To Mr and Mrs Superior

[stu]

ok

The Dimebag thing is closed. It seems that neither *side* really understood the subtleties of the other's position. Never mind.

I did notice, though, that a fair few people have started up the age old cry of "This forum is turning shit", "I doubt I'll post here again" etc in the past few days, a sentiment that was considerably amplified by that thread, and it got to the point where a) some people went as far as directly apportioning blame for said decline on others, and b) some people have taken to crying about it in almost every post.

Well, I've just had a flick through the last couple of pages of threads. And they consist entirely of 1) one liner links to news articles in a feeble attempt to stimulate conversation (the standard resort of someone with nothing to say who wants to look intelligent/learned - if you want to start an intelligent conversation/debate it helps to *put a point across* to get it started)... 2) 'high concept' threads (eg "happy birthday", "here are some kittens", etc) which whilst worthy enough I guess, aren't about to win any nobel prizes for literature... and 3) a thread full of semi-naked women (guaranteed winner).

So instead of bemoaning about how the place is going to the dogs, a challenge - how about posting something interesting? Given that the level of conversation is so clearly below some of you, it shouldn't be hard to come up with an interesting, thought-provoking, and/or topical thread of conversation. But like I said, it ain't happening. It's the easiest thing in the world to sit and bitch about something, but every one of you who has complained about the downward spiral has the ability to reverse it.

Disclaimer: any similarity to any person mentioned in this post, either living or dead, is entirely coincidental (well, no it isnt, but I can just see this degenerating into a slanging match and totally missing the point). Your statutory rights are not affected.

 

[Tom]

Ok Stu

Lets talk about Asylum seekers. I think the media have blown the problem out of all proportion, and I also think that nearly all genuine asylum seekers don't actually want to be here, they just want to return home, and be safe.

I think bogus asylum seekers who are actually economic migrants should be sent packing, but I can't really blame them for trying, especially if their nation doesn't offer them a chance of improving their lives.

 

[nath]

Well fatty tried, but was met with abuse. Honestly, it's just not on.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

On asylum seekers:

I have quite a few opinions, doh, too many too mention really but here's one...

Wouldn't you want to leave your home/country and take your family with you if the standard of life is either a) utter shit or b) you are being persecuted?

 

[Tom]

What I meant was, that if you were an Iraqi Kurd, and your life adn the lives of your family were in danger, of course you'd want to leave. I'm sure that most people who have left actually would have preferred to have stayed at home, if not for the conditions that made them leave in the first place.

Refugees come here asking for help, they don't speak the language, they can't get a job, they have very little money, nothing to do, and a rabid press rants on about them every day. Would you want to stay? Or wouldn't you rather go home, to the people you know? I'm sure most of them would.

On the other hand, if they have something to contribute to this country, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

 

[stu]

Well, the asylum issue is definitely a problem. Numbers of asylum seekers in the rest of Europe are falling, whereas in the UK they are rising. And whether it is quite as bad as everyone thinks it is, the public's perception is that it's a problem - qed, it's a problem.

I think the recent talk from the government about withdrawing from the ECHR etc is interesting. For a long time now it's been recognised that the best way to weaken the support of extreme political groups is to adopt (at least in part) some of their populist policies. The various far right parties were gaining considerable ground, both in this country and in europe, largely on the basis of immigration issues. So Tony says "ok, asylum's a problem, we're gonna do something about it, and we're really serious about cutting the numbers". Suddenly the BNP doesn't look so attractive - after all, your centre-left (or should that be centre-right) Labour government wants to deal with those problems too, and they have the added advantage of not being shrieking racist nutters.

I also heard an interesting take on asylum vs economic migrants. The rationale for seeking asylum is that you are unable to live in your home country, for fear of persecution/death/whatever. If you look historically at the various oppressive regimes, the kinds of people that tend to get oppressed are actually the kinds of people we should be welcoming with open arms - it's the poets, the artists, the journalists, the politicians, the scientists and lawyers and engineers. ie skilled, intelligent, well educated people who can add to our country.

Unfortunately the people who are flooding into this country are economic migrants - unskilled, poorly educated people who are moving because of the added benefits of living in the UK. These people generally *aren't* oppressed because they aren't the sort of people to 'make trouble', and therefore get themselves noticed.

So we've got a number of genuine asylum seekers from places like Iraq, Kosovo, etc, all with marketable skills and abilities, who are outnumbered 10-1 by the vast throng of unskilled migrants coming from Eastern Europe in the main (a sweeping generalisation, but imo fairly accurate). Unfortunately they all get labelled the same, with the result that on the balance of probability a large number of freeloaders get in, and a (proportionally) large number of skilled workers are turned away.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
Wouldn't you want to leave your home/country and take your family with you if the standard of life is either a) utter shit

Without wanting to sound too mercenary, that really isn't our problem. Life isn't fair. Some countries have better standards of living than others. The reason particular countries are advanced is generally because they have a history of advancement - ie their political, cultural, economic, social, legal and medical evolution is faster than others. And whilst I'm very sorry for some people who were born in the "wrong" country, the fact that their country is shit is not a good enough reason to move to another one and expect it to support you. Note I'm not talking about countries dealing with serious humanitarian issues (war, famine, drought, etc), but those that are merely less affluent/advanced than Western Europe and the United States (ie most of the ex-Soviet Bloc)

 

[nath]

Problem is, if we decide that it's only the poets/artists etc. who will be persecuted, so they're the only ones we let in, it might root out a lot of the 'economic migrants' but a lot of less educated but equally persecuted people will be left in the shit. Is that something we can say "sorry mate, but our figures show you're less likely to be persecuted, so sod off."

There's never any easy way with this sort of thing.

 

[adams901]

My only question is why do they travel through countless European countries to get to us, if it was a better quality of life they want or fleeing from persecution then they would stop in one of the countries they pass through (France and Italy to name 2). I think this is more a case of they know they will get some nice big handouts, the UK seems to look after asylum seekers better than its own population.

My mum works for the Post Office and some of the stories I hear from her are laughable, to name one.... an asylum seeker walks into the post office with a weekly giro for £300, she hands over a piece of paper given to her by some government body that explains she is an asylum seeker, she then goes on to complain about how she cant afford a new carpet or cooker with the money she gets. £300 a week is more than I get.

Or we have the story of asylum seekers who were put in a 5 star hotel at the tax payers expense while their request for asylum was processed, they had the audacity to complain the food wasn't good enough and that there wasn't enough room for them to have sex... I mean WTF.?

I say cut back on handouts to asylum seekers and invest it in our hospitals, invest it in state pensions so the people who work and pay taxes most of their adult life can live in secure knowledge that they will be provided for once they reach retirement age, invest the money in cancer research and better transportation, invest the money in our armed forces so they can have decent combat gear.

I'm sorry but this kind of thing really pisses me off, I don't mind supporting asylum seekers who genuinly need it or if they are going to work and put something back into the country, but the majority don't, they just get handouts from the government and then go begging on the streets and trains.

 

[nath]

Firstly, where are your figures? Are you *certain* that that's what most asylum seekers do? How do you know that: did The Sun tell you?

The pronlem is, I think there are some asylum seekers here and there who act like fuckwits, and that's put all over the tabloids. Of course they *don't* plaster the stories of decent hardworking asylum seekers who stick around and work hard for their dolla.

Finally, I think one of the reasons they flock here is because they speak a bit of the language. Even a couple of word here and there makes things easier. English is probably the most widely spoken language in the world, and that's probably why they come here.

 

[Daffeh]

on the topic of cut backs, how about the government stop wasting money on pointless shit...Princess Diana is getting a permanent memorial costing £3million which i assume is coming out of tax payers money.

WHY? To be honest....what did she actually do, apart from being a spoilt brat?

how many doctors and nurses saleries could that pay for a year?

I know £3million is next to nothing where the entire economic budget is concerned, but add up all the shite that the money goes on...although Millenium Dome is yet to be surpassed as the biggest waste of money, although Wembley is getting there...

 

[nath]

Aye, spoilt bratty anti land mine campaigning bitch.

She never got off her arse and did anything. She never sat and held hands with a guy with aids, thus improving awareness about it and how it's not like the plague.

Tbh, she was pretty fucking cool. Whether 3mill should be spent on a memorial is another thing. Dunno.

 

[adams901]

Originally posted by nath
Finally, I think one of the reasons they flock here is because they speak a bit of the language. Even a couple of word here and there makes things easier. English is probably the most widely spoken language in the world, and that's probably why they come here.

I disagree, I think handouts have a lot to do with why they come here, and I don't read the Sun , although I have been known to look at the pictures. English is the most widely spoken language yes, and most countries can speak it so that is not really an excuse for them to come here.

My cousin recently approached the council about being relocated to a bigger house, reason for this is they have a 2 bedroom house, one of the bedrooms is for the kids, a girl about 12 and a boy about 15, she was told your really best off going to a private housing association as we are giving asylum seekers priority.

I could go on all day with stories like this, at the end of the day they are not productive and don't help this country in any way, we are one of the smallest countries in Europe yet we take nearly twice as many asylum seekers than anyone else, and even the European suits have pointed this out. (just move to Dover and see how productive they are there)

 

[Mellow-]

You lot type so much, I don't want any immigrants in England, I want them out :|

 

[nath]

Sure, there are plenty of germans, and french, and italians that speak a bit of english. But in england it's everywhere. It'll make it a lot easier to get around. I'm not saying that the benefits don't have anything to do with it, but the language thing is a factor.

 

[adams901]

Yeah well this country is fucked up, I'm not saying don't help the needy, I'm all for helping those that really need it, but we have no organisation or screening process, the vast majority of those coming here don't qualify as needy and are not persecuted.

I wont even go onto the subject of all the terrorists who have entered our country and received handouts and free housing so they can do what ever it is terrorists do, I feel really safe in the knowledge that I'm funding terrorism with my taxes.

 

[nath]

Where are you figures though? People always say the vast majority are freeloaders.. how do you know?

How do you know that isn't tabloid bullshit?

 

[theriven]

Originally posted by nath

How do you know that isn't tabloid bullshit?

STFU!

All you have to do is watch the news, havent you seen the churning mass of shit running down the eurotunnel?
Trying to escape the "dreaded regime" that is france are they?
Get your head out of your arse.


ok on a reread that seems a tad harsh.
Anyone escaping from persecution and possible death will stop at the first "safe" country.
Whether they speak the language or not has fuck all to do with it.
There is only one reson why thousands every year come through a host of "safe" country's and that is for the type of lifestyle they will be able to have in england.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by stu
... "here are some kittens" ...

Kittens are soooo 9/10, the trend is towards genital energy beam weaponry nowdays.

 

[Durzel]

I personally think its foolish to develop any kind of serious opinion based on "lowest common denominator" journalism. Because the media focuses almost exclusively on the "bad", it presents a very disjointed view of the situation.

I'm not saying that the asylum problem isn't as bad as everyone makes out, I'm merely pointing out that for every 10 asylum seekers on the take, there's probably 1 who is actually contributing something of value to the community.

Does this mean they should all be tarred with the same brush? Maybe. Who knows! Ultimately I suspect they are no worse than the kinds of people you see claiming benefits illegally, etc.. other so-called "English" people.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by adams901
I say cut back on handouts to asylum seekers and invest it in our hospitals, invest it in state pensions so the people who work and pay taxes most of their adult life can live in secure knowledge that they will be provided for once they reach retirement age, invest the money in cancer research and better transportation, invest the money in our armed forces so they can have decent combat gear.

Even better, why not close all the tax loopholes of all these very rich "British" companies and get even more cash ? Companies like the foreign owned News International (Sun, NotW, Times) who publish so much shit like you've suggested to neatly distract from the fact who the real burden on the taxpayer really is.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by adams901
Yeah well this country is fucked up, I'm not saying don't help the needy, I'm all for helping those that really need it, but we have no organisation or screening process, the vast majority of those coming here don't qualify as needy and are not persecuted.

I wont even go onto the subject of all the terrorists who have entered our country and received handouts and free housing so they can do what ever it is terrorists do, I feel really safe in the knowledge that I'm funding terrorism with my taxes.

Well, I do think that since September 11th the whole "terrorism" thing is getting out of hand. We did have them before that, even if it took until 2001 for America to wake up and realise that they existed. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that any terrorist network, Al Qaeda or otherwise, is infiltrating our or any other country with a vast super-network of agents as some elements of the media would suggest. In fact, the whole Al Qaeda thing has now become a byword for any kind of social unrest or dissidence. Dog ate your homework? Blame it on Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately, as for the screening process, it's true - but it's a Catch 22 situation. If you're fleeing your country, you don't tend to bring things like identity papers, travel documents with you (if you even have them), and said papers are easily forged anyway. So actually proving where someone has come from, and whether they are persecuted, is a bit difficult.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by theriven
Anyone escaping from persecution and possible death will stop at the first "safe" country.
Whether they speak the language or not has fuck all to do with it.
There is only one reson why thousands every year come through a host of "safe" country's and that is for the type of lifestyle they will be able to have in england.

Actually, you're half right and half wrong.

Whether you speak the language has a lot to do with it.

English is the most widely taught international language. It stands to reason that the most likely foreign language that a geniune asylum seeker would know is english. In fact, if they are fairly well educated, it's pretty likely that they'll speak it to at least a conversational level. Now granted, if you're in fear of your life in your home country, your main priority is to get the fuck out - but what then? If you're a "genuine" asylum seeker, you don't want to live in poverty, you just want to be able to work and live somewhere safe. The most obvious place is somewhere where you can speak the language. Add that to the fact that France (for example) is an incredibly racist country, and you're unlikely to be given the chance you need to even try and make a living there. What's the point in escaping an oppressive regime only to live below the poverty line in a strange country?

 

[Will]

Don't forget the soon-to-be-closed tax loophole where AoL haven't paid VAT since they started up in the UK. That must be a fair lump of cash. Even if it isn't quite as good a point as Xanes.

We all know my opinion on asylum seekers. They are perfectly within their rights to come here and claim asylum. How we process them is where things fall apart. Typical UK bureaucracy drags its heels with them. Couple that with the way they are treated and how the press treat them, and they are hardly likely to want to help the process, which must seem to them to be aimed at rejection.

What really makes me confused is Tony Blair. He gives a speech stating that he plans to "half the number of people claiming asylum". How can he do that, since you claim asylum on your first contact with the UK? The options are to reclassify people as something other than asylum seekers (figure massage), deport them while denying their UN approved right to claim asylum (illegal), or shoot them at the border (try and justify war with Iraq after doing that, Mr Blair). Reducing processing time is possible, making the numbers of asylum more evenly spread around Eurpoe is possible, but reducing the number of applications? Its like saying "I will help the NHS by reducing the number of people who need medical treatment".

 

[Wij]

I think if you were fleeing your country that urgently you'd be quite happy with France though.

 

[DaGaffer]

Good thread!

Wow, a good thread that hasn't degenerated into a flame war (yet).

I'm with the 'don't believe everything you read in the Sun camp'. Fact is, there's nothing actually wrong with the concept of Asylum Seekers (when did that happen btw? The used to be just 'immigrants' or 'refugees' - the language we use has a big impact on perception); its what we do with them when they get here that's the problem. Its too easy not to assimilate into British culture, which stores up problems for the future - in the US, the view is that once you've got your green card or citizenship you're American first, wherever you came from second, unlike here, where people still consider Pakistan or the West Indies or wherever 'home' one or two generations in.

The US is FAR from perfect, but this is one area where they've got it right - tight controls, but once you're in you're as American as everyone else, and you HAVE to make assimilation efforts before they'll give you leave to stay.

It's actually in our interest to have more inflow of migrants right now; we've actually got a declining birth rate that's going to turn into an economic time-bomb over the next 30 years (when every working person is effectively supporting one OAP), we just have to get the mechanism right.

NB. Per head of population, we're nowhere near the top of the European migrant league - the smart immigrants want to go to Sweden or Switzerland.

 

[doh_boy]

As I recall we were second to germany, who has a worse problem than us despite being a larger country.

/edit thats on number of immigrants :/

 

[Lester]

I think most asylum seekers do want to work, they just want to sign on as well. Unlike the English who want to sign on and go to the pub and bookies all day.

I'm gonna sound like Major Chalmondley-Warner here but this country is going to the dogs. Nearly everyone I know wants to emigrate to somewhere warmer, less crowded, less corrupt where the standard of living is higher and services are better. Bizzare that the rest of the world wants to come here!

As for the Asylum Seeker problem generally I think that most people's point of view will vary depending not on what paper you read (tho it's a factor) but more on where you live. The Oldham/Dover/Bradford residents opinion isn't any less valid than someone from, say, Bath or Windsor. In fact it may have more relevance and insight.

My view is that places like Australia and Canada seem to do o.k. by strictly monitoring immigrants and only allowing those with a trade or qualifications to remain. By being in Europe the U.K. is hog-tied by far too liberal laws, which only we obey.

So the answer? Leave Europe? Close the borders? For Labour the answer is to reclassify the immigrants. Next year we'll still have 110,000 asylums seekers, just 50,000 will be called something else.


Rambling now, I'll stop.

 

[throdgrain]

true Lester .
My brother lives in a posh secluded village in Berkshire. Ask him about assylum seekers, and he dont see the problem.
I live in Crawley, we've had balkan types begging on our front door. My perspective is somewhat different.
Same for people who live in scotland, where they've had a 2% population drop it seems. Im sure a lot of them cant see the problem either.
They ought to try living in Crawley for a bit, it may change their opinion.

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Wij
I think if you were fleeing your country that urgently you'd be quite happy with France though.

Well as soon as you get to France, you're out of danger, so why not go that lil bit further to a country where you speak some of their language?