No limits to immigration

[TomTomKent]

If I understand you correctly you are quite happy with an advert for a job that is open to black and ethnic minorities only. That's fine just wanted to clarify your stance.

Of course when you are talking to LWL's like Limehouse you must understand that they are against all discrimination - unless it's their brand of discrimination which they label 'positive' in which case that's ok!

So to clarify Limehouse's position. If a person advertises for white people only for a job - that is discrimination and is bad. However if you advertise for 'black and ethnic minorities only' for a job that's fine.

Can't wait for her take on 'Black police officers association'

And she wonders why indigenous people feel they are being unfairly treated!

But Limehouse has not stated any stance on the rightness or wrongness of the actions. Only the differences between what you claimed the article said, and what it actually said. Limehouse has not even commented on the actual events, only what the article claims.

So how is your statement a "clarification" when it is forcing words into somebody elses mouth. That generally tends to count as a "lie", and could probably be considered a personal attack. Explaining that the article is infact about a possitive discrimination agenda is not the same as saying if you support that agenda or not. It really is not that hard to understand Bob, and one must wonder why you always insist on cramming additional statments and conjecture into the mouths of others.

For those of you watching out for the logical fallacies here, that is another "non-existent middle ground" argument: Either Limehouse MUST agree with everything Bob has said, or Limehouse must want possitive discrimination to be the norm, with organisations of black police officers and white people (whoops, "indiginous" people, who apparently can not be black or other ethnic origins) etc. Don't ask what the Job was either (because, that might offer something like common sense to the situation: "But why should it be preferable for the outreach officer to engage with the muslim community on their own cultural terms be a muslim????"). Oh, and of course a Straw Man fallacy for exagerating Limehouses' statements into something far easier to argue against that was actually said. (Hence the "Clarification" in which "what the article Limehouse is talking about" magically becomes "what Limehouse says". One is easier to argue against than the other, and either is easier than admitting Bob wasn't strictly truthful about the claims in the article itself.

[Limehouse]

If I understand you correctly you are quite happy with an advert for a job that is open to black and ethnic minorities only. That's fine just wanted to clarify your stance.

Of course when you are talking to LWL's like Limehouse you must understand that they are against all discrimination - unless it's their brand of discrimination which they label 'positive' in which case that's ok!

So to clarify Limehouse's position. If a person advertises for white people only for a job - that is discrimination and is bad. However if you advertise for 'black and ethnic minorities only' for a job that's fine.

Can't wait for her take on 'Black police officers association'

And she wonders why indigenous people feel they are being unfairly treated!

You cannot possibly clarify my position because you either fail to undersatnd it, refuse to understand it or deliberately misrepresent it.

[RonIpstone]

It seems to be inherently wrong that jobs should be awarded on anything other than ability. Many years ago professional association football was the preserve in this country of the Caucasian. There were the odd exceptions, Clyde Best of the Hammers and Stan Horne of Man City spring to mind but they were few and far between. Nowadays some of the best players are black, yet in the intervening time no one ever gave the black player preferential treatment because their colour or race was under-represented in the 'industry' which is association football. They got there on ability.

It is only the loony liberal left cocooned in their ivory towers that believe such patronising nonsense (among other nonsenses) will help anyone.

[Limehouse]

It seems to be inherently wrong that jobs should be awarded on anything other than ability. Many years ago professional association football was the preserve in this country of the Caucasian. There were the odd exceptions, Clyde Best of the Hammers and Stan Horne of Man City spring to mind but they were few and far between. Nowadays some of the best players are black, yet in the intervening time no one ever gave the black player preferential treatment because their colour or race was under-represented in the 'industry' which is association football. They got there on ability.

It is only the loony liberal left cocooned in their ivory towers that believe such patronising nonsense (among other nonsenses) will help anyone.

Well Ron, if you had read the original article to which these posts refer, you would find that applicants have already been screened for ability because they are graduate traineeships up for grabs. Applicants first of all have to be graduates.

And do we have to have constant references to the 'loony left' ? Can you people really only formulate an argument based on such terminology?

[RonIpstone]

Well Ron, if you had read the original article to which these posts refer, you would find that applicants have already been screened for ability because they are graduate traineeships up for grabs. Applicants first of all have to be graduates.

Who has the better chance a white with a 2.1 or a black with a 2.2 degree? It is a dangerous game to start judging on anything other than ability, that's all I'm saying.

[Bob Hinton]

Hoist By Their Own Petards!

I will now show conclusively where LWL lie and lie again to try and score a point. Here is an excerpt from Limehouse post no 161.

Go back and read your link again. It does not state that the jobs are open to immigrants only as you state.

This message cannot be any clearer. It says I deliberately lied about the content of a story.

And again in post 164

Mr Hinton was insisting immigrants were being favoured over those of indigenous residents. Either he lied or he misread the article or he did not understand its contents.

I am once again accused of lying or not understanding the article.
Then of course little Tom Tom has to get involved with his post 166.

Only the differences between what you claimed the article said, and what it actually said.

And at the end of that post

easier than admitting Bob wasn't strictly truthful about the claims in the article itself.

Here I am being accused of lying, of not being strictly truthful and about misreporting of an article.

Now when someone posts disagreeing with LWL they immediately get attacked.

Limehouse post 169;

Well Ron, if you had read the original article to which these posts refer, you would find that applicants have already been screened for ability because they are graduate traineeships up for grabs. Applicants first of all have to be graduates.

Of course she makes no mention of the fact that even if you are the most qualified person applying you won’t get the job if you are white because the job asks for applicants who are either black or from an ethnic minority.

All the way through their posts the LWL have insisted several things

1. That I am a liar
2. I have not read the article properly
3. I have miss-represented the article

Now here’s the kicker. They have insisted those things because they say I posted about jobs that were open only to immigrants. They then point out that the story actually says ‘Open to blacks and ethnic minorities’ and then sneeringly insist that could cover people born in this countries and therefore my attack on immigrants in this instance is unwarranted.

However if they had stopped for one moment pouring their hatred and bile against me and actually bothered to read what was written, something they insist I never do, they might actually learn something.

My post you see starts on no 126 and towards the end it says:

We see job adverts in the papers stating ‘Only ethnic minorities need apply’,

And in the next post I actually give the link to the story. Here is the start of that post

If you think I was exaggerating in my last post here's a story that might interest you.

The Ł18,000 council job you can't apply for if you are white



A council has been accused of discrimination after white people were barred from applying for two Ł18,000-a-year jobs.

Bristol City has created the management training posts for graduates in an effort to recruit more minority employees.

As a result the council will only accept applications from ethnic minorities for the two-year placements.

Now I wonder if the sharp eyed among you can spot what the LWL have not? No? I’ll give you a clue. It’s got something to do with the complete absence of the word or reference to ‘immigrants’.

Now don’t forget I have been accused of lying by the LWL because I said the story was about immigrants and it was not. I have been accused of misleading people because I said the story was about immigrants and it was not. I have been accused of not reading the story properly as it was not about immigrants which I apparently said it was.

The truth is I am not guilty of any of those charges. Read my posts see for yourselves in this matter the word immigrant never left my keyboard.

But I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology that I could expect from any decent person. I tell you what I will get, bluff and bluster, waffle and waffle. Stand by for “Oh when I accused Bob of being a liar what I actually meant was ...............” and so on.

Note the way the LWL operate. They falsely accuse someone of some crime and then invent the crime!

The TRUTH of the matter is that I reported the story accurately and fairly, a story that demonstrates discrimination against white people in this country.

But look at the slant the LWL have put on it. They can hardly deny any longer it is discrimination so what do they do? The call it positive discrimination and try and make us believe that is ok then. It's ok as long as it's against white people - nice to know where the LWL stand on this issue.

[RonIpstone]

And do we have to have constant references to the 'loony left' ? Can you people really only formulate an argument based on such terminology?

It seems a bit inconsistent if you can in effect accuse Bob of lying but we can't make reference to Bristol City Council being the loony liberal left. However I believe loony liberal left and the Liberal Democrats are coterminous and shall use the latter phrase in future. Will that be better?

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

FRENCH LET 100 ILLEGALS A WEEK SLIP INTO BRITAIN

Tuesday June 7,2011
By Martyn Brown Political Correspondent and Peter Allen in Calais
MORE than 100 migrants are caught illegally trying to sneak into Britain every week from Calais, it emerged yesterday.
So far this year at least 2,000 people have been arrested in the back of UK-bound lorries at the port, and many more try their luck every night.
It is feared thousands more evade detection, with critics warning that those caught were only the “tip of the iceberg”. And they attacked lax French authorities for letting illegal migrants slip through the net.
They pointed out that those who get across undetected have taken advantage of a crumbling European asylum system to begin new lives in Britain, while many caught in France are released to try again.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...#ixzz1Obj8cp7Y

But don’t worry folks as soon as these criminals get here they all magically turn into law abiding hardworking people who only want to improve the country. Much like a burglar breaking into your house and claiming he only wanted to improve it by removing some of the TV’s and stereos cluttering the place up.

[Limehouse]

I will now show conclusively where LWL lie and lie again to try and score a point. Here is an excerpt from Limehouse post no 161.

Go back and read your link again. It does not state that the jobs are open to immigrants only as you state.

This message cannot be any clearer. It says I deliberately lied about the content of a story.

And again in post 164

Mr Hinton was insisting immigrants were being favoured over those of indigenous residents. Either he lied or he misread the article or he did not understand its contents.

I am once again accused of lying or not understanding the article.
Then of course little Tom Tom has to get involved with his post 166.

Only the differences between what you claimed the article said, and what it actually said.

And at the end of that post

easier than admitting Bob wasn't strictly truthful about the claims in the article itself.

Here I am being accused of lying, of not being strictly truthful and about misreporting of an article.

Now when someone posts disagreeing with LWL they immediately get attacked.

Limehouse post 169;

Well Ron, if you had read the original article to which these posts refer, you would find that applicants have already been screened for ability because they are graduate traineeships up for grabs. Applicants first of all have to be graduates.

Of course she makes no mention of the fact that even if you are the most qualified person applying you won’t get the job if you are white because the job asks for applicants who are either black or from an ethnic minority.

All the way through their posts the LWL have insisted several things

1. That I am a liar
2. I have not read the article properly
3. I have miss-represented the article

Now here’s the kicker. They have insisted those things because they say I posted about jobs that were open only to immigrants. They then point out that the story actually says ‘Open to blacks and ethnic minorities’ and then sneeringly insist that could cover people born in this countries and therefore my attack on immigrants in this instance is unwarranted.

However if they had stopped for one moment pouring their hatred and bile against me and actually bothered to read what was written, something they insist I never do, they might actually learn something.

My post you see starts on no 126 and towards the end it says:

We see job adverts in the papers stating ‘Only ethnic minorities need apply’,

And in the next post I actually give the link to the story. Here is the start of that post

If you think I was exaggerating in my last post here's a story that might interest you.

The Ł18,000 council job you can't apply for if you are white



A council has been accused of discrimination after white people were barred from applying for two Ł18,000-a-year jobs.

Bristol City has created the management training posts for graduates in an effort to recruit more minority employees.

As a result the council will only accept applications from ethnic minorities for the two-year placements.

Now I wonder if the sharp eyed among you can spot what the LWL have not? No? I’ll give you a clue. It’s got something to do with the complete absence of the word or reference to ‘immigrants’.

Now don’t forget I have been accused of lying by the LWL because I said the story was about immigrants and it was not. I have been accused of misleading people because I said the story was about immigrants and it was not. I have been accused of not reading the story properly as it was not about immigrants which I apparently said it was.

The truth is I am not guilty of any of those charges. Read my posts see for yourselves in this matter the word immigrant never left my keyboard.

But I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology that I could expect from any decent person. I tell you what I will get, bluff and bluster, waffle and waffle. Stand by for “Oh when I accused Bob of being a liar what I actually meant was ...............” and so on.

Note the way the LWL operate. They falsely accuse someone of some crime and then invent the crime!

The TRUTH of the matter is that I reported the story accurately and fairly, a story that demonstrates discrimination against white people in this country.

But look at the slant the LWL have put on it. They can hardly deny any longer it is discrimination so what do they do? The call it positive discrimination and try and make us believe that is ok then. It's ok as long as it's against white people - nice to know where the LWL stand on this issue.

WHAT??? I can't believe you!

Here is the post I was replying to in which you refer to the article mentioned above:

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.

You asked me to reply to that post and I did. NOW TELL ME THE WORD IMMIGRANT NEVER LEFT YOUR PEN IN RELATION TO THAT ARTICLE!!

I am not going to engage with you any more. You are not worth the effort. I won't bother to reply to anything you post so you can mouth on about me as much as you wish.

[Limehouse]

It seems a bit inconsistent if you can in effect accuse Bob of lying but we can't make reference to Bristol City Council being the loony liberal left. However I believe loony liberal left and the Liberal Democrats are coterminous and shall use the latter phrase in future. Will that be better?

No - actually - concerning Mr Hinton and the article - I wrote:

Mr Hinton was insisting immigrants were being favoured over those of indigenous residents. Either he lied or he misread the article or he did not understand its contents.

How would it be if I referred to those opposed the left-wing ideas 'right wing retards'? Do you get my drift?

[TomTomKent]

FRENCH LET 100 ILLEGALS A WEEK SLIP INTO BRITAIN

Tuesday June 7,2011
By Martyn Brown Political Correspondent and Peter Allen in Calais
MORE than 100 migrants are caught illegally trying to sneak into Britain every week from Calais, it emerged yesterday.
So far this year at least 2,000 people have been arrested in the back of UK-bound lorries at the port, and many more try their luck every night.
It is feared thousands more evade detection, with critics warning that those caught were only the “tip of the iceberg”. And they attacked lax French authorities for letting illegal migrants slip through the net.
They pointed out that those who get across undetected have taken advantage of a crumbling European asylum system to begin new lives in Britain, while many caught in France are released to try again.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...#ixzz1Obj8cp7Y

But don’t worry folks as soon as these criminals get here they all magically turn into law abiding hardworking people who only want to improve the country. Much like a burglar breaking into your house and claiming he only wanted to improve it by removing some of the TV’s and stereos cluttering the place up.

Why do you continue to confuse the right of those who wish to emigrate legally and contribute to society with those who enter a country by illegal means, who you assume tobe dangerous criminals, unless you wish to imply a racist assumption that anybody bornabroad is a criminal, and all criminal activity is foreign? If you genuinely wish to discuss the topic this thread is about why continue to post unrelated articles?

Just a thought.

[TomTomKent]

It seems a bit inconsistent if you can in effect accuse Bob of lying but we can't make reference to Bristol City Council being the loony liberal left. However I believe loony liberal left and the Liberal Democrats are coterminous and shall use the latter phrase in future. Will that be better?

Why? Can you not tell the difference between somebody calling names (like using the word "loony") and somebody else pointing out a factual innacuracy (like, for example pointing out that a news article doesnot mention immigrants at all).

[Derrick]

I don't think that anybody would argue that there are literally hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in the UK at the moment.

Many of these are under the control of human trafficking pimps who take most of the money that they may earn. And these poor bastards have to earn some sort of income or they take to the streets, or else......

So what work are these people actually doing?

I imagine a sizeable minority are working in the fast food restaurant trade.

Some, sadly are sex trade slaves satisfying the needs of predatory kerb crawlers.

But most are probably working in the agricultural industry.

Those farmers that pay minimum wage are struggling to compete with others who are perhaps knowingly employing low wage workers. In this situation who are Tesco, Asda etc going to deal with? Well thats obvious. It's going to be the producers who can produce the goods at the lowest price.

Who benefits from this situation?

Well, certainly for one the major supermarkets seem to be able to keep making profits that are larger than the GDP's of the economies of many of the worlds smaller nations.

Secondly it is the people of this country who also definitely benefit from the low prices that these companies charge for groceries.

If these people were being paid at least minimum wage then what whould happen to the prices of the food we buy after the supermarkets have lumped their extortionate margin on it? It was only until the Tory Tony Blair Government that a minimum wage was finally established. Farm workers were hitherto paid very little and still are.

How much collusion is there on the part of the megamarts, who have great lobbying power over law makers, and the Government's agencies to make it look like they are combatting illegal immigration on the one hand whilst still providing enough low paid labour to satisfy this countries competitively priced food needs?

All great empires have relied on slavery to prosper and that is a fact.

Eric Schlosser wrote a very good book, Reefer Madness, in which he exposes the dependence of the California economy on low paid migrant Mexican labour to produce cheap foods, especially and strangely strawberries.

It's happening in the States and it's happening here.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

Why do you continue to confuse the right of those who wish to emigrate legally and contribute to society with those who enter a country by illegal means, who you assume tobe dangerous criminals, unless you wish to imply a racist assumption that anybody bornabroad is a criminal, and all criminal activity is foreign? If you genuinely wish to discuss the topic this thread is about why continue to post unrelated articles?

I find the above a bit muddled.

Does the clause "who you assume to be dangerous criminals" refer to both "those who wish to emigrate legally and contribute to society" and to "those who enter a country by illegal means" or to just the latter?

If it be just the latter, then by definition their actions are illegal which would make them criminals whether dangerous or not would be a moot point.

I also do not understand to what the word "unless" relates. Why not stop your first sentence after the word "criminals" with a question mark, and then begin a second sentence with the word "Do" in place of "unless".

The slant of your question then posed by your second sentence will depend on what you mean in your new first sentence.

Overall I think that Bob is on topic here. The debate is whether all who want to come should be welcome on board the good ship Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the article shows how many 'asylum seekers' our French neighbours are letting through the doors illegally. How many more would come were entry into the UK unrestricted? How many more can we accommodate? How many more are needed? What skills, if any, should new entrants possess?

These serious questions and more should be debated, not questions of semantics.

[Derrick]

Why? Can you not tell the difference between somebody calling names (like using the word "loony") and somebody else pointing out a factual innacuracy (like, for example pointing out that a news article doesnot mention immigrants at all).

Hi TomTomKent

I am not sure exactly what happened, but RonIpstone used to post ludicrous nonsense on the A6 forums.

He hasn't been seen there since admin insisted that anyone who wished to post there had to ask admin for permission, due to the amount of vitirol that was being flung about.

I have a distinct feeling that he thought it was beneath him to ask for permission so that he could continue insulting people.

I could be wrong and I suspect Ron would beg to differ. But he would be foolish to do so.

If I were you, based on his previous form, I would just ignore him.

He must own a very worn out thesaurus becuase he loves to use very obscure words that he thinks others will have to look up to know what he is talking about.

Derrick