No limits to immigration

[Errata]

Errata, I don't know what age Junior Year equates to over there, but whatever the age, your teacher should simply have told you that the book was wrong, and taught you the actual facts. But you say she wasn't as informed as you, so presumably she didn't actually know what the facts were? The mind can only boggle.

Junior year = 16

See down here we have what we call "Have a Nanny" teachers. They have a nanny who raises their children, so they don't have anything to do at home. They have limited job options because of a: their lack of practical experience and education and b: they cannot occupy any job that either reflects poorly on their status or on their husbands. So they become teachers.

And typically not good ones.

[glyn]

Cappuchina,
I cant comment,I dont know.The Sikhs may well be,for all I know,the least likely race to have a motorcycle accident,The least likely race to fart in church,the least likely race, to get arrested for drunken driving.They may well be the most law abiding race In Britain,It matters not.
From your question,Im assuming you allready have the answer,and logic might dictate that the Answer is" Brits" (hope no-one is offended by the word "Brit" by the way)..else you wouldnt have put the question.
Now its my turn
What race has more convictions for non compliance with road safety rules? (i.e specifically , not wearing a crash helmet while riding a motor cycle)1. non Sikh.....2. Sikh The answer is obvious,and of course you know why...
If we stray a little and exaggerate for effect ...........It could be classed as one of the Liberal ways of reducing crime figures....i.e if its a crime-make it legal,if its committed by an immigrant-pretend it isnt, if its committed by a white briton-hang the bastard.
Being that you are one of the more intelligent posters,judging you by your words,you will no doubt have realised early on that my tongue is firmly in my cheek, there it will remain,so bear that in mind,cos Im sure others have no earthly concept what "tongue in cheek " means(they probabley think its cockney slang for analingus,)and even less idea wghat the real issue is about .
Its not about motorcycle helmets alone,its about fundamental issues regarding the deliberate "downgrading" of anything British and the deliberate "upgrading" of anything foreign.We in Britain are in danger of seeing our institutions,our culture,our identity swept away by unelected crackpots and unelected pressure groups,while we have no say in it,none whatsover.You would have had to live in Britain these last 10 years to fully appreciate the bullying tactics employed as a tool to shut the electorate up,the Racist witch hunt-the Bigot witch hunt etc etc.That era I truly believe is coming to a close -and not before time. the.helmet issue is but one issue (a minor one in some ways,and one which has been around for some time )
My next speech is at T he Bangladeshi Memorial hall,thurs .....Doors open at 10 p.m -the trouble starts at 10.15.
I am,
Your most Umble servant
Uriah Heep
kind regards

[TomTomKent]

First of all: Being a Sikh does not make you "foreign" or "not British". Your "exageration" assumes that "sikh" must equate to "immigrant". The motorcycle ruling was an exception made for religious reasons. If you want to join an established religion with simaler rules go ahead. It will have nothing to do with your immigration status.

Secondly: Exactly which laws are changed by anybody who is "unelected"? British law is changed in parliment (Elected) or the European Parliment (also elected).

[babybird67]

What race has more convictions for non compliance with road safety rules? (i.e specifically , not wearing a crash helmet while riding a motor cycle)1. non Sikh.....2. Sikh The answer is obvious,and of course you know why...

This is utter rubbish Glyn.

One, Sikhs are not a race, it's a religion.

Two, there are no convictions of which you speak since a Sikh believer is legally exempt from wearing a helmet, therefore no rules have been broken, therefore no convictions follow.

[glyn]

Equality before the law,is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws.I.e the law is the same for you as it is for me.

Pressure groups are the unelected, who ,while not passing statutes of parliament,nevertheless influence,cajol, bully others to conform to their ideas and principles.If you havent seen the evidence of that in recent years.You havent been looking.
Exceptions made for religious purposes is precisely the point.It doesnt alter the fact that there is not equality under the law.There should be no exceptions....you want to drive motorcycle? fine-get a helmet.
I didnt say a Sikh was necessarilly an immigrant,he could well be an essex born caucasian wo for whatever reason wanted to become a Sikh..it changes nothing.
If exceptions are made for religious beliefs,then why not exceptions for political beliefs also and so on and so forth?

[glyn]

Two, there are no convictions of which you speak since a Sikh believer is legally exempt from wearing a helmet, therefore no rules have been broken, therefore no convictions follow.

Which is exactly the point.

[babybird67]

sorry Glyn you've lost me now. What is the point? What does the Sikh religion have to do with immigration? And what does their exemption from the helmet regulation have to do with immigration?

[Limehouse]

Equality before the law,is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws.I.e the law is the same for you as it is for me.

But this is not always the case. My husband is a Licensed London Cabbie. Under the law he is exempt from the seat belt law when he is plying for hire. Most other people have to wear a seatbelt when driving but he does not - when he is plying for hire. So - presuming you are not a London Cabbie too - the law is different for him and you.

[Limehouse]

sorry Glyn you've lost me now. What is the point? What does the Sikh religion have to do with immigration? And what does their exemption from the helmet regulation have to do with immigration?

Absolutely nothing Jen.

I know at least ten Sikhs - they are all British and none of them rides a motorcycle.

[babybird67]

ahhh ok

thanks Julie...it wasn't just me missing the point then...just that there was no point to miss.. thanks for that.

[HelenaWojtczak]

People here in the UK would be up in arms if it was suggested they couldn't exercise their right to emigrate to Spain to retire when they wanted to etc.

When I read Jen's comment I just HAD to share this with you all: a few weeks back I was chatting with some strange woman in the swimming pool and she said that she was so sick and tired of all the bloody immigrants in this country, taking our jobs, social housing, etc etc that she intended to join her son in Spain, where he is a builder.

She honestly could not see her own hypocrisy!

[TomTomKent]

I am struggling with the idea that pressure groups are something "from the last ten years". Perhaps Glyn missed Mary Whitehouse, suffrage movements, the peasant uprisings...

As for religious equality, the sikh allowances could be argued as an equality measure; an allowance to ensure one does not have to choose between faith or riding a motorbike. Of course if a siekh attempts to prance around a village centre with a short staff or clubs they would be arrested. Let alone a longsword. Once again it is one rule for morris dancers and pagans, another for others... or in the case of royalty it is a completely different law when it comes to catholics.

[Stephen Thomas]

My husband is a Licensed London Cabbie. Under the law he is exempt from the seat belt law when he is plying for hire. Most other people have to wear a seatbelt when driving but he does not - when he is plying for hire.

Just as a matter of interest, Limehouse, what's the thinking behind this?

Having a seatbelt on surely wouldn't restrict his plying for hire would it?

[Zodiac]

Pressure Groups

Equality before the law,is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws.I.e the law is the same for you as it is for me.

Pressure groups are the unelected, who ,while not passing statutes of parliament,nevertheless influence,cajol, bully others to conform to their ideas and principles.

Hi Glyn,

Like it or not, the fact is that without "unelected pressure groups", from the Peasants Revolt to the Chartists to the Suffragettes et al, we would still be living in country of such inequalities that neither you nor I nor 90% of the population would even have the right to vote, not unless you happen to own, say, half of Essex!!!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[TomTomKent]

Just as a matter of interest, Limehouse, what's the thinking behind this?

Having a seatbelt on surely wouldn't restrict his plying for hire would it?

It is somewhat archaic now, and many ignore it. But I believe it was due to issues with wearing old fashioned seatbelts for extended periord. What might be a minor chaffe for a few hours on one long trip for regular drivers could be a constant irritant for those who wore the belt for 35 hours every week.