No limits to immigration

[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.

[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.

[Bob Hinton]

So............

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.

Having posted the article and misrepresented it - he publically remonstrated with me for not having commented on it. Now I have done so and he appears to have egg on his face.

Concerning your remark about racial discrimination - it is not the case. This is positive discrimination - meant to redress the under-representation of those groups in the industry.

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!

[Limehouse]

So it's not immigrant discrimination - it's racial discrimination instead. That makes me feel a whole lot better, Limehouse. Thank you.

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.

Having posted the article and misrepresented it - he publically remonstrated with me for not having commented on it. Now I have done so and he appears to have egg on his face.

Concerning your remark about racial discrimination - it is not the case. This is positive discrimination - meant to redress the under-representation of those groups in the industry.

[TomTomKent]

No robert it is REPORTED as being racial discrimination. That is a seperate issuefrom it BEING racial discrimination. The story has been shown to be MISREPORTED and bunk. I suspect the only reasons it is still allowed to be pasted up online by the group that enforces the voluntary code od conduct for the national press is that their chief is also the editor of the Mail. How lucky.

[Robert]

So it's not immigrant discrimination - it's racial discrimination instead. That makes me feel a whole lot better, Limehouse. Thank you.

[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.

OK Bob - here are my comments that you have been begging for.

Go back and read your link again. It does not state that the jobs are open to immigrants only as you state. The article actually reports that the jobs are open to black and ethnic minority appilcants only. Believe or not Bob - black people and those from ethnic monirities can actually be British (or English or Welsh or Scottish etc). They can actually have been born here and paid in to the system all of their lives! And so could have their parents!

The article then goes on to state that the reason for the restriction. This is because black people and those from ethinic minorities are under represented in that industry.

So - no discrimination being practised against the 'indigenous people' at all - the opposite in fact. Some under-represented members of the 'indigenous people' are being given an opportunity that the other 87% of the white people in that industry enjoy. A job.

[Limehouse]

Perhaps it would be helpful to go back to the original quote that Phil saw posted on the window of the shop called Lush:

"People should be free to live and work wherever they wish and enjoy all of the same rights as all other residents"

Now - that does not seem to me to be implying unlimited immigration or the importaton of immigrant criminals.

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.

Of course - if people abuse that system - whoever and wherever they are - they should be investigated and punished according to the law and it is obvious from the links above that they are being.

Of course - the Daily Mail would never print exampes of immigrants making positive contributions to this country - such as those I quoted a few posts back.

For clarification - here is my post in its entirety. I have highlighted the bits Bob left out.

[Robert]

You mean widow, not widower. To find widows you would have to check back through years of electoral rolls or else conduct BMD searches. Did they do this?

[TomTomKent]

Thank you. I can get some of these but with others I get "unknown file type" and then they want me to instal something, which I am loath to do.

Actually statistical info from the 1961 census might have given them at least a shot. But I very much doubt if electoral register info could either prove or disprove such a thing.

apart from showing if there was a widower living alone in a street with a dissproportionate immigrant community at the time of the speech. There is one. Further investigation after the programme has since shown she could not have been the one who wrote the letter, and failed to identify any other plausible candidate. At this point it is almost certain that the author of the letter lied to Powell, or Powell lied about the letter. Either way, it is not a good basis for immigration policy, as it is a lie.

[Robert]

Thank you. I can get some of these but with others I get "unknown file type" and then they want me to instal something, which I am loath to do.

Actually statistical info from the 1961 census might have given them at least a shot. But I very much doubt if electoral register info could either prove or disprove such a thing.

[TomTomKent]

Here you go... Knock yourself out. I said "Census" when "Electoral Register" is more accurate. My bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document20070122_gallery.shtml

[TomTomKent]

And which census are these "historians" supposed to have used?

Off the top of my head I can't remember, but feel free to go and look up the very interesting radio4 documentary about it, mentioned earlier in the conversation.

[Robert]

And which census are these "historians" supposed to have used?

[TomTomKent]

You mean, the liberals actually tried to track down the woman who wrote the letter?

If by "Liberals" you mean "historians" and by "track her down" you meant "looked at cencus records and saw there were no pensioners alone on a street that could be described by any reasonable means as overrun" then you are almost correct.

If however you are seriously asking if liberals attempted to hunt down the author the letter, no. There is however good evidence that nobody matching the discription in the letter resided in his constituency, making the story in the letter, and the speech as a whole, factually incorrect.