inaccurate, or misleading, or both. My word, you get more accuracy in a tabloid!

Originally Posted by basa

That was in 2003. I believe the popular figure now is 250,000 net.

Where does that figure come from?

Cheap imported labour. Good for business and Govt, but bad for natives looking for work.

Labour is an international commodity whether, in the UK's case, from immigration, emigration (don't forget) and outsourcing. I do not like the exploitation of cheap labour but we are all complicit - including me - in that we all buy from supermarkets, use NTL (with its outsourced labour) etc

But how many denied asylum still remain here, including those using UK Tax payers cash to fight their case ?

Don't know, for obvious reasons.

Irrelevant .. there are ghettos all over UK. Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford.

There are deprived areas all over the UK. I thought a key criticism of immigration/economic policy was overpopulation - which, if anything, is centred in the South East.

I don't know the answer to this, maybe better immigration checks. All I do know is I am uncomfortable living alongside foreigners who could well be harbouring bad if not lethal thoughts about my fellow natives and our beliefs.

The answer to me is not to stereotype Muslims because of the actions of others and to be realistic and pragmatic about the risk and how it is addressed.

We'll have to agree to differ. I see many people supporting illegals right to challenge our immigration laws and Tax funded legal challenges in the Courts.

Not challenging our immigration laws but ensuring they applied correctly and fairly.

That is a risk at least you have *some* control over by being aware whilst on the roads. Suicide bombers give no warning and as I said you can't identify a terrorist until the bomb has gone off.

I'm just being pragmatic. I'm much, much, much more likely to be run over. And of course I have very litle control over other drivers.

Likewise, but it appears to be very inefficient at present, possibly due to underfunding and overload.

It is unsatisfactory, whether that's due to overload I'm unsure. Certainly asylum applications have fallen.

IMO it appears the majority coming in are from the poorest EU nations of the old Communist Block, what are called economic migrants. It would be unusual if there was an equal exchange of Brits going out there. A great many of those from these countries are poorly educated and rely on UK Benefits.

You're not harking back to the scare stories dating back to EU enlargement are you?

My wife was recently in college alongside a Rumanian girl who stated that if she stayed in tertiary education for 3 years (free to her of course) she then also qualified for free housing. How can that be right ?

She may not be correct?
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

An intervention that shows your post to have been inaccurate, or misleading, or both. My word, you get more accuracy in a tabloid!

No. You can try and twist my words all you want. It reflects poorly on you but that is not my problem

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

No. You can try and twist my words all you want. It reflects poorly on you but that is not my problem

Not twisting anything. You posted something inaccurate; no, blatantly wrong. I proved it. No problem for me. Problem for you though, as it shows you are not as right as you would like to think. Also unfortunate for you that, unlike the Guardian, you can't print an apology the next day...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

No because I work with the media and consume news press voraciously. I've worked with the Nelson Leader in the past.

I've yet to come across a newspaper that identifies in court reports whether people are British born Muslims (unless of course it is relevant to the crime committed which would be exceedingly rare and hardly likely to account for the majority of crime in Nelson). Please do show me a newspaper that does though; it will be an education.

So regardless of a newspaper citing a reputable source, because you 'know better' then you'll refuse to accept that you might be wrong?

[Lew]

Originally Posted by andyl

I do not support subjugation of women; that's why I've neverââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚¦ read the Daily Mail

Care to explain that one, or is it just a lame attempt at humour?

Originally Posted by Russ D

So regardless of a newspaper citing a reputable source, because you 'know better' then you'll refuse to accept that you might be wrong?

No, I'm saying no newspaper - barring maybe the BNP news - routinely identifies people convicted of crimes by their religion. So how can someone suggest crime is caused by British born Muslims? It's what I said before and it's what I'm saying now. And it's not difficult to understand the point, unless you choose not to.
__________________

Originally Posted by Lew

Care to explain that one, or is it just a lame attempt at humour?

Pretty straightforward. The Daily Mail, whilst undoubtedly producing a features section which appeals more than any other to women readers, also rejoices in their subjugation through celebration of their 'traditional' role, wholesale dismissal of a feminist agenda etc.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by andyl

Pretty straightforward. The Daily Mail, whilst undoubtedly producing a features section which appeals more than any other to women readers, also rejoices in their subjugation through celebration of their 'traditional' role, wholesale dismissal of a feminist agenda etc.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

No, I'm saying no newspaper - barring maybe the BNP news - routinely identifies people convicted of crimes by their religion. So how can someone suggest crime is caused by British born Muslims? It's what I said before and it's what I'm saying now. And it's not difficult to understand the point, unless you choose not to.

No, I'm sure I understand just fine. However I'm kind of wondering why you seem to strongly stand by what you say when it's easily proven wrong by remembering that most if not all the national newspapers identified the appropriate London bombers as being British born Muslims.