No limits to immigration

[Limehouse]

I'm sorry what other interpretation can I put on the following statement:

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.


You want people to live and work where they wish and enjoy the same rights as other people in the vicinity.

The only meaning can be that if somebody comes into this country from abroad you want them to have the same rights as people who have been here all their lives and have contributed to the pot for all that time.

Firstly you only quote a portion of my original post so any exceptions or qualifiers I posted are conveniently ignored by you.

Secondly - in your post you went on to extrapolate wildy away from what i actually wrote - as Tom so wonderfully describes above.

So - Bob - your deficiencies remain evident.

[TomTomKent]

I'm sorry what other interpretation can I put on the following statement:

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.


You want people to live and work where they wish and enjoy the same rights as other people in the vicinity.

The only meaning can be that if somebody comes into this country from abroad you want them to have the same rights as people who have been here all their lives and have contributed to the pot for all that time.

The ONLY meaning? Perhaps not.

It could mean migrants away from this country expect reasonable human rights.
It could mean those who come to the country and contribute should be allowed to earn the same benefits as anybody else who works. Or that those who contribute to the economy, regardless of where they were born, do more to earn their rights than those who were born here and have no intention of ever contributing.

There are several meanings that can be applied. To assume your reading is the ONLY valid reading, especially after the intended sentiments have been openly discussed andexpanded upon is somewhat blinkered.

[Zodiac]

I remember watching this, as a kid, on a steam powered B&W TV, over 30 years ago!!! Sad That it is still as relevant now, today, as it was back then, is even more saddening. But then again the fact that, by the same token, it remains as cuttingly funny and well targetted as ever still makes me laugh out loud!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0ZOu_EZ2M

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[Limehouse]

Thanks Zodiac - I enjoyed that - although the alarming thing is it is probably quite accurate!

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,thanks Zodiac for giving us a good laugh!

[Bob Hinton]

At Least we all know where Limehouse stands...

So let me see if I – even with my deficiencies- understand exactly where Limehouse is coming from, it’s a bit difficult trying to interpret what she is writing as she keeps trying to change the meaning of her words every post!

Ten of us decide to form a Christmas club, we each decide to put into the pot £10 per month. So each month £100 goes into the pot, and at Christmas we are going to divide up the accumulated sum between us. By November each of us has contributed £110, one more payment means we have contributed £120 and that is our individual share of the pot. But then Mr Immigrant says he wants to join, but he joins in December and makes one contribution of £10. However when the time comes to divide up the pot he demands a share of everything that we have put in as well!

Well at least that’s clear then. Limehouse wants people to just turn up and grab everyone else’s share as well!

If immigrants come to this country then they should be entitled to absolutely nothing – no schooling, no benefits, no medical help – nothing at all until they have been here for a sufficient length of time. Other countries have these sensible rules – why don’t we?

What people like Limehouse – for all her sneering comments- overlook is that one of the fundamental traits of the British is an innate sense of what is fair. We may not like over regulation and the plethora of new laws that the past Governments have seen fit to heap on us, but we do like fair play. If you ignore that basic trait then you are fuelling anger and resentment. Why do you think we still have problems with racism in this country? The main reason is that the indigenous population do not see themselves being treated fairly. They see newcomers being extended every courtesy and assistance and having it thrown back in our faces with a sneer. We see job adverts in the papers stating ‘Only ethnic minorities need apply’, we see competitions only for ‘ethnic minorities’ we see officially sanctioned organisations for ‘Blacks’ only. And yet if the indigenous population did the same thing they would be hauled up before the courts in double quick time.

If nothing is done to correct this then I predict a terrible future.

[Bob Hinton]

By the way

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

The £18,000 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 £18,000-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.

But this has prompted criticism from white graduates struggling to find work.
Bristol city council

Controversial: Bristol City Council has attracted criticism from white jobseekers who claim the management trainee posts are 'totally racist'

One jobseeker, who did not wish to be named, described the posts as 'totally racist'.

He said: 'I am a tolerant white person who has lived in Bristol for 27 years.

'I am searching for a job and stumbled across a job advertisement on Bristol City Council's website that I see as totally racist.

'I feel the job would be an excellent opportunity for me to make use of the skills and qualifications that I have acquired but, being white, I am excluded.

'Equal opportunities means giving everyone an equal chance to succeed rather than discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin.'

The two jobs are described on BCC's website as 'open to black and minority ethnic graduates' only, with applications closing on June 11.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1OOkSmejx

[Limehouse]

So let me see if I – even with my deficiencies- understand exactly where Limehouse is coming from, it’s a bit difficult trying to interpret what she is writing as she keeps trying to change the meaning of her words every post!

Ten of us decide to form a Christmas club, we each decide to put into the pot £10 per month. So each month £100 goes into the pot, and at Christmas we are going to divide up the accumulated sum between us. By November each of us has contributed £110, one more payment means we have contributed £120 and that is our individual share of the pot. But then Mr Immigrant says he wants to join, but he joins in December and makes one contribution of £10. However when the time comes to divide up the pot he demands a share of everything that we have put in as well!

Well at least that’s clear then. Limehouse wants people to just turn up and grab everyone else’s share as well!

If immigrants come to this country then they should be entitled to absolutely nothing – no schooling, no benefits, no medical help – nothing at all until they have been here for a sufficient length of time. Other countries have these sensible rules – why don’t we?

What people like Limehouse – for all her sneering comments- overlook is that one of the fundamental traits of the British is an innate sense of what is fair. We may not like over regulation and the plethora of new laws that the past Governments have seen fit to heap on us, but we do like fair play. If you ignore that basic trait then you are fuelling anger and resentment. Why do you think we still have problems with racism in this country? The main reason is that the indigenous population do not see themselves being treated fairly. They see newcomers being extended every courtesy and assistance and having it thrown back in our faces with a sneer. We see job adverts in the papers stating ‘Only ethnic minorities need apply’, we see competitions only for ‘ethnic minorities’ we see officially sanctioned organisations for ‘Blacks’ only. And yet if the indigenous population did the same thing they would be hauled up before the courts in double quick time.

If nothing is done to correct this then I predict a terrible future.

I am not going to reply to most of your post Bob because I shall let people reading my past posts decide for themelves whether I have been fair and consistent in my message.

I will however reply to your last line because it rings a bell:

If nothing is done to correct this then I predict a terrible future.

Rivers of blood perhaps?

[Bob Hinton]

At Least we all know where Limehouse stands...

I am not going to reply to most of your post Bob because I shall let people reading my past posts decide for themelves whether I have been fair and consistent in my message.

I will however reply to your last line because it rings a bell:

If nothing is done to correct this then I predict a terrible future.

Rivers of blood perhaps?

Oh Gosh not another person who hasn't actually read what Enoch Powell said.

Of course you're not going to reply Limehouse I expected nothing more!

[Hatchett]

Hello Bob,

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

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.

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.

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

If you are talking about Enoch Powell then really you have to know your history, and remember what part Enoch Powell played in Immingration in the late forties.

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.

Best wshes.

[Limehouse]

Hello Bob,

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

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.

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.

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

If you are talking about Enoch Powell then really you have to know your history, and remember what part Enoch Powell played in Immingration in the late forties.

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.

Best wshes.

Well said Hatchett.

[Robert]

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.

[Limehouse]

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 - that's what Bob says some of us are saying.

If you read back a bit Robert - you'll see what I'm really saying (or writing actually).

[TomTomKent]

Oh Gosh not another person who hasn't actually read what Enoch Powell said.

Of course you're not going to reply Limehouse I expected nothing more!

What you mean in the speech about a member of his constituency who does not seem to have existed, therefore can not have had any abuse or terrifying encounters with the maws of doom... *sigh*


Can we assume Bob that there is a good reason why your "evidence" comes from the Daily Mail? Is it worth even pointing out the (constant) factual innacuracies in those stories? I take it you have never seen the stories debunked by the likes of Private Eye, FCC, Tabloid Watch, etc?

This was the paper that stated "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" Maybe we didn't understand that either.

And, if you do indeed "fully understand" what others have said, why persist with straw man arguments? Why argue against what they were not saying, while telling us it IS what they were saying? Because, if you didn't understand, that would be a silly mistake. If you understood, as you claim, but posted your responses anyway, that would be dishonest. (And you should be careful being dishonest, people might not want you in the country any more apparently).

[Limehouse]

Oh Gosh not another person who hasn't actually read what Enoch Powell said.

Of course you're not going to reply Limehouse I expected nothing more!

Well I would reply - but I'm too much of a lady.