Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Stroller said:
It's called inclusivity.
Click to expand...

Inclusivity would to portray ethnic numbers in broadly correct numbers. No one cares about absolute accuracy, but when its multiples of 6 or 7, it's clear whoever is putting it out has an agenda. Same with lgbtq. I heard a number of commentators from both communities say it's unnecessary, embarrassing and at worst, could breed resentment.

The advertisers and programme-makers should shoulder all the blame.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
Inclusivity would to portray ethnic numbers in broadly correct numbers. No one cares about absolute accuracy, but when its multiples of 6 or 7, it's clear whoever is putting it out has an agenda. Same with lgbtq. I heard a number of commentators from both communities say it's unnecessary, embarrassing and at worst, could breed resentment.

The advertisers and programme-makers should shoulder all the blame.
Click to expand...

I’d say it’s those who it breeds resentment with who have an agenda. Imagine getting upset over there being more brown faces than you’d like advertising cereal with all the **** going on in this country. More culture war nonsense to throw on the fire with the rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, Toby and sb_73
Bwood_Ranger said:
I’d say it’s those who it breeds resentment with who have an agenda. Imagine getting upset over there being more brown faces than you’d like advertising cereal with all the **** going on in this country. More culture war nonsense to throw on the fire with the rest.
Click to expand...

Just because you mentíon it or talk about it doesn’t mean you’re upset….or are we not allowed to ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr and Goldhawk-Road
Goldhawk-Road said:
An interesting post, Stan.:

1. Where do you get the 26m migrants on the move figure from? This WEF article suggests 272million

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/iom-global-migration-report-international-migrants-2020/

2. What I want is controlled immigration. Migrants arriving legally, proper vetting and an annual cap on numbers. I am concerned about density of population, you're right, and strains on local services throughout the UK. The south-east of England is the most densely populated in Europe, rivalled by Holland. Since 2015, the UK has taken 1/2 million people from Afghanistan, HK, Ukraine and elsewhere. We do our bit, but we have a right to protect our borders.

3. You seem to be suggesting that an illegal immigrant ceases to be an illegal immigrant when he/she claims asylum. Is that what you're saying, and if so, what's the basis? As I said to Strolls, they become a legal asylum seeker but they still entered illegally and are therefore an illegal immigrant, unless and until they are successful, in which case they are a succesful asylum seeker that entered the country illegally.

4. I agree the asylum processing system needs a complete overhaul, though of course, since legal applications will be capped annually, this should help once the backlog is cleared.

5. British National Overseas - since we owe a separate duty to them, this figure should be added to the annual cap. You ask about Ukraine. That would form part of the annual cap. I guess in an emergency, figures could be "loaned" from a following year. There needs to be some flexibility here.

6. I agree with you on Afghan interpreters etc I felt the same about the Gherkas. We're not talking huge numbers here. They certainly should be first on the list of asylum seekers.

7. Ireland is, of course, a special case. I don't regard it like other EU countries, so special concessions should apply.
Click to expand...
https://fullfact.org/immigration/suella-braverman-100-million-claim/
1.From the UNHCR, whose job it is to look after refugees.

2. I was trying to keep the ‘by the rules’ legal immigrants, like students and those who have the right skills background, from those arriving for other routes. By definition legal immigration, unless it is a birthright like for the Irish, must be for our benefit if we set the rules. We are not letting people in to study and work in particular jobs here out of altruism, I think.

3. it’s really a bit of legalistic jargon and irrelevant to the discussion of principle. I’m not a lawyer, thank god. Common sense says to me that if you have claimed asylum you are an asylum seeker, not an illegal immigrant no matter how you arrived in the country. If your claim fails you are here illegally and should be deported.

4. There were 72,000 asylum applications in the year to September 2022, and 16,400 initial decisions were made. The ‘cap’ - which is a bit of irrational stupidity in the case of refugees as it implies a fixed set of circumstances eg no Ukrainian war, no famines, no new etc - will have to be very low if we want to actually process and resettle or deport asylum seekers rather than house them in hotels for months.

5. so, in the entirely possible event of the Chinese government turning very nasty indeed, you’d be happy for all 2.9m HK BNO holders to come here - they probably wouldn’t stagger when they come? We should have made this offer in 1997, and if we were worried about numbers made it time limited. Again, the cap, although it’s a nice bit of propaganda, is either unenforceable or inhumane.

6. shame we are making it so ****ing difficult for them. It’s why they are risking their lives in small boats. Easy enough to say ‘present yourself at the first British Embassy you find to claim asylum in the U.K.

7. I don’t think the Irish see their rights in the U.K. as a ‘concession’…..do we actually track the ebb and flow of Irish citizens here and Brits going there?
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
Inclusivity would to portray ethnic numbers in broadly correct numbers. No one cares about absolute accuracy, but when its multiples of 6 or 7, it's clear whoever is putting it out has an agenda. Same with lgbtq. I heard a number of commentators from both communities say it's unnecessary, embarrassing and at worst, could breed resentment.

The advertisers and programme-makers should shoulder all the blame.
Click to expand...
Do you also object to ‘colour blind’ casting in costume dramas, for example Dev Patel in David Copperfield, multiple examples from Bridgerton? Or for that matter non costume dramas, seem to be a lot more black policemen on telly than in real life, especially at senior levels…..
 
Last edited:
Staines R's said:
What’s interesting and something to talk about by one person…might be inconsequential and meaningless to another.
Doesn’t make any subject any less worthy of discussion surely ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. You and Goldie and anyone else crack on about the evil left wing forces manipulating people by having a mixed race family encourage you to buy their brand of toothpaste.
 
sb_73 said:
Do you also disagree with ‘colour blind’ casting in costume dramas, for example Dev Patel in David Copperfield, multiple examples from Bridgerton?
Click to expand...

No, I don't disagree with that. We also saw a black Anne Boleyn. No problem. I have nothing but disdain for the woke concept of cultural appropriation, which ironically this would presumably be, though of course, woke could not admit it in this case.

Good actors can play many parts. Done well, a black man or woman can play a white part. An actor doesn't have to be gay to play a homosexual etc... An Indian can play an Englishman, and vica versa (but it has to be done well, and Alec Guinesses' portrayal of an Indian in Passage to India left a lot to be desired).
 
Bwood_Ranger said:
Absolutely not. You and Goldie and anyone else crack on about the evil left wing forces manipulating people by having a mixed race family encourage you to buy their brand of toothpaste.
Click to expand...

You make my point brilliantly. I have a mixed race family thanks, but I’m not blinkered enough to see that people like me are being used to sell more toothpaste to people like you who want to be seen as “cool”
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol and Goldhawk-Road
Staines R's said:
You make my point brilliantly. I have a mixed race family thanks, but I’m not blinkered enough to see that people like me are being used to sell more toothpaste to people like you who want to be seen as “cool”
Click to expand...

Keep fighting the good fight against the powerful woke forces seeking to control all our lives.
 
sb_73 said:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/suella-braverman-100-million-claim/
1.From the UNHCR, whose job it is to look after refugees.

2. I was trying to keep the ‘by the rules’ legal immigrants, like students and those who have the right skills background, from those arriving for other routes. By definition legal immigration, unless it is a birthright like for the Irish, must be for our benefit if we set the rules. We are not letting people in to study and work in particular jobs here out of altruism, I think.

3. it’s really a bit of legalistic jargon and irrelevant to the discussion of principle. I’m not a lawyer, thank god. Common sense says to me that if you have claimed asylum you are an asylum seeker, not an illegal immigrant no matter how you arrived in the country. If your claim fails you are here illegally and should be deported.

4. There were 72,000 asylum applications in the year to September 2022, and 16,400 initial decisions were made. The ‘cap’ - which is a bit of irrational stupidity in the case of refugees as it implies a fixed set of circumstances eg no Ukrainian war, no famines, no new etc - will have to be very low if we want to actually process and resettle or deport asylum seekers rather than house them in hotels for months.

5. so, in the entirely possible event of the Chinese government turning very nasty indeed, you’d be happy for all 2.9m HK BNO holders to come here - they probably wouldn’t stagger when they come? We should have made this offer in 1997, and if we were worried about numbers made it time limited. Again, the cap, although it’s a nice bit of propaganda, is either unenforceable or inhumane.

6. shame we are making it so ****ing difficult for them. It’s why they are risking their lives in small boats. Easy enough to say ‘present yourself at the first British Embassy you find to claim asylum in the U.K.

7. I don’t think the Irish see their rights in the U.K. as a ‘concession’…..do we actually track the ebb and flow of Irish citizens here and Brits going there?
Click to expand...

I. The 100 million figure seems less of a lie than nuanced. And it does fly in the face of the bigger figure by the WEF

2. Yes, the right to study is important to the Uk and the student. But many do overstay their visas, so that needs to be considered too. I've said before, I'm in favour of national identity cards as proposed by the Labour Party.

3. I'll leave the legal bit.

4. The cap should work because refugees are an international problem. It cannot be open ended for the UK. Other countries in Europe are waking up to this, but most of them are bigger than us with much more space. We take our share, other countries including those that have been reticent, must take theirs

5. HK - a lot would go to the US, but sure, we'd have to accomodate those that wanted to come, which makes a cap on other applicants all the more important

6. As I say, Afghan interpreters etc should be first on the list

7. I expressed it as "concession", because Ireland is an independent sovereign country. It is an agreement reached between two countries as to how their respective citizens are treated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back