Well if you don't subscribe to unsustainable growth, population in this case, how will you feel when even more people (some of these people may be from "mainland Europe") get old and need even more young wage slaves to support them? Would you suggest continuing the process until…?

i don't think realisticly the bnp will ever reach power,to deny the holocaust is just ridiculous let alone some of their other policy's

They don't need to attain that kind of power to cause panic amongst the mainstream parties.

soda do you know how many people leave this country on a yearly basis? unsustainable growth…are we not letting people out? now that would be odd! 😯

el-bent maybe they need a kick up the arse!
i'm of to bed i've a seventeen hour shift tommorow so i need my sleep.
just imagine the tax i'll be paying for that.

I think the BNP have a pretty good chance of getting to some sort of powerful position within the next 5-10 years. And the reason why is people unaffected by mass, unregulated immigration dismiss the concerns of people who have been affected by mass, unregulated immigration. The same people who were never consulted on the issue, when concerns have been raised, are repeatedly shouted down and assigned Bogeyman Taboo positions most never suggested. I've seen it myself here a month or two ago when daring to suggest I was not a fan of mass immigration. Bad me.

soda do you know how many people leave this country on a yearly basis?

Not the exact figures, but since the Govt pretends not to know that either I'll not sweat it too much.

I did hear Strawman on question time this week tell us that the "increase in immigration was decreasing". It's still increasing apparently, but just not as much as last year. Work that out for yourself.

i'm not a fan soda and anyone who suggests your racist for your opinion is out of touch, i have seen the impact of unchecked immigration myself in bradford so i know where your comming from mate i'm just saying its not the only issue/the benefit system needs looking at desperatly imo

You say the benefit system needs looking at and I'll agree with you that it does when real options are available. £3 **** grand to refer someone to a bullshit mickymouse course via the jobcentre when £5k on the open market will train someone up in a trade. How much cheaper still would it be if the Govt trained people in Govt centres with public money? But it doesn't. That is an anathema to the ideology. Until that bullshit is rectified and people have a real option other than £5.80 before tax I will not give a shit if they **** the **** system as much as they can, and my taxes pay for it.

Incidentally the Poles have been going home for some time now, well into last year as the zloty has become much stronger against the pound.

Legend76 and sodafarls, there's no such thing as 'unchecked/unregulated immigration'.

When someone starts a thread like this, they should be made to include supporting EVIDENCE in their first post. Failure to do so should result in an instant ban and the signature line "waster of valuable interweb" added to their profile.

But those who disagree with the poster never cite any EVIDENCE either. Thats what's so fun about these arguments, they have no hope of going anywhere. As Jose Luis Borges would say "two bald men fighting over a comb."

Legend76 and sodafarls, there's no such thing as 'unchecked/unregulated immigration'.

There is with respect to Europe isn't there?

My old man has a small business that requires labour. He pays them piece work which if the employee works hard they can earn £10-£15 per hour. the 'local' people who he 'tries' to give work too, turn up spend a week there then leave, saying it is too much like hard work. He now employs Polish lads, and they work really hard, earn good money (£500 ish per week) and are happy. Go figure eh?

Can I declare that I do joint work with the JobCentre plus (JC+) with young people to get them into work/off benefits
The reality is that a number of these have reached nirvana and have no interest in working as all they want to do is sign on forever. The poverty of their aspirations is an issue and we do need to try to address this. I suspect enforced voluntary work /community regeneration project would be helpful to get people into a work pattern.
A number of those who are unemployed have no discernable skills that could lead to employment, poor quals, low motivation, no work history etc. They are the least able in society and even low level service jobs would be difficult for these people to hold on to. They want to work with their hands but there are very few of these jobs about. We should not pour scorn on them it will not help.

Those that blame immigrants for taking these jobs want to look at the points above and realise that MOST/ALL employers when faced with a highly qualified, well motivated immigrant or a lazy unqualified British person would choose the former for a job. The two are interlinked and related but immigrants do not cause the problem of a poorly motivated and poorly skilled UK workforce.

There are no easy solutions to this ….trust me I have tried many… and whilst it is easy to rant on an internet forum blaming immigrants for this you have missed the point as to WHY they get the jobs over the aboriginal UK [as the c0ck Grifin would say]

Whilst it is easy to rant on an internet forum about lazy people on the Dole (and there are) remember two things.
1. Would you swap places with them taking their lifestyle as it is such a land of luxury?
2. What do you think would happen if we stopped paying benefits? Do you really think that the starving unskilled masses [ and their children] will suddenly turn into hardworking non layabouts ? Really you think it is that simple?
It is a complicated scenario largely caused by the decline in staple industries where people could do manual labour and get well paid. These jobs do not exist in modern economies in the west …I think we all like to buy cheap imported stuff from abroad so we are all responsible to a degree…and there is no easy solution as to what to do with these people we are leaving behind as we all become wealthier.

They are not necessarily lazy or stupid either I have made some generalisations within this and many are prepared to work if they could just get a foot on the rung of the working ladder.
I doubt there will be anything productive from this thread that will help me deliver better programmes to the unemployed.

Junkyard, talking sense will get you no where…. Burn the workshy I say.

Legend76 and sodafarls, there's no such thing as 'unchecked/unregulated immigration'.

Yes there is :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7374481.stm

Quote :

"The headline figure of one million arrivals from Eastern Europe is much higher than the government's original estimate.

Whitehall officials thought only about 60,000 would have come by now. "

Immigration figures are notoriously difficult to assess because the UK does not count everyone in and everyone out. "

So it is obviously unchecked and unregulated.

BTW, it is a complete myth that East Europeans came to Britain to do work which no one else wanted to do. For example the construction industry was flooded with East European labour, and yet there was no question that Britain was unable to build homes, hospitals, schools, etc because of lack of labour.

I have never heard of any building site, anywhere in Britain, unable to start because of lack of labour. I know not of one single house, which was not built because of "lack of labour".

And the same goes for skills training – I have never heard of any skills courses being abandoned because of the lack of applicants. I have however, heard of young school leavers desperate to learn a skill unable to find a course for training. Or having found one, being unable to afford the costs.

The truth is that Britain has not had any labour shortages since the days of full employment in the 50s and 60s.

And the reality is that immigration and unemployment levels are maintained simply because it depresses wages. Keeping 5% of the working population (the unemployment level expected during a 'boom' period) on about sixty quid a week is a very small price to pay when you consider the huge effect it has on the wages bill for employers.

Mass unemployment and immigration makes perfect sense to profit-hungry big business. So that's why it's here to stay.

Talking cock again ernie?

Talking cock again ernie?

I'll let you decide that Berm Bandit.

Perhaps you can give me examples of building projects which, before the EU enlargement, were unable to start because of "labour shortages"….eh ?

Ernie, true if you're talking only about EU immigration.

Perhaps you can give me examples of building projects which, before the EU enlargement, were unable to start because of "labour shortages"….eh ?

Not really interested in arguing a point on your terms frankly. The basic bottom line of it is that the New Accession countries were allowed free access here at a time of extremely low unemployment, and when it was extremely difficult to fill low skill, low pay jobs with anyone, let alone British people. For example, the farm at which my business is based has survived and in fact prospered by employing East European labour. Prior to that the farmer was seriously considering winding his business up because it was not viable. That is true of pretty much every agricultural business within 100 miles of where I am now. Its a well known phenomenon. Interestingly, what is happening now is a good few of them are leaving for home, as the economy contracts. Good old market forces at their best eh?

In their wake, they are leaving a legacy of many eyes opened, generally positive perspective of both them and their work ethic. In the main they have contributed greatly to the economy both on a macro and micro basis.

I can't speak for the building industry, as I have no direct expereince of it, but I suspect that the situation is similar.

Not really interested in arguing a point on your terms frankly.

Fair enough.

Junkyard – Member

What a superb post, don't agree with every part but very interesting!

Incidentally, I'll go one step further in my reply to Ernies issues about "unregulated" immigration.

The EU as is now was originally set up post 2 World Wars. The objective was in essence to produce economic interdependancy and an economic equality so that the various European states stopped looking at each others stuff with jealous eyes. Part of that deal is to allow the poorer states the means to join the wealthy on the gravy train. In my lifetime, we have had Italians, Spanish, Irish, Portugese, Greek and many others prior to the arrival of the East Europeans, (obviously not overlooking some form outside the EU). All economic migrants, none of which have led to rivers of blood, and pretty much all of which have left the country richer for their passing.

Simply put if ny allowing this it prevents my son from dyting in some shitty mud hole in Flanders or Normandy, then thats just fine with me. Long may it last. All the bitching that surrounds it is simply short sighted xenophobic arse. No more no less.

Talking cock again Berm Bandit?

sodafarls – Member
Talking cock again Berm Bandit?

Pretty sure I'm not, but happy to discuss, as opposed to ram my perception down you throat.

So exactly which bit of that did you disagree with?

Pretty sure I'm not

And I'm pretty sure you are talking "cock"……..from start to finish actually. And in both posts.

In your first post you start off claiming that the last EU enlargement occurred during a time of "extremely low unemployment". Obviously this is complete "cock" as you call it. At the time Poland became a full member of the EU unemployment in Britain stood at just a tad under one and a half million, or 5% of the working population.

This does not represent "extremely low unemployment". Britain had "extremely low unemployment" in the 50s and 60s, and low unemployment in the early to mid 70s.

In fact we know that 1.4 million unemployed is very high because when it was at exactly that level during the 1979 general election, the Conservative Party used this poster in their campaign :

Many credit it as having won the election for them.

You then go on to claim that your farm was experiencing labour shortages again, "cock" as you call it. By your own admission these were "low pay jobs"…… so there's your answer mate – put up the wages until it attracts employees. Offer £10 per hour for unskilled workers, and you will have queues forming outside your premises.

To claim that you were unable to find staff because of labour shortages, is as absurd as me claiming that Tesco has hardly any food because every time I go there to do my weekly shopping with £2 in my pocket, I come away with only a loaf of bread and a pint of milk. Obviously complete "cock".

But hang on, maybe you are a farmer that doesn't believe that the rules of "market forces" should apply ?
…… No, it's not that. Because you end the paragraph with, quote :

"Good old market forces at their best eh?"

So just "cock" then ……… or do you perhaps believe that 'good old market forces' should just apply when it suits you ?

In your next post you carry on with more "cock". You claim that, quote :

"The EU as is now was originally set up post 2 World Wars. The objective was in essence to produce economic interdependancy and an economic equality so that the various European states stopped looking at each others stuff with jealous eyes. Part of that deal is to allow the poorer states the means to join the wealthy on the gravy train."

The 'original set up' was not "to allow the poorer states the means to join the wealthy on the gravy train". The two countries which originally had the idea, France and Germany, were very much equals. And the original founding members Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany, were all pretty much equal in prosperity.

Indeed it wasn't until 1981 31 years after the European Community was first formed, that the first "poorer" country, ie Greece, joined. In fact throughout it's history there has been a resistance to letting poorer countries join.

Finally, you waffle on about World Wars and, quote : "All the bitching that surrounds it is simply short sighted xenophobic arse. No more no less." You appear to have forgotten that it was Germany, and the other Axis Countries, Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, who were our enemies and wanted to attack and invade us. We very clearly do not owe them any special favours.

On the other hand citizens from, for example, the Indian subcontinent rallied to help us. In the case of India 2-2.5 million men volunteered to fight for Britain, which I reckon must have been the largest volunteer army ever in history.

Also of course Britain became very wealthy because of countries such as India, I reckon we owe these guys a favour. And yet, we refuse to allow in dark skinned people from countries which helped us and made us rich, in favour of white Europeans who we owe nothing to.

I can't see how anyone who supports this clearly racist policy, can accuse others of being "xenophobic".
So more "cock" then.

All in all, I give you 10/10 for "cock" content 8)

clearly racist policy

Bingo!!!

I claim my £5

Ernie Lynch the swiss Tony of Singletrack except he can get anything back to racism not a beautiful woman.

I liked this blantant distortion of reality to support his "argument"

[Quote] And yet, we refuse to allow in dark skinned people from countries [indian]which helped us and made us rich, in favour of white Europeans who we owe nothing to. [/quote]

Apprently then there are no Indians here and we only allow white Europeans in…even the Dail Mail would not print that Ernie

Apprently then there are no Indians here and we only allow white Europeans…

And yet I never said that. Simply that Indians have no automatic right to entry into the UK whilst some white Europeans do.

Still, don't let the fact that I never said what you claim I said, bother you.

except he can get anything back to racism

And yet it wasn't me which mentioned "All the bitching that surrounds it is simply short sighted xenophobic arse. "

Still, don't let the fact that I never mentioned xenophobia first, bother you.

btw Junkyard, I'm surprised you read my post ….it was very long 😕

ernie 1.5 million unemployed as the stats were calculated in 1979 = Lots
1.5 million as the stats are calculated now = very low unemployment.

I would have thought that as the self appointed font of all knowledge you would know that, and therefore avoid using such obviously flawed arguments.

I'm not a farmer, I happen to run a business based on a farm and therefore have a fairly close understanding of whats going on. Actually as it happens I'm looking out of the window at the immigrant workers hostel as I write this. It is a fact that even on "high" wages it is difficult to recruit staff into agriculture, many people don't want the irregular hours and hard graft that is implicit in it.

The jibe about cheap labour is a red herring. If as you say there was high unemployment at the time it should not have been difficult to fill low pay jobs, because despite commonly held misconceptions benefits do not pay much and unless you happen to be on a bundle of benefits (which will generally imply that you are not able to work), you are unlikely to be better off not working. If on the other hand I am correct, then the recruitment of overseas labour made absolute sense.

Regarding the EU, all I can suggest is that you pop off and read up on your history. However, if as I suspect your ego won't allow that could I just point out a couple of basic facts that might help you with your understanding of the subject.

1) WW2 came about largely due to the punative economic measures taken against Germany post WW1.
2)

You appear to have forgotten that it was Germany, and …….. clearly do not owe them any special favours.

It may be a plan for future reference to modify your approiach in the event that something you are doing doesn't work. So by token of the possibility that you might be right in that assertion regarding the Axis, it does therefore make all the more sense to take steps to eradicate the possibility of that reoccurring No? Any suggestions how you might choose to do that successfully?

Regarding the Indian Sub continent. Run it past me will you? Wasn't it them who kicked us out? Presumably that being because they wanted independance. So accordingly, thats what they have got, and therefore I believe your point rather skips over the obvious facts that with the EU we have democratically decided to join up and abide by the rules, largely because our traditional markets were disappearing down the loo of Empire. Whereas, our erstwhile colonies actually have chosen their independance, and we do not therefore have any logical reason to accept unregulated immigration from there. I don't believe that qualifies as racist.

By the way did the cock reference rattle you at all? 🙄

ernie_lynch – Member
I never said that. Simply that Indians have no automatic right to entry into the UK whilst some white Europeans do.

really I though what you actually said was

And yet, we refuse to allow in dark skinned people from countries [indian]which helped us and made us rich, in favour of white Europeans who we owe nothing to.

An excellent reinterpretaion of what you said …. remind you of anyone?
I assume you did not mean White either then as we let people in from Europe irrespective of skin colour.

Yeah that's right Junkyard, we refuse to allow people from countries such as India who want to come here to work, automatic entry. But we have no such controls on people who come from say Bulgaria
…..what's your point ? 😕

"An excellent reinterpretaion of what you said …. remind you of anyone?"

It is a perfectly consistent interpretation. And no, it doesn't remind of anyone. Who does it remind you of ?

And btw, I think you need to grow up a tad mate……. your rather pointless and petty point-scoring is getting really quite childish. Carry on, and I doubt if I'll bother responding.

Carry on, and I doubt if I'll bother responding

Knight to Queen 4 ….. Checkmate! and ernie honestly believes he has "won" yet again. Apparently toy/pram interface, followed by its my ball and I'm going home is a valid STW discussion technique nowadays….. sad really…… 😉

<sniggers>

your rather pointless and petty point-scoring is getting really quite childish. Carry on, and I doubt if I'll bother responding.

PMSL@ ernie. Again.

ernie honestly believes he has "won" yet again

Won ? Is that what it's about for you, ie : "winning" ? 😀

How sad is that…….No mate – you wouldn't believe how reassuring I find it that someone who comes with such complete nonsense as, quote : "1.5 million unemployed as the stats were calculated in 1979 = Lots
1.5 million as the stats are calculated now = very low unemployment." ……. completely disagrees with me 8)

And as long as BBSB keeps saying "PMSL@ ernie" I know that I'm on the right track. Just the fact that he feels a desperate need to say something but can't think of anything constructive to say, adds hugely to the "smugness" value for me.

When I stop p*ssing off the "we love maggie" brigade (and the Guardian armchair socialists – and he knows who I mean)…… then I'll start to worry 😉

TJ said "Why has this happened – that we have a part of our society paid peanuts to sit on the sidelines? How can we stop it happening in the future? Do you think its a very nice life that they lead?

Very complex questions with no easy answers"

Having seen and been involved with the East End of Glasgow – this statement is so true.

How do we fix it? I'm not sure yet……

The benefits system doesn't work. I'm not really going to venture an opinion on immigrants or the work shy (that might be an opinion) but generally the benefits system is massively ineficient.

A few examples I'm aware of:

Wealthy people receiving benefits for things like TV licences, winter fuel allowance, child benefit etc. Basically the government takes your money adds some administration then gives it you back. It's even worse lower down the scale. They need to up the minimum earning level so those at the lower end aren't paying tax and receiving benefit and reduce taxes higher up an stop some of the benefits.