Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:39 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 86947 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688 ... 2174  Next

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out
In 60%  60%  [ 248 ]
Out 40%  40%  [ 167 ]
Total votes : 415
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
Leinster in London wrote:
Why is this relevent on the EU thread ?

Quote:
The Guardian reported several other cases including that of Albert Thompson (not his real name), a 63-year-old who was denied NHS treatment for prostate cancer because he couldn't prove he was entitled to care.

Mr Thompson, who arrived in London from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973, was told he would have to pay £54,000 for radiotherapy and told the newspaper: “It feels like they are leaving me to die.”


Is this the future of EU citizens 50 years down the line ?



Lunatic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38973
Leinster in London wrote:
Why is this relevent on the EU thread ?

Quote:
The Guardian reported several other cases including that of Albert Thompson (not his real name), a 63-year-old who was denied NHS treatment for prostate cancer because he couldn't prove he was entitled to care.

Mr Thompson, who arrived in London from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973, was told he would have to pay £54,000 for radiotherapy and told the newspaper: “It feels like they are leaving me to die.”


Is this the future of EU citizens 50 years down the line ?

The emphasis on having all your papers in line is probably already giving EU citizens living in the UK the heebee jeebees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21605
bimboman wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Why is this relevent on the EU thread ?

Quote:
The Guardian reported several other cases including that of Albert Thompson (not his real name), a 63-year-old who was denied NHS treatment for prostate cancer because he couldn't prove he was entitled to care.

Mr Thompson, who arrived in London from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973, was told he would have to pay £54,000 for radiotherapy and told the newspaper: “It feels like they are leaving me to die.”


Is this the future of EU citizens 50 years down the line ?



Lunatic.


You certainly are but that doesn't answer the question. Also when it come to visas you already raped the empire for hundreds of years why should you now also be allowed to demand only the brightest and the best


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
bimboman wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Why is this relevent on the EU thread ?

Quote:
The Guardian reported several other cases including that of Albert Thompson (not his real name), a 63-year-old who was denied NHS treatment for prostate cancer because he couldn't prove he was entitled to care.

Mr Thompson, who arrived in London from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973, was told he would have to pay £54,000 for radiotherapy and told the newspaper: “It feels like they are leaving me to die.”


Is this the future of EU citizens 50 years down the line ?



Lunatic.


He may be conflating a couple of issues, but this is a mainstream discussion/point, so dismissing everything as "Irish" or mentally ill, will likely only find favour with a few of your fellow travellers on this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Why is this relevent on the EU thread ?

Quote:
The Guardian reported several other cases including that of Albert Thompson (not his real name), a 63-year-old who was denied NHS treatment for prostate cancer because he couldn't prove he was entitled to care.

Mr Thompson, who arrived in London from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973, was told he would have to pay £54,000 for radiotherapy and told the newspaper: “It feels like they are leaving me to die.”


Is this the future of EU citizens 50 years down the line ?



Lunatic.


He may be conflating a couple of issues, but this is a mainstream discussion/point, so dismissing everything as "Irish" or mentally ill, will likely only find favour with a few of your fellow travellers on this thread.


"Finding favour " :lol: , yes popularity on this thread has been my aim. Have I failed then ?


I think I'm beyond reasoning with this type of "logic"

Quote:
You certainly are but that doesn't answer the question. Also when it come to visas you already raped the empire for hundreds of years why should you now also be allowed to demand only the brightest and the best




The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit , it wasn't a "policy" as has been suggested and isn't supported by the "Brits", the posters conflating the issue are doing so because they're WUM's or absolute c unts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
Quote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit , it wasn't a "policy" as has been suggested and isn't supported by the "Brits", the posters conflating the issue are doing so because they're WUM's or absolute c unts.


Do you only read this thread for your news?

Or would you say the many others discussing the very same issues are all WUMS and c*nts?

Ignore the messengers on this thread and whether you like them or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13707
Location: West of Londinium
Adetroy wrote:
without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Cute to lay the blame with the RAF. You wouldn't be Irish perchance? :lol:

The first 4-5 years were absolutely critical and instead of investing in modernising infrastructure and manufacturing as the Germans and French we squandered it on trying to maintain a global presence. But I have read that we were obligated to a certain extent by the yanks though I'd need a Brazil, Crash or Mahoney to wade in to either confirm or deny that. Britain had the mindset of a victor but was absolutely bankrupt and mostly destitute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13707
Location: West of Londinium
bimboman wrote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit

It's been leapt upon by Verhofstadt and remainers as an example of why the ECJ should retain oversight for EU Nationals following Brexit. Our courts can't be trusted apparently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38973
Gospel wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Cute to lay the blame with the RAF. You wouldn't be Irish perchance? :lol:

The first 4-5 years were absolutely critical and instead of investing in modernising infrastructure and manufacturing as the Germans and French we squandered it on trying to maintain a global presence. But I have read that we were obligated to a certain extent by the yanks though I'd need a Brazil, Crash or Mahoney to wade in to either confirm or deny that. Britain had the mindset of a victor but was absolutely bankrupt and mostly destitute.

The main reason for that, of course, is that a lot of their infrastructure had been bombed back to the 16th century by the RAF/USAAF, with admirable follow up by the Allied ground forces; so they had to.

Whilst the Blitz hurt the UK, it wasn't anywhere near the level of destruction doled out on the continent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
Quote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit , it wasn't a "policy" as has been suggested and isn't supported by the "Brits", the posters conflating the issue are doing so because they're WUM's or absolute c unts.


Do you only read this thread for your news?

Or would you say the many others discussing the very same issues are all WUMS and c*nts?

Ignore the messengers on this thread and whether you like them or not.



Sorry you agree with the assessment that the windrush issue was a policy to get rid of old West Indians because the British are racist ? Is that's what being discussed. Of course you've nearly moved away from the conflation with brexit because you realised it isn't relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
Gospel wrote:
bimboman wrote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit

It's been leapt upon by Verhofstadt and remainers as an example of why the ECJ should retain oversight for EU Nationals following Brexit. Our courts can't be trusted apparently.



As good an example of a WUM and an absolute c unt you'd struggle to find.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13707
Location: West of Londinium
camroc1 wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Cute to lay the blame with the RAF. You wouldn't be Irish perchance? :lol:

The first 4-5 years were absolutely critical and instead of investing in modernising infrastructure and manufacturing as the Germans and French we squandered it on trying to maintain a global presence. But I have read that we were obligated to a certain extent by the yanks though I'd need a Brazil, Crash or Mahoney to wade in to either confirm or deny that. Britain had the mindset of a victor but was absolutely bankrupt and mostly destitute.

The main reason for that, of course, is that a lot of their infrastructure had been bombed back to the 16th century by the RAF/USAAF, with admirable follow up by the Allied ground forces; so they had to.

Whilst the Blitz hurt the UK, it wasn't anywhere near the level of destruction doled out on the continent.

British industry and infrastructure were massively outdated. The decision not to modernise cost Britain dearly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13707
Location: West of Londinium
bimboman wrote:
Gospel wrote:
bimboman wrote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit

It's been leapt upon by Verhofstadt and remainers as an example of why the ECJ should retain oversight for EU Nationals following Brexit. Our courts can't be trusted apparently.



As good an example of a WUM and an absolute c unt you'd struggle to find.

I think he's paid by the soundbite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
bimboman wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Quote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit , it wasn't a "policy" as has been suggested and isn't supported by the "Brits", the posters conflating the issue are doing so because they're WUM's or absolute c unts.


Do you only read this thread for your news?

Or would you say the many others discussing the very same issues are all WUMS and c*nts?

Ignore the messengers on this thread and whether you like them or not.



Sorry you agree with the assessment that the windrush issue was a policy to get rid of old West Indians because the British are racist ? Is that's what being discussed. Of course you've nearly moved away from the conflation with brexit because you realised it isn't relevant.


You have literally just said only WUMS and cun*s think it has a link to Brexit, I argue that's not the case and you make some weird shit up above me moving away from the argument?

Gospel has articulated that many people have linked it to Brexit too, even if he may disagree with the link they are making.

I don't see it as just an ECJ debate only though - it's unsurprising in the midst of a divisive Brexit debate where immigration is often a key issue, that the Government's words and actions on immigration are examined closely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
And I don't care for huge swathes of what the likes of Cammy and LiL say, but I even think you're putting words in their mouths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
bimboman wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Quote:
The wind rush issue has absolutely no relevance to brexit , it wasn't a "policy" as has been suggested and isn't supported by the "Brits", the posters conflating the issue are doing so because they're WUM's or absolute c unts.


Do you only read this thread for your news?

Or would you say the many others discussing the very same issues are all WUMS and c*nts?

Ignore the messengers on this thread and whether you like them or not.



Sorry you agree with the assessment that the windrush issue was a policy to get rid of old West Indians because the British are racist ? Is that's what being discussed. Of course you've nearly moved away from the conflation with brexit because you realised it isn't relevant.


You have literally just said only WUMS and cun*s think it has a link to Brexit, I argue that's not the case and you make some weird shit up above me moving away from the argument?

Gospel has articulated that many people have linked it to Brexit too, even if he may disagree with the link they are making.

I don't see it as just an ECJ debate only though - it's unsurprising in the midst of a divisive Brexit debate where immigration is often a key issue, that the Government's words and actions on immigration are examined closely.



Governemnt words and actions ? Are you saying that this was in some way a policy ? And that all the "sorry , we f ucked up,in admin" was a lie to cover up a policy of expelling old West Indians ?

I think that's a silly conflation and dishonest in the extreme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
And I don't care for huge swathes of what the likes of Cammy and LiL say, but I even think you're putting words in their mouths.


How would you interpret this then ?

Quote:
As indicated above, the British do not want poor immigrants, so they are trying to deport those that arrived between 1948 and 1971.
These are the people who arrived legally from the West Indies, but the brits are now raising the bar to make them illegal.
The authorities refuse to acknowledge that any have yet been deported, and use examples of cases that were reversed at the airport to give the false impression that eventually sense and compassion were shown.



You'll have to point out where I've interacted with Camroc on the issue in any way ...


Last edited by bimboman on Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38973
Gospel wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Cute to lay the blame with the RAF. You wouldn't be Irish perchance? :lol:

The first 4-5 years were absolutely critical and instead of investing in modernising infrastructure and manufacturing as the Germans and French we squandered it on trying to maintain a global presence. But I have read that we were obligated to a certain extent by the yanks though I'd need a Brazil, Crash or Mahoney to wade in to either confirm or deny that. Britain had the mindset of a victor but was absolutely bankrupt and mostly destitute.

The main reason for that, of course, is that a lot of their infrastructure had been bombed back to the 16th century by the RAF/USAAF, with admirable follow up by the Allied ground forces; so they had to.

Whilst the Blitz hurt the UK, it wasn't anywhere near the level of destruction doled out on the continent.

British industry and infrastructure were massively outdated. The decision not to modernise cost Britain dearly.

You also had the 1945 Labour victory, and a more actual socialist government has probably never been elected in western Europe before or since. The first swathe of nationalisations (the first of what were proposed to be the outright nationalisation of all British industry) gave directoral power to union officials, which strongly influenced the managerial and union power game in the unions favour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3090
Mick Mannock wrote:
My parents in law naturalized as British I think in the 1980s. They came from Jamaica. Why some of their peers failed to naturalize I have no idea


I came to the UK in 1967, (mother English, father from a Commonwealth country). It wasnt till my sister had a school trip to France in 1975 that we discovered that neither of us could actually get British passports. It took till 79 before I had a British passport with the right of abode in the UK.

I dont understand why so many people didnt make sure that they had right of abode in the UK, they have had 30-40 years to sort out their status.


Thats not to say the Home office havent completely messed up over the issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28195
sewa wrote:
You certainly are but that doesn't answer the question. Also when it come to visas you already raped the empire for hundreds of years why should you now also be allowed to demand only the brightest and the best



Oh look, the empire card is coming up again as if it's relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
No, you don't get to decide how everyones arguments are framed.

You're grasping the most extreme element of your own narrative - that someone somewhere has developed a specific policy of targetting old West Indians - and using that to shut down discussion.

Administrative errors, or errors of judgement, have been made around immigration, in the middle of a huge divisive debate about the status of millions of people who currently live in this country and are waiting to find out what rights they have to stay here.

You'd be better off arguing with people based on what they say/think rather than what you make up - surely it's more fun or more enlightening for everyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5283
I'm not going to look back, but just for general info, the arrogance of the comment about the type of immigrant that will be let in in the future has got to be balanced against what is happening on the streets today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
Quote:
the British do not want poor immigrants, so they are trying to deport those that arrived between 1948 and 1971.


Quote:
but the brits are now raising the bar to make them illegal.


I don't get to frame this argument ? To not mean that the Brits want to get rid of poor immigrants and are trying to actively deport historic arrivals ?

That "raising the bar" doesn't directly imply a positive action has been taken ?

Go on then Sam help me understand what LiL "really" meant.


Last edited by bimboman on Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
the British do not want poor immigrants, so they are trying to deport those that arrived between 1948 and 1971.


I don't get to frame this argument ? To not mean that the Brits want to get rid of poor immigrants and are trying to actively deport historic arrivals ?

Go on then Sam make an alternative framing ?


I have no interest in this argument or whatever Camroc thinks.

You've said anyone who links this to Brexit is a WUM or a plum.

Now you're the one backing away from this.

Talk about that or don't, but don't ask me to analyse Camroc's posts FFS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38973
SamShark wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
the British do not want poor immigrants, so they are trying to deport those that arrived between 1948 and 1971.


I don't get to frame this argument ? To not mean that the Brits want to get rid of poor immigrants and are trying to actively deport historic arrivals ?

Go on then Sam make an alternative framing ?


I have no interest in this argument or whatever Camroc thinks.

You've said anyone who links this to Brexit is a WUM or a plum.

Now you're the one backing away from this.

Talk about that or don't, but don't ask me to analyse Camroc's posts FFS.

Why not ? You might educate yourself !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
the British do not want poor immigrants, so they are trying to deport those that arrived between 1948 and 1971.


I don't get to frame this argument ? To not mean that the Brits want to get rid of poor immigrants and are trying to actively deport historic arrivals ?

Go on then Sam make an alternative framing ?


I have no interest in this argument or whatever Camroc thinks.

You've said anyone who links this to Brexit is a WUM or a plum.

Now you're the one backing away from this.

Talk about that or don't, but don't ask me to analyse Camroc's posts FFS.



I've not addressed one Camroc post on this issue , so am rather confused now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
Sorry it was a LiL post, so I'll accept my role in creating confusion.

This - amazingly for this usually considered and coherent thread - seems to be going nowhere anyway as we can't even settle on a debate on whether Windrush and Brexit can be linked, which is the only thing I'm interested in rather than what LiL may or may not think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1360
Gospel wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Cute to lay the blame with the RAF. You wouldn't be Irish perchance? :lol:

The first 4-5 years were absolutely critical and instead of investing in modernising infrastructure and manufacturing as the Germans and French we squandered it on trying to maintain a global presence. But I have read that we were obligated to a certain extent by the yanks though I'd need a Brazil, Crash or Mahoney to wade in to either confirm or deny that. Britain had the mindset of a victor but was absolutely bankrupt and mostly destitute.

The main reason for that, of course, is that a lot of their infrastructure had been bombed back to the 16th century by the RAF/USAAF, with admirable follow up by the Allied ground forces; so they had to.

Whilst the Blitz hurt the UK, it wasn't anywhere near the level of destruction doled out on the continent.

British industry and infrastructure were massively outdated. The decision not to modernise cost Britain dearly.


It’s always fascinating and slightly tragic to watch those documentaries about the remarkable British aircraft industry in the 40s and 50s and watch whilst remarkable designs are being towed out of hangers and infrastructure built in the late 19th and early 20th century.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:20 pm
Posts: 430
SamShark wrote:
No, you don't get to decide how everyones arguments are framed.

You're grasping the most extreme element of your own narrative - that someone somewhere has developed a specific policy of targetting old West Indians - and using that to shut down discussion.

Administrative errors, or errors of judgement, have been made around immigration, in the middle of a huge divisive debate about the status of millions of people who currently live in this country and are waiting to find out what rights they have to stay here.

You'd be better off arguing with people based on what they say/think rather than what you make up - surely it's more fun or more enlightening for everyone?

I can't say I've witnessed this huge, divisive debate about the future of EU citizens. If anything, I'd say it's one of the less contentious issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38973
Adetroy wrote:
Gospel wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Cute to lay the blame with the RAF. You wouldn't be Irish perchance? :lol:

The first 4-5 years were absolutely critical and instead of investing in modernising infrastructure and manufacturing as the Germans and French we squandered it on trying to maintain a global presence. But I have read that we were obligated to a certain extent by the yanks though I'd need a Brazil, Crash or Mahoney to wade in to either confirm or deny that. Britain had the mindset of a victor but was absolutely bankrupt and mostly destitute.

The main reason for that, of course, is that a lot of their infrastructure had been bombed back to the 16th century by the RAF/USAAF, with admirable follow up by the Allied ground forces; so they had to.

Whilst the Blitz hurt the UK, it wasn't anywhere near the level of destruction doled out on the continent.

British industry and infrastructure were massively outdated. The decision not to modernise cost Britain dearly.


It’s always fascinating and slightly tragic to watch those documentaries about the remarkable British aircraft industry in the 40s and 50s and watch whilst remarkable designs are being towed out of hangers and infrastructure built in the late 19th and early 20th century.

In fairness the Brabazon hanger in Bristol was planned during the war and constructed immediately afterwards. Designed by Brian Colquhoun, whose firm I worked for many years ago, iirc it's still the largest covered shed in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
juddy wrote:
SamShark wrote:
No, you don't get to decide how everyones arguments are framed.

You're grasping the most extreme element of your own narrative - that someone somewhere has developed a specific policy of targetting old West Indians - and using that to shut down discussion.

Administrative errors, or errors of judgement, have been made around immigration, in the middle of a huge divisive debate about the status of millions of people who currently live in this country and are waiting to find out what rights they have to stay here.

You'd be better off arguing with people based on what they say/think rather than what you make up - surely it's more fun or more enlightening for everyone?

I can't say I've witnessed this huge, divisive debate about the future of EU citizens. If anything, I'd say it's one of the less contentious issues.


I would perhaps clarify and say a huge divisive debate about immigration more generally, but I can say I've witnessed the genuine frustration and fear amongst EU citizens living here, and I'm quite worried myself about the impact of immigration on key industries like health and care.

I agree with you that many many members of the public don't see the rights of current residents as contentious at all, but in political terms "nothing's agreed until everything's agreed"

I think the debate about future immigration is still very divisive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
Sorry it was a LiL post, so I'll accept my role in creating confusion.

This - amazingly for this usually considered and coherent thread - seems to be going nowhere anyway as we can't even settle on a debate on whether Windrush and Brexit can be linked, which is the only thing I'm interested in rather than what LiL may or may not think.



You think administration errors in he home office (and by the population) are related to brexit because in 50 years our leaving the EU will be discovered by some civil servants and European nationals who missed the whole event and didn't do their paper work ?


Seems quite unlikely to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
bimboman wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Sorry it was a LiL post, so I'll accept my role in creating confusion.

This - amazingly for this usually considered and coherent thread - seems to be going nowhere anyway as we can't even settle on a debate on whether Windrush and Brexit can be linked, which is the only thing I'm interested in rather than what LiL may or may not think.



You think administration errors in he home office (and by the population) are related to brexit because in 50 years our leaving the EU will be discovered by some civil servants and European nationals who missed the whole event and didn't do their paper work ?


Seems quite unlikely to me.


One perspective on this may be to take a very narrow view on whether two issues are absolutely equivalent.

Another might be to look at mood music, treatment of people, political gestures made, and discuss this alongside another political debate about immigration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
bimboman wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Sorry it was a LiL post, so I'll accept my role in creating confusion.

This - amazingly for this usually considered and coherent thread - seems to be going nowhere anyway as we can't even settle on a debate on whether Windrush and Brexit can be linked, which is the only thing I'm interested in rather than what LiL may or may not think.



You think administration errors in he home office (and by the population) are related to brexit because in 50 years our leaving the EU will be discovered by some civil servants and European nationals who missed the whole event and didn't do their paper work ?


Seems quite unlikely to me.


One perspective on this may be to take a very narrow view on whether two issues are absolutely equivalent.

Another might be to look at mood music, treatment of people, political gestures made, and discuss this alongside another political debate about immigration.



I'm unsure of any political gestures other than an apology and an inquiry to work out if anyone was affected , who and to offer rectification , it's a terribly poor way for us to expel these poor immigrants we apprantly are keen on getting rid of.

It's a conflation that makes little sense politically or eventually. But hey remainers are jumping on everything now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20518
This article might help re politics/admin errors

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43804308


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64029
SamShark wrote:
This article might help re politics/admin errors

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43804308



Yep, I understand the argument better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17348
Adetroy wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
The UK received more Marshall Aid than any other European country. Way more. And pissed it away.

Austria 468
Belgium and Luxembourg 777
Denmark 385
France 2296
West Germany 1448
Greece 376
Iceland 43
Ireland 133
Italy and Trieste 1204
Netherlands 1128
Norway 372
Portugal 70
Sweden 347
Switzerland 250
Turkey 137
United Kingdom 3297

Split between grants and loans. The UK were £21B in the hole by the end of the war. It took us 61 years just to repay the yanks. You won't get any arguments from me on how that money was wasted though I've never known how much the UK Government were obligated to continue to appear a global player in tandem with the yanks or how much of it was a vanity project.


without trying to come across as a Thatcherite right winger, the unions were already running amok in the 50s and 60s with antiquated work practices which left British industry unable to compete with the Germans, the French and the Italians. It also didn’t help that because of the destruction of their industries (Mostly by the RAF) these countries had to invest their aid in brand new high technology industrial processes whereas Britain, comparatively speaking still Had large swathes of their industry rooted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I've made this point before.

The print industry was a case in point. When I arrived in the UK in 1984, Brenda Dean's print union was intent on ensuring that Fleet Street remained in the dark ages. In South Africa the newspapers were already using colour photography and Desk Top Publishing, but in the UK they were foundry set.

It took that arse Rupert Murdoch and midnight manoeuvrers to relocate to Wapping where they were able to set up using Twentieth Century technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9138
Terrible behaviour by the Brits against their former colonies. I am not surprised at all.

I wish I had time to post on this thread today to fully express my outrage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21566
Leinster in London wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Is there a british politics thread? I am reading the Windbush Gen fiasco and wondering wtf. So I wanted to talk about it somewhere.



Start one, it will be of interest ...


Not my country. I don't even live there. You should since you live there.


As indicated above, the British do not want poor immigrants, so they are trying to deport those that arrived between 1948 and 1971.
These are the people who arrived legally from the West Indies, but the brits are now raising the bar to make them illegal.
The authorities refuse to acknowledge that any have yet been deported, and use examples of cases that were reversed at the airport to give the false impression that eventually sense and compassion were shown.


Two questions.
1. How do you know that all people who arrived between 1948 and 1971 are poor?
2. Do you now think it reasonable that we can refer to the entire population of Ireland when making a criticism?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm
Posts: 5048
bimboman wrote:
SamShark wrote:
This article might help re politics/admin errors

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43804308



Yep, I understand the argument better.


Windrush is a major scandal. Deporting our own citizens is an absolute disgrace. Shockingly, it's quitened down because the Conservatives are in charge of it :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 86947 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688 ... 2174  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Fat Old Git, Google Adsense [Bot], Kiwias, Majestic-12 [Bot], Masterji, Mr Mike, MungoMan, Sonny Blount, UncleFB and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group