Announcement

**TomTomKent** · 06-05-2011, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Robert View Post

So are we saying that anyone, from anywhere, can come to this country and claim benefits and services? Some of you people had better open your wallets - mine isn't awash with cash.

No, the discussion was if people should be free to WORK in the nation of their choice. If you equate "immigrant" to "benefits claimant" then go enjoy your world view, but that is not what is being discussed. And it does not seem to be supported by any figures I can find. Immigrants are no more or less likely to claim benefits for any longer than UK Passport holders. The majority come here seeking work, which means paying taxes, national insurance, and so forth. But the discussion equally applies to those migrating out of the UK to work abroad.

"A false claim to patriotism remains a thin veil with which to disguise prejudice, and is a poor understanding of what true patriots stand for."

**Robert** · 06-05-2011, 11:20 PM

So we're agreed, then : not everyone should be free to come to this country.

**Natalie Severn** · 06-06-2011, 01:11 AM

------hey why not just convicts allowed in----in return for all those we sent to Australia

?[I mean those at least on parole].

**Natalie Severn** · 06-06-2011, 02:08 AM

Sorry to but in a serious debate with something silly---so go on ignoring it!

**Hatchett** · 06-06-2011, 02:16 AM

Hi All,

The argument and what we are talking about is very plain to see.

Immigration does not equate with compensation, although emmigration can quite likely equate to a better standard of living for the price of a pension.

Either way we are talking about the right to seek a better future for our ourselves and out children.

That surely is a universal human right.

Let us forget about the clap trap and the figures that dont exist.

Let us all face the real world, and forget the discrimination.

Bes twishes.

**TomTomKent** · 06-06-2011, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Robert View Post

So we're agreed, then : not everyone should be free to come to this country.

Er, I didn't agree to that either, because I pointed out it wasn't being discussed. There will always be a need for passport checks, visas, and the like, with the samerestrictions for people leaving the country, but the original post was about those seeking work, and did not specifythis country.

**Bob Hinton** · 06-06-2011, 01:40 PM

Answer to Hatchett

I read your post with concern. It is illegal for adverts for jobs to specify that only immgrants can apply.

I quite agree with you, but where is the outrage from people like Limehouse when these things happen? They are strangely silent. Perhaps now you can understand why the indigenous population feel they are not being treated fairly .

As for your analogy of the people putting into a pot, that really does not apply. We were an empire, after that we were a Commonwealth, what didnt change is that a large portion of the world contained British subjects.

No they ceased being British subjects when they gained independence. Independence means just that – you are now on your own.

You do not have have people putting into a pot when you create a well fare state, you have a system or you dont have a system.

I think all the people who pay their taxes every week would disagree with you here. You do have a system – you have money taken from you to pay for things you need

If you treat people differently in that system then that is clearly discriminatory.

But that’s exactly what people like Limehouse want to do. The system is you contribute and then you take benefits – you can’t just roll up one day and start taking before you’ve contributed.

Enoch Powell, just like me, agreed with some immigration – what he did not agree with was the door being left permanently open and people who abuse our hospitality being allowed to stay in this country to continue their abuse.

You know Bob, I really think you have to read behind a certain amount of the tabloid press and the favoured view of pub talk.

Well actually I don’t take any papers at all, but when people mention the ‘tabloid press’ they do so with a sneer. What I am interested in is “Is what they are printing the truth or not?”

**Bob Hinton** · 06-06-2011, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Hatchett View Post

Hi All,

Either way we are talking about the right to seek a better future for our ourselves and out children.

That surely is a universal human right.

Let us forget about the clap trap and the figures that dont exist.

Let us all face the real world, and forget the discrimination.

Bes twishes.

Of course it is your right to do so � but not at the expense of others. For example you may own your own home and have a nice car, does that mean if I think your home and car is better than mine I can just take yours?

As for facing the real world and forgetting discrimination, I assume that is some kind of joke. If you want to see real discrimination go abroad. How many Europeans are in the Indian Parliament, or the Pakistani parliament I can�t think of any. Of course there will always be discrimination and in a lot of cases that is a good thing.

**Bob Hinton** · 06-06-2011, 02:00 PM

Accuracy

Originally posted by Robert View Post

So are we saying that anyone, from anywhere, can come to this country and claim benefits and services? Some of you people had better open your wallets - mine isn't awash with cash.

That's exactly what she is saying here are her own words:

What it actually advocates is the freedom of people to live and work where they wish and in so doing enjoy the same rights as other people living and working in that vacinity.

Now the meaning of that is crystal clear but ever since writing it she has been twisting and turning and saying that's not what she meant - as she has done so in a reply to you!

This is not ambiguous it is quite straight forward. Let us analyse it.

�the freedom of people�

She doesn�t qualify what she means by �people�, she doesn�t say for example �some people� or �selected people�, she says �people� which can only mean everybody.

�live and work where they wish�

Again the meaning is clear. Everyone should have the right to live and work anywhere in the world.

� enjoy the same rights as other people living and working in that vacinity.�

Assuming she is trying to write �vicinity� the meaning is again quite clear. The newcomers should be entitled to everything the indigenous population are entitled to.

She keeps squirming and wriggling and trying to convince us that is not what she meant but see for yourself. I have used her precise words in context.

**Bob Hinton** · 06-06-2011, 02:05 PM

Silence from Limehouse

A few posts ago I posted a link to an article which appeared on a Council website. The story was taken up by the BBC and, among other papers, the Daily Mail.

It shows that discrimination is being practised against indigenous people by restricting certain well paying jobs to immigrants only. And yet where are the howls of outrage from the likes of Limehouse, Tom Tom etc? They are strangely silent - except when beating the drum for unrestricted immigration into this crowded little island.

Come on you LWL's let's hear your comments on that story.

**Limehouse** · 06-06-2011, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Bob Hinton View Post

A few posts ago I posted a link to an article which appeared on a Council website. The story was taken up by the BBC and, among other papers, the Daily Mail.

It shows that discrimination is being practised against indigenous people by restricting certain well paying jobs to immigrants only. And yet where are the howls of outrage from the likes of Limehouse, Tom Tom etc? They are strangely silent - except when beating the drum for unrestricted immigration into this crowded little island.

Come on you LWL's let's hear your comments on that story.

A few posts ago I posted some POSITIVE examples of immigrants who had made a CONSIDERABLE contribution to this country.

SILENCE FROM BOB!

So why should I reply to your endless links to the Daily Mail of all papers?

I have NEVER advocated unrestricted immigration. Anyone who has read my posts and those of Tom can see that for themselves.

Stop misrepresenting what people are posting!

**TomTomKent** · 06-06-2011, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Bob Hinton View Post

A few posts ago I posted a link to an article which appeared on a Council website. The story was taken up by the BBC and, among other papers, the Daily Mail.
.

You had my response: It was yet another story from the Daily Mail, and there is very dubious evidence to support it. Why on earth would anybody howl in outrage at a story that falls flat under the weight of scrutiny?

**TomTomKent** · 06-06-2011, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Bob Hinton View Post

That's exactly what she is saying here are her own words:

What it actually advocates is the freedom of people to live and work where they wish and in so doing enjoy the same rights as other people living and working in that vacinity.

Now the meaning of that is crystal clear but ever since writing it she has been twisting and turning and saying that's not what she meant - as she has done so in a reply to you!

This is not ambiguous it is quite straight forward. Let us analyse it.

�the freedom of people�

She doesn�t qualify what she means by �people�, she doesn�t say for example �some people� or �selected people�, she says �people� which can only mean everybody.

�live and work where they wish�

Again the meaning is clear. Everyone should have the right to live and work anywhere in the world.

� enjoy the same rights as other people living and working in that vacinity.�

Assuming she is trying to write �vicinity� the meaning is again quite clear. The newcomers should be entitled to everything the indigenous population are entitled to.

She keeps squirming and wriggling and trying to convince us that is not what she meant but see for yourself. I have used her precise words in context.

You superior intelligence seems to misunderstand the word "AND". If somebody is living AND working, why should they not enjoy the rights of others who are both living AND working? That is not the same as anybody (with no caveat) being entiled to everything (again with no caveat) that everybody else who is living and working recieves.

Perhaps you didn't realise that when you posted your examples of immigrants not working and paying their due? Or when you posted any of that above blather? You just can't resist trying to tell people they wrote something entirely different can you?

So exactly why are tax paying, contribution earning people any less worthy to be in the country than anybody else who works and pays tax? Not the criminals, freeloaders, or any other group. Why are the people who WORK a bad thing, compared to the many British people who live off the state? Please, feel free to explain YOUR opinion, instead of lying about the opinions of others.

**TomTomKent** · 06-06-2011, 06:44 PM

Oh and as to the issue of indipendance of Nations, a nationality may lose all social and political ties to the UK, but a Nation is not an individual, or a family. Remember, not everybody wanted indipendance, not all ties were severed, and those who wanted to remain British citizens, or who had (and indeed have) family members in the UK retain the right to claim citizenship. That, by the way, is only if we take the most simplistic view, but as the majority of posters here have enough braincells to rub together to know that "Richard LittleJohn," "Daily Mail" and "well researched and accurate news about immigration" do not go well together (see The Mail mistaking A DOG for a person in one of their anti-immigrant rants) we need not rely on the over simplistic view, and look at the individual processes that took place as the Empire broke up. Look at the different accords and treaties for each case. The different forms of indipendence that were forged, from Dominions, Republics, the Common Wealth and so forth.

Somebody saying that indipendance should of meant all ties and links being severed is not the same thing as that actually having happened. We can all say what SHOULD have happened to anything in the world with 20/20 hindsight, but short of a time machine we have no power over what did happen.

And frankly, if Enoch Powel had to resort to making up horror stories for his speech, then he must have known the facts and common sense were not with him. I can say he shouldn't have done that, but it doesn't change he did. You can say he was right in spirit if you feel that way, but it doesn't change the fact that not one person in his constituency matched the description of the woman who "wrote him a letter", except one... Who never suffered any of the horrors he described and loved her multicultural neighbours.