Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I saw it weeks ago and I commented on it. Though it would appear that none of you saw it or you extrapolated/selectivised nuggets which you believed supported your position.
Have you heard File on 4 yet? No, that's because only the middle classes listen to R4.
Have you heard File on 4 yet? No, that's because only the middle classes listen to R4.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Interesting, maybe, but "hardcore"?treelover said:
And, as is getting usual for Panorama now, it spent too much time sensationalising, and not enough time actually reporting, not a sensible thing to do when your prog is only 27 minutes long. They could have squeezed a lot more in if they hadn't been so busy with "shock! Horror!" stuff. They could have, for example asked why the fuck Slough's planning enforcement and EH depts were so massively understaffed. Smelt to me like a problem caused by local party politics.
The program should have placed Slough within the wider national picture. AFAIK Slough is at or near the top end of the scale for towns with burgeoning immigrant populations. A viewer might easily draw the conclusion that Slough is representative of the country as a whole, which it isn't.
A much more interesting picture of external and internal migration, both for the present and for future demographic projections, emerges when you look at regional differences.
Regarding the argument over whether the focus of concern should be on numbers entering or resources provided: this reminds me of the debate held between the road lobby and environmentalists. The road lobby argue that more roads are needed to ease congestion. The environmentalists say that if those roads are built, then it will just encourage more car use, and we return to congestion once more.
A much more interesting picture of external and internal migration, both for the present and for future demographic projections, emerges when you look at regional differences.
Regarding the argument over whether the focus of concern should be on numbers entering or resources provided: this reminds me of the debate held between the road lobby and environmentalists. The road lobby argue that more roads are needed to ease congestion. The environmentalists say that if those roads are built, then it will just encourage more car use, and we return to congestion once more.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:
I'd noticed this too but there seems to be a general trend, among broadcasters, to sensationalise or 'dumb down' serious news. If i want entertainment, I'll watch a drama or a film, If I want news, I may have to go elsewhere for it.
ViolentPanda said:
I suggest you stop trying to listen with your nose then.
The programme made the case that Statistics relating to migration were unreliable and focused on one town Slough.
And showed how ridiculous govt stats are and what kind of problems that created.
To say it smelt like a problem with local party politics is just silly.
Perhaps you missed the bit on the programme that talked about the resources that are allocated due to size of population.
And its standard criticism from you to dismiss a programme like this as "sensationalist"
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Actually, I said that the fact that the planning and environmental health depts were understaffed smelt like local party politics.tbaldwin said:
I suggest that next time you try to critique a post, that you actually bother to read it first.
It doesn't apply to my point. A place even with the size of Slough's registered population shouldn't have such poorly staffed planning and environmental health depts that they can't even inspect a fraction of a percent of properties per year.
Really? Care to show me where I've used this supposedly "standard" criticism before?
Didn't think so.
Why not do people a favour, and iInstead of yapping like a dog, try actually reading posts before replying to them, eh?
ViolentPanda said:
Like there shouldn't be sin or poverty, I expect you are pedantically saying.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Fuck off.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So did neither balders or treefancier hear File on 4? Mpore myths were busted and it certainly supports what I've been saying about the allocation/points system all along. Certain posters (they know who they are) were calling me a "liar" and insinuated that I had never worked in housing.
I don't expect either of them to listen to the podcast: it would shatter their illusions...can't have that - can we?
I don't expect either of them to listen to the podcast: it would shatter their illusions...can't have that - can we?
ViolentPanda said:
When you talked about the programme "sensationalising" the issue.
What did you actually mean?
The bits on Asylum seekers being responsible for terrorism? eating the queens swans? ..........What do you actually mean by shock! horror!
Or was it just that it the programme didnt fit into your very narrow prejudices of what should be reported and in what way?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Those are the only two words that I'm willing to waste on you.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The way in which they condensed everything down into soundbites.tbaldwin said:
perhaps you don't remember the good old days when Panorama was an hour long, and managed to present programmes chockfull of info, without having to resort to snappy one-liners that don't tell the whole story?
The only person displaying "narrow prejudices" is you, balders. All the relevant answers to your increasingly ignorant questions are in my earlier post, by the way. Anyone who doesn't have "narrow prejudices" will have noticed that, and wouldn't have had to churn out the posts full of bollocks that you have.
I'd call you a muppet, but that'd insult muppets.
ViolentPanda said:
So your answer to why you called the programme SENSATIONALIST is they condensed everything into soundbites.....
and snappy one liners.......
erm
Perhaps they should get someone like you to waffle on and on endlessly in your usual boring and self opinionated way.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Way to miss the point yet again, dufus. Soundbites, by their nature, are lowest-common-denominator. That means that some relevant information gets pushed out in the attempt to make the soundbite "snappy", i.e. they retain the most sensational information.tbaldwin said:
Like I said, you haven't got a clue.
Or worse, get an ignorant self-opinionated no-mark like you to talk your usual ill-thought out ill-informed bollocks, eh?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Care to show me where I've ever styled myself an "intellectual guru"?tbaldwin said:
Of course, you can't, can you? Because yet again you're making stuff up in lieu of actually having anything worthwhile or relevant to say.
Oh, and as I applied it to Panorama, "soundbites" isn't a sweeping generalisation, but I'm unsurprised the distinction has passed you by. To actually "get" what I 'm talking about you'd have to admit that you're talking shit, and the chances of you admitting that are zero.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
I think of you more as Colonel Blimp.
MC5 said:
what that was ALL irony!?! wow
.. how STUPID i have BEEN!! but i've never seen soooo much irony in my life. HE really is ONE ironic guy isn't he!? i am privalged to have faced the affect of his irony. I must try to learn from his irony so maybe one day i can be as ironic as him and thus insinuate all sorts of shite against people i have political disagreement with, like that they have ALZHEIMERS and pretend it is all irony! but MC .. it was NOT irony was it? .. it is just pure and utter and fairly nasty bullshit.. and tbh reflects badly on you if you can not seperate your political argument from that sad behaviour
so seriously .. this is how you want to debate? nino insinuates racism and i should come back 'stronger'?
so what should i say MC5? 'fuck of yer wee toss bag!'? or ' you said little wanker!' .. no mate that is bull. I have deliberately NOT responded to his shite bollox (oops) with abuse hoping we could be grown ups .. some chance ..
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You continue to insist this, though no supporting evidence appears to exist.
You're an obsessive.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
For durutti
I don't expect him to listen to this as it flies in the face of everything that he has said on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6900925.stm
Enjoy.
I don't expect him to listen to this as it flies in the face of everything that he has said on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6900925.stm
Enjoy.
ViolentPanda said:They also clearly illustrate "push" factors too though, do they not? The home nation's need for foreign exchange, the individual need to provide for family better than can be done on the salary offered by the home nation, etc etc.
You've illustrated some differences. Don't get cocky.
Yes, immigration differs. It does so because the basis of the economy shifts, but that doesn't negate factors that propel people from their own country to others for work, in fact the cleavage between strength of economies makes them more visible.
Are you attempting to construct a moral case here? I've noticed that you're very keen to line all the "positive" factors on one side, and the "negatives" on the other.
Try putting yourself in the place of one of the people you're talking about, then ask yourself whether the way you're applying those factors is indeed accurate.
There's also, in many countries with controlled economies, a stronger strain of racism.
Have you not noticed that you're actually patronising those "immigrants" who aren't ANZACs or SA'ers by assuming that they wouldn't possibly have similar motivations to the white colonials?
If I were a Pole and you said that to me you'd have a glass sticking out of your neck.
I'd noticed.
"Must"?
Bit arrogant, don't you think?
1) i fully acknowledge push factors .. in that post i believe .. my point is about general trend etc
2) cocky? been cocky most of my life son ..
3) of course the essentail thing is a differrential in wages/lifestyle .. as that NEVER changes the debate surely pretty obviously relates to the changes in the economy, and specifically in the UK from a social democratic run economy to a neo liberal economy
4) i am constructing an argument that of course shows the down sides as most of the emphasis is on the upsides .. i am extremely happy to accept the cultural and personal upsides and have done many times before particulary on the 'looking after ones own ' thread when i talked about how 'my community' is totally multi cultural'
5) i have put myself in the place of many of these people and the way i see it does not change (p.s recruited another pole to union the other day)
6) you are saying there is MORE racism in sweden? and that is why imigration is more controlled? surely not! is it not because they are social democrat country where they do not want to see immigrants used and abused as they are here? note how that report showed that migrants also get paid MORE in sweden
7) the differrence between anzacs/safas and poles is fairly clear. The white commonwealth immigrants are NOT potato picking and working in packing factories in east anglia are they! Yes of course many poles are here for a change, for a holiday etc etc .. but we are talking generalities here though are we not?
8) what are you suggestting poles are violent/vicious? or is that just a nasty little dig? suprised at you VP! thought that was not your style. But anyway you have missed the point .. it is that working for spivs and cowboys does not in any WAY relate to the motivation of those who emigrate to do that work, whihc maybe for desperation thru to seeing the world .. (SEE above, see the OP and all my previous posts .. what has changed is NOT peoples differrent and varied motivations but the economy and how this country is run .. THIS is why immigration is now differrent)
9) i am glad you have noticed i debate differrently. maybe you could suggest/ help others to do likewise?
10) arrogent? moi?
no, i just want us ALL on here to do like wise and am happy you acknowledge i am trying to do so nino_savatte said:I don't expect him to listen to this as it flies in the face of everything that he has said on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6900925.stm
Enjoy.
How so????
"Latest figures show waiting lists have grown to 1.63 million people." ..
"Minister Margaret Hodge courted controversy earlier this year when she suggested local people should get priority over economic migrants with greater housing need....But BBC Radio 4's File On 4 has found it is not just the BNP that is questioning current policies, with MPs and councils around the country claiming the system needs a radical overhaul."
"Indeed some councils and local politicians are doing their utmost to stretch the current law to its limits to try to help those kept on the waiting list for years."
"Legally, "reasonable preference" should be given to certain categories of housing need including homelessness, overcrowding, insanitary conditions and medical requirements. .. A strict application of this priority can leave people like Peter Elsey waiting for years. "
this appears to back up all i have said.
indeed this was one of my 'scenarios' you refused to acknowledge sayin they were far right myths!
nino_savatte said:I don't expect him to listen to this as it flies in the face of everything that he has said on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6900925.stm
Enjoy.
Nino, I dont know if its worth asking you a serious question but here goes....
Do you really think its a good idea that the UK takes so many foreign workers?
You dont seriously think that everything would be OK if there was no right to buy do you?
You do know that Thames Gateway is likely to turn into a bit of a shanty town built on flood plains and contaminated land dont you?
nino_savatte said:
The evidence has been posted and is quite clear.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
durruti02 said:what that was ALL irony!?! wow
but MC .. it was NOT irony was it? .. it is just pure and utter and fairly nasty bullshit.. and tbh reflects badly on you if you can not seperate your political argument from that sad behaviour
so seriously .. this is how you want to debate? nino insinuates racism and i should come back 'stronger'?
There was 'irony' coming from both sides, sadly you were the first to throw your toys out of the 'ironic' pram.
Similar threads
