The Guardian have published an interview and been clever enough to put in the disclaimer within the article that Farage denies the accusations. The journalist doesn't make any accusations towards Farage himself. It's terrible logic to say he hasn't forced the newspaper to apologise for the comments someone made in an interview for the paper therefor the entire contents of the article must be true. Seriously...
Because why would he give more publicity to someone who is against him? Why bother drawing more attention to the accusations, or the man who made them and his new alternative political party? I can't see why you'd expect him to waste time demanding a retraction and apology, it just seems ridiculous to me, where is the logic? What does it achieve? Neither man has any evidence to prove the comment one way or the other, it's a pointless exercise to follow it up and potentially damaging by drawing attention to his comments. Once again it's terrible logic to think every newspaper article that is written about someone that isn't demanded to be retracted and apologised for must be 100% truthful. Honestly that's just nonsense.
Yes. I don't see why you deem not demanding a retraction and apology (which would have given further publicity to the accusations) an admission of truth. UKIP had just won the European election when that article was published and riding a sky high level of support heading towards the year of a general election. Again I ask why demand the retraction and draw further attention to a negative story and potential political rival? Moving away from the UKIP example as it's clouding your judgement, why does any newspaper article automatically become true just because the person it's about doesn't demand a retraction and apology? I'd imagine there is a huge amount of untrue content published in newspapers every single day and I doubt every single one of those is met with a demand for a retraction and apology.
Your argument is that an article is written about someone and to your knowledge they didn't ask for an apology (which could well have happened, I'd be interested to see your source for this assumption) therefor it has been proven to be true. That's just ridiculous.. In what way is that evidence that the article is true...?
But it is discriminatory. Manipulating a society based on economics will naturally restrict opportunity for those from poorer backgrounds, many of whom will be from ethnic minorities. I'm opposed to the very ideology of social engineering in this way as I believe in opportunity for all. The main political point however is that the idea that immigration is to blame for lack of jobs, housing, education and strain on NHS and public services. Is a blatant attempt to divert blame for a lack of investment, due to the bankers.
So do you think we should have a completely open immigration system then with no controls? Or limited controls? What would your policy on immigration be? (That's a genuine question, I'm not being confrontational! )
I am not keen on being called a racist either by you or your senile welsh **** of a chum. Calling me a racist because I would vote for UKIP is as valid as me calling the senile welsh **** a ***** because he talks about his grandkids. Just try debating without the personal attacks and I'll reciprocate. Simple really. Plot restored
The 'racist little Englander' comment wasn't aimed specifically at you, but the mentality the permeates from UKIP due to their stance on the EU and immigration, which a lot of their supporters are attracted to because it suits the argument that the 'outsiders' are to blame for our problems. I am diametrically opposed to that argument, not because immigration doesn't need to be managed, but because the problems exist due to our own Govts and Banks making a monumental **** up of our finances and therefore our public services.
We don't have a completely open immigration system with no controls, we have an existing control and legislation policy which already assesses and permits people to stay in the UK based on a number of factors, including exceptional talent, entrepreneur, investor, graduate entrepreneurs.
I didn't say we have a completely open immigration system, I specifically asked what your immigration policy would be, whether you supported a completely open immigration system, since you had mentioned opportunity for all. I wasn't passing comment on the current immigration system, just taking an interest in what your views were.
Pragmatism demands that you need to have a system in place to manage immigration. Personally I think our current system is a fair and humane one as it takes into account a multitude of circumstances. Talent, investment, skill, family, asylum etc, so each case is assessed on its own merits. A points based system would restrict numbers, but it would be too rigid and discriminatory. We already have an element of points based assessment in our immigration policy, what we don't want to lose is the compassionate element that assesses people based on their needs as a family or those fleeing wars etc (many of which the UK has had a hand in creating in the first place)
The assessment process that determines whether somebody seeking Asylum or those who have family / dependants can stay in the UK, regardless of their wealth or social status.
Wasting your time with some people mate. Not much compassion going around when you have the bankers robbing us blind and Farage scaremongering people...
To be honest from what I've seen immigration from the EU is positive, it gives us access to more skills, and a younger workforce to meet the gaps in an aging population with the 'baby boomers' reaching retirement age. It is also very positive in a world where more and more people will need to move around to get work, and will travel and move between countries to follow good jobs, that we are part of a union that allows us to work in Germany, Spain, Poland or Austria for example - and to travel through these countries without needing multiple visas. As such I don't feel this sort of immigration is the problem, IMO it's illegal immigration that is the problem, as we have no way to control the numbers of people coming into the country, and once here they are at the mercy of criminal gangs, human traffickers and the sex trade - all causing massive social problems. And of course regardless of if we are in or out of Europe, what sort of immigration system we have or anything else, it won't have any effect on the amount of illegal immigration to this country. What may be a positive step is to increase the budget for the Borders and Customs department, so that we can crack down on criminal gangs bringing people (and drugs/weapons ect) into the country, and close the gaps in the net which people slip through. My last thought is that it is a bit rich moaning about the amount of Libyans, Syrians, Kurds, Iraqi's ect in this country when we are very complicit in the start of the civil wars currently ripping their countries apart - and as such the war crimes that have affected many asylum seekers from that part of the world.
