London on Lockdown

[California Girl]

Over thirty years ago, Britain was obsessing over racial issues and immigration. Blaming the riots on immigration is pretty ridiculous. Blaming the rise of rightwingloon groups on "leftists" is even more ridiculous.

BRITAIN: Facing a Multiracial Future - TIME

Oh man.... could you read some relevant shit instead of Time magazine? Research - actual academic research about the problems surrounding Britain's welfare state would be a good start.

Then, read up on the expansion of the European Union and how uncontrolled immigration from the LDCs (lesser developed countries) of the EU to the wealthier and more welfare generous nations of the EU (like Britain - which is well known to be have the most generous welfare system).

You need to think, Ravi. Because the media is not gonna think for you. No offense, but you really don't know enough about Britain, it's welfare system, it's culture, or the EU to comment with any real understanding.

Right, an article written over thirty years ago about immigration issues in GB is a lie.

I was surprised to discover that Thatcher didn't like Asians coming to GB.

And I'm still waiting for that evidence I asked you about above.

No, mo chara, but it's 2011 and the EU has expanded dramatically, and their immigration policy has changed dramatically... Britain is swamped with immigrants from the poorer EU countries. And, with that, has seen a massive increase in crime, costs to its health service, welfare, etc. You cannot have that situation without some kind of occasional backlash by the indigenous people.

It is far, far, far more complex than you appreciate.... you take everything as an insult to the left.... it really isn't meant to be. It is a comment on decades of progressively liberal agendas.

If you want evidence, research it for yourself. I'm not gonna spoon feed you - but I suggest you read actual research and not media articles. And.... I didn't actually say - or mean to infer - that the article was a lie.... just that a 30 year old article is not actually gonna help you understand Britain in 2011.... but I'm sure it helped provide you with bullshit to whine about.

 

[L.K.Eder]

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/08041.pdf

Free Movement in the EU - The Case of Great Britain

from the conclusion

„„ The popular press was generally hostile to A8 migrant
workers. This was part of an overall hostility to immigration,
and specifically entailed a focus on the prospect
of »benefit tourism«. However, fears about social
dumping and pushing down wages or taking advantage
of social security benefits have no foundation. Various
studies have struggled to find any impact on the wage
levels or employment prospects of native workers. In the
period of time that coincides with the largest arrival of
A8 workers, the gross weekly earnings of full-time employees
increased. The falling rate of increase in weekly
earnings after 2008 is attributable to the economic crisis
and its aftermath. After 2008, some A8 workers left,
and the number of new workers arriving slowed down
considerably.

..

Further, contrary to the claims of »benefit tourism«
A8 workers are far less likely to receive benefits or live in
social housing than native workers. They contribute significantly
more to the tax and benefit system than they
receive. Therefore they have made a substantial contribution
to the UK fiscal system. The concentration of A8
workers in some localities has put an additional burden
on affordable housing and increased demand in some
schools for language support.

..

 

[Intense]

'We're not trying to be armchair generals': Clegg denies rift with police over tactics to halt riots

Police: Our robust tactics were not a result of political interference
Seven out of 10 voters do not support cuts to police
Less than one in three back the PM's handling of the crisis
Clegg hails 'brilliant' police as Government backtracks


Read more: London riots 2011: Nick Clegg denies rift with police and says ministers aren't trying to be 'armchair generals' | Mail Online

 

[ekrem]

The Polish workers and others do also come to Germany. What they cause is economic competition and pressure for "high"-salary jobs which can now be done at lower costs. As long as there are no Police statistics posted these accusations (Crime) stay accusations. What the EU does on immigration and with Schengen is no Leftist-policy, but mainly the product of the private economy's needs.

In Germany all crimes made by "non-Germans" is done to 25-33% by "non-Germans" not registered in Germany. Either tourists or members of international crime-gangs which travel to Germany with the intent of doing crime and then leave.
Probably, it's the same in the UK.
Federal Agency for Civic Education - Ausländerkriminalität - Informationen zur politischen Bildung

Crime from immigrant community comes from youth, and that is the product of education-failure, which can be improved.
It's not right to say or imply, that East-Europeans immigrate with intention to do crime. They want to earn money, and the local economy welcomes their immigration.

 

[Ravi]

Oh man.... could you read some relevant shit instead of Time magazine? Research - actual academic research about the problems surrounding Britain's welfare state would be a good start.

Then, read up on the expansion of the European Union and how uncontrolled immigration from the LDCs (lesser developed countries) of the EU to the wealthier and more welfare generous nations of the EU (like Britain - which is well known to be have the most generous welfare system).

You need to think, Ravi. Because the media is not gonna think for you. No offense, but you really don't know enough about Britain, it's welfare system, it's culture, or the EU to comment with any real understanding.

Right, an article written over thirty years ago about immigration issues in GB is a lie.

I was surprised to discover that Thatcher didn't like Asians coming to GB.

And I'm still waiting for that evidence I asked you about above.

No, mo chara, but it's 2011 and the EU has expanded dramatically, and their immigration policy has changed dramatically... Britain is swamped with immigrants from the poorer EU countries. And, with that, has seen a massive increase in crime, costs to its health service, welfare, etc. You cannot have that situation without some kind of occasional backlash by the indigenous people.

It is far, far, far more complex than you appreciate.... you take everything as an insult to the left.... it really isn't meant to be. It is a comment on decades of progressively liberal agendas.

If you want evidence, research it for yourself. I'm not gonna spoon feed you - but I suggest you read actual research and not media articles. And.... I didn't actually say - or mean to infer - that the article was a lie.... just that a 30 year old article is not actually gonna help you understand Britain in 2011.... but I'm sure it helped provide you with bullshit to whine about.

Your opinion is not fact, as much as you wish it to be. The evidence you claim exists isn't evidence at all, it is merely what you wish to believe.

See the post after yours....now that it what evidence looks like.

 

[sparky]

from the ashes>
Professionals - Riot Rebuild

 

[California Girl]

Right, an article written over thirty years ago about immigration issues in GB is a lie.

I was surprised to discover that Thatcher didn't like Asians coming to GB.

And I'm still waiting for that evidence I asked you about above.

No, mo chara, but it's 2011 and the EU has expanded dramatically, and their immigration policy has changed dramatically... Britain is swamped with immigrants from the poorer EU countries. And, with that, has seen a massive increase in crime, costs to its health service, welfare, etc. You cannot have that situation without some kind of occasional backlash by the indigenous people.

It is far, far, far more complex than you appreciate.... you take everything as an insult to the left.... it really isn't meant to be. It is a comment on decades of progressively liberal agendas.

If you want evidence, research it for yourself. I'm not gonna spoon feed you - but I suggest you read actual research and not media articles. And.... I didn't actually say - or mean to infer - that the article was a lie.... just that a 30 year old article is not actually gonna help you understand Britain in 2011.... but I'm sure it helped provide you with bullshit to whine about.

Your opinion is not fact, as much as you wish it to be. The evidence you claim exists isn't evidence at all, it is merely what you wish to believe.

See the post after yours....now that it what evidence looks like.

I've never actually said my opinion was fact, mate. I said - and continue to say - that I've read half a ton of research about this issue... not one piece from one set of researchers - but ongoing longitudinal studies that clearly shows the damage of Britain's old style of welfare.... here's a clue.... they changed their welfare system because of that research. Now, if that research was not valid, or did not exist, then why would the British Government change it's approach to welfare?

Please try to understand this.... if you give a shit.... I am commenting purely on what I have seen happen in Britain and the background to it. Things do not happen in a vacuum. Actions - and policies - often take decades to show solid results.

You seem to think that one piece of research is sufficient to hang an opinion on. It is not. When it comes to socio-economic issues, one really needs to look at a whole bunch of research, studies (and there are some great longitudinal studies going back decades in the UK).

You also seem to think that I am 'insulting' liberals by saying this is a result of liberal policies. I'm really not. You might take it as an insult - it is not meant to be. It is just a comment on what leads up to this sort of behavior.

 

[sparky]

I've never actually said my opinion was fact, mate

no need to.....

 

[California Girl]

I've never actually said my opinion was fact, mate

no need to....

Apparently there is.

 

[Ravi]

What I do realise is the fact that hardcore right-wing partisans like you and Intense as well as your leftist counterparts twist every single issue into right vs left ideological shitstorms.

Are the black youths to be blamed for the riots they started in England??

No sir!! The blame lies squarely on the british nanny state, on poverty, on Saint George (England's patron saint), on anything but the actual perpetrators themselves.

You guys are pathetic.

Everything is a right vs left issue.

The asshats rioting believe they have the RIGHT to loot and destroy and the left sympathizes with them.

Do you believe the right would ever riot??

Hell, there would have been no riot if the government of the UK didn't ban guns.

Do you believe any of those clowns out there rioting and smashing plasma TV's in the middle of the street are "right wing?"

Hell naw, they're all progressives that would add to your rep if they had the opportunity..

The left happens to be the defenders of anarchy and when the little anarchists get too cocky and pull stunts like this the left says "Those aren't us" when it was the left that tells people they have the right to anything they want - and now they take it and feel justified in doing so.

So how the fuck is the left going to sit here and believe their philosophy has nothing to do with this and even have the audacity to claim this isn't a political issue?

I doubt many of the rioters identify with any political ideology. I've never claimed that the rioters or looters were left wing. I said, because there is evidence to support it, that the riots are a result of 'progressive' policies that damage ordinary people in Britain.

Again, what evidence is that?

 

[California Girl]

Everything is a right vs left issue.

The asshats rioting believe they have the RIGHT to loot and destroy and the left sympathizes with them.

Do you believe the right would ever riot??

Hell, there would have been no riot if the government of the UK didn't ban guns.

Do you believe any of those clowns out there rioting and smashing plasma TV's in the middle of the street are "right wing?"

Hell naw, they're all progressives that would add to your rep if they had the opportunity..

The left happens to be the defenders of anarchy and when the little anarchists get too cocky and pull stunts like this the left says "Those aren't us" when it was the left that tells people they have the right to anything they want - and now they take it and feel justified in doing so.

So how the fuck is the left going to sit here and believe their philosophy has nothing to do with this and even have the audacity to claim this isn't a political issue?

I doubt many of the rioters identify with any political ideology. I've never claimed that the rioters or looters were left wing. I said, because there is evidence to support it, that the riots are a result of 'progressive' policies that damage ordinary people in Britain.

Again, what evidence is that?

Again, research the wide variety of studies undertaken - and continuing - in the UK. There is a whole bunch of longitudinal data around... the Labour Party used that research to make fundamental changes in their welfare system. So that should tell you that I'm not wrong.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I doubt many of the rioters identify with any political ideology. I've never claimed that the rioters or looters were left wing. I said, because there is evidence to support it, that the riots are a result of 'progressive' policies that damage ordinary people in Britain.

Again, what evidence is that?

Again, research the wide variety of studies undertaken - and continuing - in the UK. There is a whole bunch of longitudinal data around... the Labour Party used that research to make fundamental changes in their welfare system. So that should tell you that I'm not wrong.

one once again, callybrat can't back her shit up.

should be so easy.

 

[California Girl]

If I'm wrong, then the Labour Government would not have changed it's own welfare policy from a 'welfare' to a 'welfare to work' policy. Would it? No. If unchecked welfare had been proved to work, the policy would not need changing. Common sense. But.... it was Labour that created the welfare system and it was Labour who changed it - because decades of research clearly showed the damage done by the original 'welfare' policy.

Facts are inconvenient to some. But they do not change reality. Linking to a study is meaningless.... what is meaningful is the accumulative results of decade after decade of longitudinal research.

 

[L.K.Eder]

If I'm wrong, then the Labour Government would not have changed it's own welfare policy from a 'welfare' to a 'welfare to work' policy. Would it? No. If unchecked welfare had been proved to work, the policy would not need changing. Common sense. But.... it was Labour that created the welfare system and it was Labour who changed it - because decades of research clearly showed the damage done by the original 'welfare' policy.

Facts are inconvenient to some. But they do not change reality. Linking to a study is meaningless.... what is meaningful is the accumulative results of decade after decade of longitudinal research.

your bullshitting is meaningless.

 

[Ravi]

Jebus.

Thanks for nothing, CG.

 

[Intense]

WELFARE TO WORK POLICIES IN THE UK1
THE WORKFARE CONSENSUS
Anne Daguerre*
In the UK the system of unemployment protection has been characterised by the continuous
development of means-tested benefits. Whilst health care remains universal, state protection
in case of unemployment is now granted as a last resort, with a view of altering beneficiaries’
behaviour in order to promote employability and responsibility. Labour market policies, referred
to as welfare to work policies, have been based on a supply-side policy paradigm according
to which economic inactivity and unemployment are not caused by a lack of demand, but by
the individual characteristics of the economically inactive. Interestingly, the recession and the
subsequent increase in unemployment, from about 6% prior to the recession to 8% in May
2010, did not shake the faith in this supply side paradigm. As a result, there is a strong cross
party consensus in favour of workfare schemes, with only minimal disagreements between the
Labour and the Conservative Party. Under the workfare approach, the unemployed and the
economically inactive are obliged to work or participate in community or training schemes in
return for their benefits.
http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/archive/2010/juin/dossier/art_ad.pdf

 

[Intense]

Welfare Reform

Many people on benefits perceive the financial risks of moving into work as just too great. For some groups the gains to work, particularly at low hours, are small, and any gain can easily be wiped out altogether by in-work costs such as transport. The Coalition Government has identified two key problems with the current system:

work incentives are poor, and
the system is too complex.

We want to reform the system to help people to move into and progress in work, while supporting the most vulnerable.

Reforming the benefit system aims to make it fairer, more affordable and better able to tackle poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency. We have already announced a range of measures in the Budget and Spending Review to achieve this. Alongside this, we made the commitment to overhaul the benefit system to promote work and personal responsibility.
Welfare Reform Bill 2011

On 16 February 2011 the Welfare Reform Bill was introduced to Parliament. The bill introduces a wide range of reforms to make the benefits and tax credits system fairer and simpler by:

creating the right incentives to get more people into work by ensuring work always pays
protecting the most vulnerable in our society
delivering fairness to those claiming benefit and to the tax payer.

Welfare Reform Bill 2011
Welfare Reform - DWP

 

[California Girl]

Jebus.

Thanks for nothing, CG.

You're welcome Ravster. Your problem appears to be that you want me to provide you with a one size fits all answer. There isn't one. Which is why I said you need to study the UK's political system, and impacts of it's policies over decades. There are vast amounts of research available but you need to study it for yourself, consider all the outcomes and draw conclusions. I can't do that for you. You want simple - there is no simple. You accept those who spoon feed one piece of information and one piece of information does not give you a complete picture. Why is that so hard to understand? The only reason I know about this shit is because it's been something I've undertaken for work. I write about this shit. I have done for several years. But what would be the point of me linking you to my articles? That wouldn't be honest of me, nor would it provide you with your one size fits all answer.

But.... the evidence is there - why did Labour do a complete U-turn on it's historic stance on welfare? Because overwhelming amounts of research showed very clearly the damage it was doing. That's not made up.... that's what happened.

 

[Colin]

Right, an article written over thirty years ago about immigration issues in GB is a lie.

I was surprised to discover that Thatcher didn't like Asians coming to GB.

And I'm still waiting for that evidence I asked you about above.

No, mo chara, but it's 2011 and the EU has expanded dramatically, and their immigration policy has changed dramatically... Britain is swamped with immigrants from the poorer EU countries. And, with that, has seen a massive increase in crime, costs to its health service, welfare, etc. You cannot have that situation without some kind of occasional backlash by the indigenous people.

It is far, far, far more complex than you appreciate.... you take everything as an insult to the left.... it really isn't meant to be. It is a comment on decades of progressively liberal agendas.

If you want evidence, research it for yourself. I'm not gonna spoon feed you - but I suggest you read actual research and not media articles. And.... I didn't actually say - or mean to infer - that the article was a lie.... just that a 30 year old article is not actually gonna help you understand Britain in 2011.... but I'm sure it helped provide you with bullshit to whine about.

Your opinion is not fact, as much as you wish it to be. The evidence you claim exists isn't evidence at all, it is merely what you wish to believe.

See the post after yours....now that it what evidence looks like.

Evidence? Really? Firstly it only references a proportion of the immigration into Britain. Secondly, It appears to make no reference to the thousands of self-employed brick layers, carpenters, plumbers etc who found themselves without work because the polish immigrants undercut the market. Many customers later found at, at their cost, why it was an unwise decision to employ a foreign and unknown worker. It says nothing about the more significant uncontrolled immigration from third world countries and the drain it makes on the British taxpayer.

It's all very well for you to smugly opine your opinions based on recent news reports, but the fact remains that, not being a resident of Britain, you can only scratch the surface of the deeper knowledge required to gain a better understanding of what is really going on here. You want some facts about how immigration has spiralled out of control under Labour and more importantly why...then read this. Something we British already knew about, but clearly you didn't.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.
"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph

And here is what Alan Johnson had to say about his OWN party's immigration policy:

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has admitted for the first time that the Government has been inept over its handling of immigration which has increased pressure on local jobs and services

The comments echo long-standing concerns from some local authorities who say their limited resources, such as housing, education and health, have been severely hit by sudden influxes of large numbers of migrants in to their communities.

Mr Johnson also appeared to criticised some of his predecessors for allowing a backlog of failed asylum seekers and unreturned foreign national prisoners to build up.

It emerged in 2006 that there was a backlog of up to 450,000 so-called "legacy cases" that officials are now having to work through. At the time, John Reid, the then Home Secretary, described the immigration and asylum service "not fit for purpose".

Government 'maladroit' on immigration, says Home Secretary - Telegraph

There's an old adage...a little information is a dangerous thing. This thread proves the point!

 

[California Girl]

No, mo chara, but it's 2011 and the EU has expanded dramatically, and their immigration policy has changed dramatically... Britain is swamped with immigrants from the poorer EU countries. And, with that, has seen a massive increase in crime, costs to its health service, welfare, etc. You cannot have that situation without some kind of occasional backlash by the indigenous people.

It is far, far, far more complex than you appreciate.... you take everything as an insult to the left.... it really isn't meant to be. It is a comment on decades of progressively liberal agendas.

If you want evidence, research it for yourself. I'm not gonna spoon feed you - but I suggest you read actual research and not media articles. And.... I didn't actually say - or mean to infer - that the article was a lie.... just that a 30 year old article is not actually gonna help you understand Britain in 2011.... but I'm sure it helped provide you with bullshit to whine about.

Your opinion is not fact, as much as you wish it to be. The evidence you claim exists isn't evidence at all, it is merely what you wish to believe.

See the post after yours....now that it what evidence looks like.

Evidence? Really? Firstly it only references a proportion of the immigration into Britain. Secondly, It appears to make no reference to the thousands of self-employed brick layers, carpenters, plumbers etc who found themselves without work because the polish immigrants undercut the market. Many customers later found at, at their cost, why it was an unwise decision to employ a foreign and unknown worker. It says nothing about the more significant uncontrolled immigration from third world countries and the drain it makes on the British taxpayer.

It's all very well for you to smugly opine your opinions based on recent news reports, but the fact remains that, not being a resident of Britain, you can only scratch the surface of the deeper knowledge required to gain a better understanding of what is really going on here. You want some facts about how immigration has spiralled out of control under Labour and more importantly why...then read this. Something we British already knew about, but clearly you didn't.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.
"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph

And here is what Alan Johnson had to say about his OWN party's immigration policy:

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has admitted for the first time that the Government has been inept over its handling of immigration which has increased pressure on local jobs and services

The comments echo long-standing concerns from some local authorities who say their limited resources, such as housing, education and health, have been severely hit by sudden influxes of large numbers of migrants in to their communities.

Mr Johnson also appeared to criticised some of his predecessors for allowing a backlog of failed asylum seekers and unreturned foreign national prisoners to build up.

It emerged in 2006 that there was a backlog of up to 450,000 so-called "legacy cases" that officials are now having to work through. At the time, John Reid, the then Home Secretary, described the immigration and asylum service "not fit for purpose".

Government 'maladroit' on immigration, says Home Secretary - Telegraph

There's an old adage...a little information is a dangerous thing. This thread proves the point!

That's exactly why I suggest that, instead of taking media articles, people undertake their own research of the huge resources available on this topic.

I'll tell you what kind of bothers me.... is the call to ban BlackBerry Messenger because of this. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Hysterical, knee-jerk reactions are usually not smart. For example, countries that currently ban the use of BlackBerry Messenger - China and a variety of UAE countries. Is that what Britain wants to emulate? Shame on them!