[Closed] Calais Migrant camp- a conversation

I was nice to you and everything
Tough Crowd

Now you've made it even weirder

100% right AGAIN chaps. Majority of camp is African.

Its easy to be 100 % correct if you just ignore the evidence AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN

@ NW 😥

There are plenty being prosecuted in China let them in ... 🙄

JY you are right I am making an assumption about nationality based on TV, reports and my own eyes but when the faces are very black and the news reports speak of sub Sharan African nations continually it's an obvious conclusion. If you think sub Saharan Africans are the minority show me some evidence which contradicts the dozens of news reports and images which show very much the opposite. As a final note why was the camp nicknamed "The Jungle", not very Middle Eastern is it ?

Oh wow you are really excelling yourself now with this utter drivel. Have you ever tried reading back what you write?

People already posted evidence but you know best obviously because you looked out of the car once and saw a black man. FFS.

What's the link to that ignore plugin again?

100% right AGAIN chaps. Majority of camp is African.

That's not EVEN what you claimed earlier - and where is your evidence? This is way beyond pathetic.

Just finished watching Lorry Jumpers. Every single person featured is from Africa.

Sub-saharan africa?

I see a good part of the lack of compassion being caused by the following:
1. Failure to understand that a lot of our wealth in the west is based on our exploiting the rest of the globe for well over 200 years to date, through colonisation, commercial control and conflict
2. Manipulation of a large number of people through the simple mechanism of fear by communicating a false message of "These immigrants they want some of what you got - so keep them out because you will have less if they come over here"
3. The bandied about and again false idea we are crowded as an island

Why do I think this is done...? So we can continue to be a country where a small few with the majority of the wealth can create and maintain a low-marginal tax situation for themselves and not fund a better common infrastructure for all, which would be thrown into even harsher relief if the population increases suddenly.

1. Failure to understand that a lot of our wealth in the west is based on our exploiting the rest of the globe for well over 200 years to date, through colonisation, commercial control and conflict

So nothing to do with democracy, the rule of law, property rights, capitalism, science etc.

Try comparing North and South Korea or East and West Germany. Zimbabawe before and after black rule. The poverty in the world is not all caused by the big bad ex colonial govts.

You mean the Korea that was divided by an American invasion to impose a political ideology and the Zimbabwe that was run by colonial powers until overthrown by a revolution. Or did you have in mind other countries with the same names that you thought made your point?

[img] [/img]

You mean the Korea that was divided by an American invasion to impose a political ideology and the Zimbabwe that was run by colonial powers until overthrown by a revolution. Or did you have in mind other countries with the same names that you thought made your point?

Un, didn't the UN (not just America) go to Korea to stop an invasion? If you asked the people of the South, I'm sure they'd rather be in the same boat as the North now. Zimbabwe was run by a white minority Zimbabwean Govt that were very uncooperative towards the old colonial power, until it was overthrown by a revolution. But yeah, I'm sure it's all the Great Satan's fault.

Jam may be talking bolleaux, but there's no need to reciprocate in kind!

Un, didn't the UN (not just America) go to Korea to stop an invasion?

No

Zimbabwe was run by a white minority Zimbabwean Govt

Well thats ok then, thank god for those white colonial heros helping out those stupid africans.

🙄

you know best obviously because you looked out of the car once and saw a black man. FFS.

To be fair he said they were VERY black as he moved from dwelling in eternal ignorance to flirting with racism.

TBH i think he meant they came from bongo bongo land as there must be a JUNGLE there.

Still not sure if he Chris Morris satire or he really is whatever word the mods let me put here to describe that

DrJ, Northwind and JY. Did any of you actually thoroughly read the link DrJ posted ? I very much doubt it as if you had you would have seen it contains no data at all about the overall composition of migrants at Calais. In the Ministers written evidence to Parliament (his name deliberately misquoted in the blog for political effect) he says the French have no figures for the breakdown. Trying to draw a link between the figures for people making a crossing to Europe by sea and the makeup of the camp is totally erroneous. There is no reason for any Syrian to come to Calais as Germany has said it will take them all. I read carefully the link DrJ posted before I repleid above.

Germany will take an estimated 800,000 migrants in 2015 having said it will grant asylum to all Syrians. I estimate the cost, per anum of that commitment to be anywhere from €20-30 billion. Housing, medical care, welfare, language training etc. Germany's unemployment rate has fallen to 6.2% but that still means 2.7 million Germans are registered unemployed, my guess is the immigrants will nit be added to those figures but that's a lot of people who'll need work. Combined with new loans for Greece, another €20bn Germany will not get back, I sense major social and political unrest is brewing.

Are you completely insane? No, the link did not give census date for the Calais migrants. It did include a report by the UK Immigration minister. I am no Tory-lover but I believe him more than I believe what some clot spotted out of his car window.

In fact I'd go further and suggest that the gap between what you "saw" and what the facts actually are constitute strong indications of racist bias on your part, not unlike experiments where witnesses "see" the black man commit a crime even though he did not.

jambalaya - Member

.... there are going to be very few if any Syrians in Calais as Germany has said it will take all Syrians who apply.

jambalaya - Member

There is no reason for any Syrian to come to Calais as Germany has said it will take them all.

Presumably you think we should reject the Home Office's own figures as you are 100% correct and unlike you they don't understand the situation ?

12 months to the end of March 2015 :

[img] [/img]

.

jambalaya - Member

........ we drive through the tunnel at least once a month

Do you even know what tunnel we're talking about?

Are you perhaps confusing it with the Dartford Tunnel?

you would have seen it contains no data at all about the overall composition of migrants at Calais

So the evidenced data about the actual make-up of refugees is unreliable, but you counting black faces out of the car window and on lorry jumpers on the TV is solid evidence.

You really are an absolute joke jambalaya.

If UK is a democratic country I should have a vote to say who should be let in. Unless you think this is a commy land. I would vote for control immigration and not mass back door entry.

Unless of course democracy means nothing in your idealistic world? A bit like democracy in those countries where people are fleecing.

Ya, the clue is in the bureaucratic rules regardless of what situation they are in coz the moment they left their countries they are already safe.

No queue jumping please and yes they need to be processed and form an orderly queue. This is where the real ones are separated from economic migrants.

Most of them once reached EU soil are no longer persecuted so their lives are no longer in danger ...

Trying to pick and choose ... ya, right ... give them an inch they want a mile.

I don't buy this they are dying once they have reached EU soil, only those that are really greedy trying to use the short cut to upload themselves into the van pay with their lives.

For those who insist on arguing for an opened door policy like I said before you are a very biased person. Fact! Why not open the door to China's persecuted or those in other part of the world? Why wait for them to shipped/van half way across the world by human traffickers. Why not invite them over?

[b]Those who try to enter UK illegally is a bit like forcing a backdoor entry into UK innit![/b]

Shouldn't you be saying "No! No! No!" The UK is not for turning or forced backdoor entry?

🙄

jambalaya - Member

DrJ, Northwind and JY. Did any of you actually thoroughly read the link DrJ posted ? I very much doubt it as if you had you would have seen it contains no data at all about the overall composition of migrants at Calais

No you're absolutely right, the UK immigration minister personally visiting the camp and reporting back should be ignored in favour of your much better data obtained by going "It's called the jungle, makes you think eh eh" and watching a TV program.

I think this must be that thing where a person's become so consistently ridiculous that you can no longer tell when they're joking?

chewy - you chose to come here*, though. Why was that and why is that OK?

*IIRC

I would vote for control immigration and not mass back door entry.

[img] [/img]

gofasterstripes - Member

chewy - you chose to come here*, though. Why was that and why is that OK?

*IIRC

Yes, I did but Not via backdoor nor illegal means. I did not beg nor used force entry or even in fear of my life.

I showed qualifications for a job and with that I was welcomed. I just said I could do a better job than most and that I am here to compete for a job.

😛

No you're absolutely right, the UK immigration minister personally visiting the camp and reporting back should be ignored in favour of your much better data obtained by going "It's called the jungle, makes you think eh eh" and watching a TV program.

[img] [/img]

I just said I could do a better job than most and that I am here to compete for a job.

Well, good for you.

[b]I just said[/b] I could do a better job than most and that[b] I am here to compete for a job[/b].

Hang on a minute!

Yes, I did but Not via backdoor nor illegal means. I did not [b]beg [/b]nor used force entry or even [b]in fear of my life[/b].

And in the modified version of that.... what's the big deal?

irc - Member
So nothing to do with democracy, the rule of law, property rights, capitalism, science etc.

That right, democratic process was a huge part of our invasion of other countries and subjugation of their people and often suppression of their culture. How can you support property rights of land stolen from it's owners? We took property, resources and labour from a huge part of the world and then used a capitalist model and sense of religious and cultural superiority to sell goods back to them. Don't be more dense than you can help.

airtragic - Member
Jam may be talking bolleaux, but there's no need to reciprocate

Sometimes, just sometimes I think idiocy should be a crime.

So, is Britain really 'full'?

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Define full?

Full?

Well its certainly full of small-minded, petty, insular, racist bell ends, utterly devoid of both empathy and compassion by the looks of things

Migration Watch is increasingly recognised as the authority on migration figures. Other people prefer Migration Observatory.
Both were set-up to try and establish an accurate survey of migration numbers. Interestingly, the people who set up Migration Watch were denounced by the mainstream media for being "racists", whereas they were trying to bring some sense to the debate by researching the actual numbers.
Reading this thread and its quick degeneracy into hysterical accusations of "Racist!", I'm gladder than ever both organisations were established.

Migration Watch is increasingly recognised as the authority on migration figures.

By who?

The Daily Mail

And...

[img] [/img]

By who?

They were chosen to provide the current figures and forecasts for the cross-party parliamentary working group on immigration.

Their figures have been used by the mainstream media, including The Independent and The Guardian, although for the most part the "leftwing" media prefers to use Migration Observatory (their figures and forecasts are pretty much the same as they operate out of the same department at Oxford).

To claim that Migration Watch is an impartial, independent organisation is frankly laughable.

Have a look at its website [url= http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem ]here[/url] and then come back and see if you can use the words 'impartial' or 'independent' with a straight face. On the first page of their own website, they define immigration as the main 'problem' and then come up with their 'solutions' (doesn't say if these are 'final' ones or not) to 'the problem'

Could you just run me through on precisely which planet that could be regarded as 'impartial' or 'independent'? 😆

And frankly they need hoofing in the slats for their hideous use of green, green and green, and that school-art-project logo on their website too 😛

To claim that Migration Watch is an impartial, independent organisation is frankly laughable.

I didn't claim they were politically independent (I consider such a term an oxymoron, an impossibility).

What I claimed is that their research into current migration numbers and their forecasts are widely recognised as the most accurate out there.

Migration Watch's longterm forecasts have proved to be broadly accurate... Though, only on headline numbers, their demographic work turned out to be mostly wrong, which imo means it's mostly just luck that their numbers are right (they predicted far higher immigration from eastern europe, but the shortfall was made up from other sources that they didn't predict. Which is like forecasting your household income for the next year as a million quid, then winning the lottery and claiming you were right.)

They do claim to be apolitical, which seems to be obvious bollocks but you don't have to be apolitical to have valid points.

OTOH, I will always love them for that mid-2000s economic benefit campaign they ran, when they spent ages trailing their forthcoming report that was going to "blow out of the water" all claims that migration was a net economic benefit. Then released it rather quietly when it turned out that it was, after all, a net economic benefit.

Quick change of tack to claim that it wasn't [i]enough[/i] of an economic benefit- at which point it turned out that they'd got the numbers completely wrong anyway and included only the economic benefits from 8 eastern european countries and spread that over all immigrants worldwide, yet [i]still [/i]found an ecomomic benefit. It's still a frequently quoted report, despite that, which may say a lot about the way migration watch's figures are used.

Anyway... Not entirely sure why we're suddenly talking about migration watch, tbh? Diversion tactic? Uh oh, Jambalaya's gone fully Alf Garnett and started raving about jungles and very black people, look, the migrationwatch blimp!

What I claimed is that their research into current migration numbers and their forecasts are widely recognised as the most accurate out there.

How on earth can you regard statistics as reliable when gathered by an organisation with a clearly stated political agenda that would benefit hugely from the manipulation of those figures?

I'd suggest that the only people who'd regard those figures as worth the paper they were written on were people who shared the same political agenda, and morons.

I didn't claim they were politically independent (I consider such a term an oxymoron, an impossibility).

Eh? In what way is it an oxymoron?

[i] Calais Migrant camp- [b]a conversation[/b][/i]

Eh? In what way is it an oxymoron?

It assumes one can have an "independent" point of view. I disagree with this. Everybody has a point of view and hence a bias.

For example, "The Independent" newspaper. This is a contradiction in terms. A newspaper has an editor, hires its journalists in its own image, and hence inevitably has a political bias.

I'd prefer more honest titles, "The Northern Socialist", "The Southern Tory Boy", "The Hackney Lesbian" etc.

How on earth can you regard statistics as reliable when gathered by an organisation with a clearly stated political agenda that would benefit hugely from the manipulation of those figures?

Their figures turned out to be the most accurate when the 2011 Census was published. The government had underestimated the true number by a factor of 4; and Migration Watch had also under-estimated the true figure.

"Eh? In what way is it an oxymoron?"

It assumes one can have an "independent" point of view. I disagree with this. Everybody has a point of view and hence a bias.

Umm. That's not an oxymoron.

Their figures turned out to be the most accurate when the 2011 Census was published.

All that proves is that there are no reliable statistics available, which given the nature of immigration is hardly surprising really.

Surely the first rule of anything you read is to question the motivations of the person publishing it. In this case, they have a clearly stated political agenda which is anything but impartial. The fact of the matter is that nobody can prove or disprove much when ALL the stats, collected by both sides of the arguament are pretty much guesswork

An oxymoron is a compressed paradox, "politically independent" is according to my reasoning as outlined above, an oxymoron.
Unless you'd like to point out why it is not rather than just asking mono-syllabic questions like a Spanish waiter>?