The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
Perhaps we could introduce a Common Arrest Warrant so that the long arm of the law could catch fugitive criminals. If only we were a member of an organisation with that sort of vision!
And be handed over to the tender mercies of the juge d'instruction and a distinct lack of habeas corpus. Not exactly Midnight Express I grant you, but I have a deep deep suspicion of continental legal process. Even Guy Verhofstadt recognised the different legal systems as a mentality issue last week (in a notably sensible speech I might add).
So be it. The first job of a politician is to ensure the people are kept safe, and no economic cost should be too high.
You support a 10 mph speed limit? It'd save 1,500 British lives a year and tens of thousands of injuries.
Or is the economic cost too high?
Ok as I said, you win. I am not in the mood for constant smart arse pin dancing.
Convicted criminals coming from the EU to sleep rough/not work/kill people is unstoppable and always will be.
Happy Days
Convicted criminals coming from the USA/Canada/Australia to sleep rough/not work. kill people is also unstoppable but does not seem to worry you .
Show me where it has happened and I will say that is wrong. Why would I dislike Latvians but like Americans, Canadians & Australians
This Latvian killed an Indian. If I were racist, as you have a hard on to imply, why would it bother me enough to think of posting about it?
I don't think this is a racist argument, just one about whether it is practicable to prevent foreign criminals coming here. It is of course worth noting that we export a lot of criminals to the Costas etc too!
If an American, Canadian or Australia roughsleeper comes here on a visa-waiver and overstays their welcome they can be deported even if they haven't committed a crime other than outstaying their visa.
I suspect the largest number of non-EU overstay the visa / illegal workers are Albanian. We need to get much better at deporting people (and barring entry to) people who are here illegally.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Is there any evidence that the quotient of violent criminals is out of whack in any individual country (or region within a country) as a result of migration?
@rcs100 is right that there may be no practical way to stop people with criminal convictions visiting the UK.
But there is a difference between a tourist and a permanent resident. Most countries have controls on who can become a permanent resident and it is possible to impose conditions - such as not having a criminal conviction, however defined - which mean that you can be deported if it is found that you have lied on your application form.
Similarly, why should someone have the right to go and live rough in another country?
If people had felt that those visitors who break the rules were actually deported, they would (perhaps) have been more willing to accept free movement for those who did not take the piss.
I agree with you 100%.
This is about the specific situation that isam mentioned about a Romanian who came to the UK with a criminal conviction and then lived under a bridge before going on to murder someone.
I think it is reasonable to assume that said Romanian did not go through the hoops and apply for a Residence card. In other words, he came in here as a tourist and stayed.
As I said below, I hope that in the future we will do a much better job of throwing out people who have committed offences (from wherever). But we do need to be realistic about the limits (and costs) of action.
He was Latvian not Romanian, and as it happens it seems the deceased's husband was working here without a permit
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
I don't see where I have even posted details of crimes committed by Muslims recently as you say I have.
But I do think it is a very bad idea to have mass immigration of an alien religion. It causes the problems of segregation, alienation and civil strife. I am not discriminating against Muslims because I dislike Islam, I am not a religious scholar. On a one to one level I have Muslim friends I play Cricket with and whose company I enjoy. But on a wider scale I think it is bad news. It would be the same bad idea for Pakistani society as it is now for English if 10% of Lahore became poor white Christian immigrants
If it were a racial thing, why don't the people you think of as bad guys complain about Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Asians of no particular religion or religion unkown?
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
And if membership of a religion was relevant to the issue in question, what would be wrong with discriminating on that basis?
Discrimination is wrong when you discriminate on the basis of something which is irrelevant. But discrimination ie making a choice - which is something which all of us do every single day - on the basis of relevant considerations is not just not wrong but essential.
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
God you say what I mean so often just with Olympic levels of knowledge and eloquence. ( Shuffles off meekly, in many degrees of admiration).
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
Do you think it's any consolation to the relatives of the victims of, say, Fred West, that they were struck by a local killer?
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
And if membership of a religion was relevant to the issue in question, what would be wrong with discriminating on that basis?
Discrimination is wrong when you discriminate on the basis of something which is irrelevant. But discrimination ie making a choice - which is something which all of us do every single day - on the basis of relevant considerations is not just not wrong but essential.
Did you discriminate against catholics during the Troubles?
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
Do you think it's any consolation to the relatives of the victims of, say, Fred West, that they were struck by a local killer?
It certainly gives them one less thing to get angry about.
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
What is my argument??
Stop West Yorkshire people going to london ?
It awfully hard to find ferret embrocation south of Nottingham anyway.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
You say that as if you were making some kind of point. Presumably you would be happy to discriminate against a revival of the Aztec religion with its unhealthy predilection for human sacrifice? If Islam could settle down to being merely bloody silly, like Christianity, the correct course would be merely to deride it, but as long as jihad remains a thing stronger measures are called for.
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
The Common Arrest Warrant does not really help @Topping's argument. FoM trumps that. We learnt that a long time ago when the Italian born murderer of the Maida Vale headmaster could not be deported back to Italy despite being guilty of the worst crime imaginable because his right to live in the UK trumped everything else.
A FoM which permitted countries to deport and keep out EU citizens guilty of serious crimes would have been sensible.
Unfortunately, the EU does not do sensible.
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe. Effectively preventing them from even trying to do that by forcing them to keep within their borders someone who has committed a crime is wrong, unfair and looks as if those coming up with such a policy value the principle rather more than the interests of citizens. Worse, it looks as if they value the rights of foreign criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It's all very well talking about the economic costs of doing something. But can't you see how this looks and how unfair and arse-over-tip it seems?
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
I don't see where I have even posted details of crimes committed by Muslims recently as you say I have.
But I do think it is a very bad idea to have mass immigration of an alien religion. It causes the problems of segregation, alienation and civil strife. I am not discriminating against Muslims because I dislike Islam, I am not a religious scholar. On a one to one level I have Muslim friends I play Cricket with and whose company I enjoy. But on a wider scale I think it is bad news. It would be the same bad idea for Pakistani society as it is now for English if 10% of Lahore became poor white Christian immigrants
If it were a racial thing, why don't the people you think of as bad guys complain about Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Asians of no particular religion or religion unkown?
Mass immigration presents all kinds of challenges and issues. We have had, famously, immigration from different kinds of people down the ages. We have had the Huguenots, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ugandan Asians, the EU-ites, etc.
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
You say that as if you were making some kind of point. Presumably you would be happy to discriminate against a revival of the Aztec religion with its unhealthy predilection for human sacrifice? If Islam could settle down to being merely bloody silly, like Christianity, the correct course would be merely to deride it, but as long as jihad remains a thing stronger measures are called for.
Judeo-Christianity has its extreme elements; just attend a Westboro Baptist Church meeting. Jihad definitely remains a thing for which stronger measures are called for. So is bank robbing.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
Both of you have said that a government's most basic concern is the safety of its citizens.
At first I thought "of course, that makes sense".
And then I thought about it. Heretical thoughts started bubbling through my head. And I thought "bullshit".
Let me start by giving a real, everyday example. The most common kind of voting is not done in the ballot box, but with the feet. You vote for Cornflakes over Bran Flakes when you choose it at the supermarket. And if you emigrate to a country, you are voting with your feet for that form of government.
If you flee Syria for the West, you are knowingly choosing to exchange a fair risk of death in the Med, plus pretty much all your worldy possessions, and a high likelihood of ending up in a camp in Turkey for the chance of a life in the West. Now, it's possible they are voting with their feet for the safer option And its possible that life is simply so shit in those countries that taking those risks is the logical choice.
That's an extreme example of people choosing material wealth over increased risk of sudden death.
But every Brit who emigrates to the US is choosing to go to a country where the risk of sudden death is multiples higher than in the UK. They are voting with their feet for material advancement over the risk of sudden death.
So I pose a question. If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Both of you have said that a government's most basic concern is the safety of its citizens.
At first I thought "of course, that makes sense".
And then I thought about it. Heretical thoughts started bubbling through my head. And I thought "bullshit".
Let me start by giving a real, everyday example. The most common kind of voting is not done in the ballot box, but with the feet. You vote for Cornflakes over Bran Flakes when you choose it at the supermarket. And if you emigrate to a country, you are voting with your feet for that form of government.
If you flee Syria for the West, you are knowingly choosing to exchange a fair risk of death in the Med, plus pretty much all your worldy possessions, and a high likelihood of ending up in a camp in Turkey for the chance of a life in the West. Now, it's possible they are voting with their feet for the safer option And its possible that life is simply so shit in those countries that taking those risks is the logical choice.
That's an extreme example of people choosing material wealth over increased risk of sudden death.
But every Brit who emigrates to the US is choosing to go to a country where the risk of sudden death is multiples higher than in the UK. They are voting with their feet for material advancement over the risk of sudden death.
So I pose a question. If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Perhaps governments should focus on safety so its citizens can take the risks.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
And which bits do they move to?
Harlem? Downtown LA, Detroit, St Louis, Memphis?
How many reasonably well to do europeans choose to move to Peckham? Broadwater Farm?
How about all the Brits that are in Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and the south of France? Hardly bursting with economic activity.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
f no particular religion or religion unkown?
Mass immigration presents all kinds of challenges and issues. We have had, famously, immigration from different kinds of people down the ages. We have had the Huguenots, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ugandan Asians, the EU-ites, etc.
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
I did not say "some of my best friends are Muslims", that would not be true. I said I have friends in my cricket team who are muslims. I am not seeking to absolve myself (your term, I don't think I need absolving), I am just pointing out that on an individual basis people are people, but that doesn't mean mass immigration of an alien religion is not a terrible thing for society as a whole. The particular difference with Muslims, as opposed to the other immigrants you mention, is their lack of integration over time, the lack of mixed marriages, the extreme growth of their churches in comparison with the others.
No need to apologise for the West Ham or East End references, I am neither a West Ham supporter nor from the East End. I wish you would stop trying to be so clever; when you simultaneously make stupid errors you look a bit of a cock.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
You say that as if you were making some kind of point. Presumably you would be happy to discriminate against a revival of the Aztec religion with its unhealthy predilection for human sacrifice? If Islam could settle down to being merely bloody silly, like Christianity, the correct course would be merely to deride it, but as long as jihad remains a thing stronger measures are called for.
Judeo-Christianity has its extreme elements; just attend a Westboro Baptist Church meeting. Jihad definitely remains a thing for which stronger measures are called for. So is bank robbing.
Dear god, are you really trying to equate Islamic jihad with Judeo - Christianity?
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Both of you have said that a government's most basic concern is the safety of its citizens.
At first I thought "of course, that makes sense".
And then I thought about it. Heretical thoughts started bubbling through my head. And I thought "bullshit".
Let me start by giving a real, everyday example. The most common kind of voting is not done in the ballot box, but with the feet. You vote for Cornflakes over Bran Flakes when you choose it at the supermarket. And if you emigrate to a country, you are voting with your feet for that form of government.
If you flee Syria for the West, you are knowingly choosing to exchange a fair risk of death in the Med, plus pretty much all your worldy possessions, and a high likelihood of ending up in a camp in Turkey for the chance of a life in the West. Now, it's possible they are voting with their feet for the safer option And its possible that life is simply so shit in those countries that taking those risks is the logical choice.
That's an extreme example of people choosing material wealth over increased risk of sudden death.
But every Brit who emigrates to the US is choosing to go to a country where the risk of sudden death is multiples higher than in the UK. They are voting with their feet for material advancement over the risk of sudden death.
So I pose a question. If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Maybe we will be the first ;-) or maybe it's already happening with sensible immigration policies which includes their material well being(Sensible doesn't apply to the open borders of the EU)
Many of the eastern europeans and MENA migrants come here precisely because we combine both wealth and safety.
They escape the despotic regimes in their own countries or on their doorsteps, our standard of living is better and they basically get to do whatever they like.
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Constantly? hmm
How often would that be then - 2 or 3 times a day, once a day?
Show us these posts because it seems to me you are trying to tarnish his name rather than engage.
Just out of interest should no comment be passed on activities undertaken by members of that religion then, we should not throw light on it?
A government's most basic duty is to try and keep citizens safe.
We I assume were brought up differently: I never thought of a government as something who did things for me, rather as something who did things to me. This is (one of the reasons) why although I find it easy to understand Leavers on an intellectual level, it's more difficult to do so on an emotional level: I don't have the same bellyfeel.
The USA is partitioned. On one sided of the divide are Democrats and Moderate Republicans, on the other are supporters of Donald Trump.
All of a sudden, immigration to the UK from the two Americas goes through the roof. The government are allowing so many Americans into the country that people are saying its too much. Many parts of the country are becoming more American than British.
Over time, the immigrants from the Democrat side are generally integrating well, and there are many mixed marriages, and Anglo American children. On the other hand, the Trump immigrants are less likely to interact with the British, and large parts of major cities are majority Trump. They are more racist, sexist and homophobic than the rest of the country. Although it is only a minority, there are some who live by 19th Century Confederate Law rather than that of the UK. Most acts of terror in the last 15 years have been carried out by Trump immigrants in the name of the Confederacy.
Would people on here who think mass immigration of Trump supporters would be a bad thing ignore such things happening after they warned against it? Would it be racist to criticize the Trumps, even if you praised Democrats of the same race?
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
And which bits do they move to?
Harlem? Downtown LA, Detroit, St Louis, Memphis?
How many reasonably well to do europeans choose to move to Peckham? Broadwater Farm?
How about all the Brits that are in Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and the south of France? Hardly bursting with economic activity.
I'm not sure that arguments works for you, though. In the UK the internal migration is away from safe, but economically stagnant, places to dangerous, economically vibrant, places.
And if you look at the US, the biggest levels of internal migration are to Texas (where sudden death rates are high). And take California: San Francisco and Palo Alto actually have pretty poor murder rates compared to safe (slow) Sacremento.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Nothing to do with London's new Mayor ( elected May 2016 ), naturally.
In all honesty I can't see how it can be anything to do with him. People don't suddenly decide to go out and shoot each other just because they have anew mayor. If he had made radical changes in policy then in a few years I would expect to see some changes. But not yet and I can't see anything he has done so far that would lead to that.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Sam, sweetie, you relentlessly highlight the crimes of minority groups suggesting that it is inherent in that group's makeup. Whereas the indigenous population is responsible for a vastly greater number of similar crimes. Your aim presumably is to discriminate against and penalise members of that minority group by suggesting that all members of that group are equally culpable.
It is the very definition of racism.
No I don't. You are too stupid to understand the point, and far too concerned about making yourself sound virtuous to realise.
Nah. In an above post you said "I never said people of a certain race are this or that."
What do you think you are doing by constantly posting details of crimes committed by Muslims?
Muslims are members of a religion, they are not a race.
Where did I post details of crimes committed by Muslims recently by the way? I don't think the Latvian murderer was a Muslim
So you are discriminating against people of a particular religion, not race?
And if membership of a religion was relevant to the issue in question, what would be wrong with discriminating on that basis?
Discrimination is wrong when you discriminate on the basis of something which is irrelevant. But discrimination ie making a choice - which is something which all of us do every single day - on the basis of relevant considerations is not just not wrong but essential.
Did you discriminate against catholics during the Troubles?
Not me personally, as I was a child at the time.
But we were routinely stopped by the authorities every time we travelled to and from Ireland during the Troubles. Unfair as it may have been to us as individuals, as Irish Catholics we were members of a group posing a much greater risk of terrorism than other groups at that time. And so we understood why the authorities did what they did. It was sensible risk assessment on their part.
Mass immigration presents all kinds of challenges and issues. We have had, famously, immigration from different kinds of people down the ages. We have had the Huguenots, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ugandan Asians, the EU-ites, etc.
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
Careful there Topping. Both Sunil and I are West Ham supporters and I am sure there are more on here. We might start singing 'Bubbles' at you.
Mass immigration presents all kinds of challenges and issues. We have had, famously, immigration from different kinds of people down the ages. We have had the Huguenots, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ugandan Asians, the EU-ites, etc.
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
Careful there Topping. Both Sunil and I are West Ham supporters and I am sure there are more on here. We might start singing 'Bubbles' at you.
What! Isn't there a decent Lincolnshire team that you can support?
The USA is partitioned. On one sided of the divide are Democrats and Moderate Republicans, on the other are supporters of Donald Trump.
All of a sudden, immigration to the UK from the two Americas goes through the roof. The government are allowing so many Americans into the country that people are saying its too much. Many parts of the country are becoming more American than British.
Over time, the immigrants from the Democrat side are generally integrating well, and there are many mixed marriages, and Anglo American children. On the other hand, the Trump immigrants are less likely to interact with the British, and large parts of major cities are majority Trump. They are more racist, sexist and homophobic than the rest of the country. Although it is only a minority, there are some who live by 19th Century Confederate Law rather than that of the UK. Most acts of terror in the last 15 years have been carried out by Trump immigrants in the name of the Confederacy.
Would people on here who think mass immigration of Trump supporters would be a bad thing ignore such things happening after they warned against it? Would it be racist to criticize the Trumps, even if you praised Democrats of the same race?
Mass immigration presents all kinds of challenges and issues. We have had, famously, immigration from different kinds of people down the ages. We have had the Huguenots, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ugandan Asians, the EU-ites, etc.
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
Careful there Topping. Both Sunil and I are West Ham supporters and I am sure there are more on here. We might start singing 'Bubbles' at you.
The USA is partitioned. On one sided of the divide are Democrats and Moderate Republicans, on the other are supporters of Donald Trump.
All of a sudden, immigration to the UK from the two Americas goes through the roof. The government are allowing so many Americans into the country that people are saying its too much. Many parts of the country are becoming more American than British.
Over time, the immigrants from the Democrat side are generally integrating well, and there are many mixed marriages, and Anglo American children. On the other hand, the Trump immigrants are less likely to interact with the British, and large parts of major cities are majority Trump. They are more racist, sexist and homophobic than the rest of the country. Although it is only a minority, there are some who live by 19th Century Confederate Law rather than that of the UK. Most acts of terror in the last 15 years have been carried out by Trump immigrants in the name of the Confederacy.
Would people on here who think mass immigration of Trump supporters would be a bad thing ignore such things happening after they warned against it? Would it be racist to criticize the Trumps, even if you praised Democrats of the same race?
A brilliant analogy. Saved for future reference.
And so to bed.
EU migrants are the ones who integrate well, intermarry etc. No Pole of Slovak ever bombed me.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Trump now in favour of both NATO and the EU. Interesting.
And also now an advocate for the competence of US intelligence (at least as far as Syria is concerned). It's not necessarily the best thing to have entirely flexible principles, and a more than flexible approach to the truth, in times of international tension... and in a fake-news-off between Putin and Trump, who is the world to believe ? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/putin-trump-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-fake-news-215018
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Switzerland is safer than the UK! (And richer too.)
Plus also out of the EU
My dream is that we end up like Switzerland.
1. Excellent vocational education 2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1) 3. Grass roots democracy 4. Outside the EU 5. In Schengen
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Switzerland is safer than the UK! (And richer too.)
Plus also out of the EU
My dream is that we end up like Switzerland.
1. Excellent vocational education 2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1) 3. Grass roots democracy 4. Outside the EU 5. In Schengen
The temptation to go all Harry Lime on you must be resisted....
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Switzerland is safer than the UK! (And richer too.)
Plus also out of the EU
My dream is that we end up like Switzerland.
1. Excellent vocational education 2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1) 3. Grass roots democracy 4. Outside the EU 5. In Schengen
The temptation to go all Harry Lime on you must be resisted....
How does it disprove the revisionist view of dinosaurs. It deals exclusively with an ancestor that lived further back in time from the dinosaurs than they are from us. It makes no comment at all about the main revisionist claims such as warm bloodedness and fur.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Switzerland is safer than the UK! (And richer too.)
Plus also out of the EU
My dream is that we end up like Switzerland.
1. Excellent vocational education 2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1) 3. Grass roots democracy 4. Outside the EU 5. In Schengen
The temptation to go all Harry Lime on you must be resisted....
You want to sell me fake antibiotics?
Let's not talk about Tamiflu. I was thinking more of cuckoo clocks.
Mass immigration presents all kinds of challenges and issues. We have had, famously, immigration from different kinds of people down the ages. We have had the Huguenots, the Jews, the Jamaicans, the Ugandan Asians, the EU-ites, etc.
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
Careful there Topping. Both Sunil and I are West Ham supporters and I am sure there are more on here. We might start singing 'Bubbles' at you.
Surely you mean Aston Villa?
I thought Villa were just the reserves forcPreston North End.
Mélenchon is 20/1 to in the first round with Betfair. Maybe a value bet.
I am in a good position on Melenchon. I put a fiver on him making the top 2 at 120, but I would say that Macron is the value at 3.55 in that market. The polls are a toss up between him and LePen and he is far more transfer friendly than her.
The USA is partitioned. On one sided of the divide are Democrats and Moderate Republicans, on the other are supporters of Donald Trump.
All of a sudden, immigration to the UK from the two Americas goes through the roof. The government are allowing so many Americans into the country that people are saying its too much. Many parts of the country are becoming more American than British.
Over time, the immigrants from the Democrat side are generally integrating well, and there are many mixed marriages, and Anglo American children. On the other hand, the Trump immigrants are less likely to interact with the British, and large parts of major cities are majority Trump. They are more racist, sexist and homophobic than the rest of the country. Although it is only a minority, there are some who live by 19th Century Confederate Law rather than that of the UK. Most acts of terror in the last 15 years have been carried out by Trump immigrants in the name of the Confederacy.
Would people on here who think mass immigration of Trump supporters would be a bad thing ignore such things happening after they warned against it? Would it be racist to criticize the Trumps, even if you praised Democrats of the same race?
A brilliant analogy. Saved for future reference.
And so to bed.
EU migrants are the ones who integrate well, intermarry etc. No Pole of Slovak ever bombed me.
Not the one's moving into my area,give you a clue,these people have a bad reputation from eastern Europe.
Not all EU immigration is wonderful,maybe for the well off or the well off area's.
How does it disprove the revisionist view of dinosaurs. It deals exclusively with an ancestor that lived further back in time from the dinosaurs than they are from us. It makes no comment at all about the main revisionist claims such as warm bloodedness and fur.
It doesn't, of course. I assumed the smiley was understood.
(edit... and yes, I know that Tamiflu is an antiviral. Though it is Swiss.)
You always know when people use fighting-like metaphors about fairly humdrum domestic politics that they've lost sense of what real fighting is and, through that, a sense of proportion.
Has there been anymore on the rumour about Hamon standing aside in favour of Melenchon in France? Doing the rounds anyway.
Mélenchon is 20/1 to in the first round with Betfair. Maybe a value bet.
I am in a good position on Melenchon. I put a fiver on him making the top 2 at 120, but I would say that Macron is the value at 3.55 in that market. The polls are a toss up between him and LePen and he is far more transfer friendly than her.
What does transfer friendliness have to do with who will win the first round ?
I possibly largely agree with you in principle, but I don't think I like your reasoning.
I'm not sure that people make informed, rational and - especially - quantitative decisions about relative hazards, particularly if they are (a) of a comparable order of magnitude (more obviously dangerous places, like active warzones, brutal dictatorships or areas with severe civil unrest are generally absent from lists of desirable migration destinations), (b) relative small (extreme case: moving somewhere that quadruples my chance of being hit by lightning isn't really a big deal), (c) heterogeneous in a way that allows people to believe, possibly correctly, that they will be in a low-risk group (I'm sure lots of migrants to the USA rationalise away the risk of gang violence being inflicted upon them, on the grounds that while it may be more common there it predominantly affects poor and minority areas that they will be avoiding), (d) concern things that are "never going to happen to me" (until they do, of course, but by then it's too late). On a related note I bet most folk don't look up average GDP per capita before migrating, any more than they look up traffic death rates - they'll go with what they thing they can make over there, along with their own (likely overoptimistic) perception of their personal risks.
Two points on a more philosophical level: the fact that people are prepared to trade off between A and B (safety vs economic well-being) does not exclude the possibility they see A as generally more important than B. It just means there are trade-offs possible. And obviously preferences differ between people: there were pioneers attracted to the riches of the New World, despite the dangers, but it took a particular type of person. Today there don't seem to be very many hardy souls volunteering to go to really, really nasty places because there's more coin to be made there - USA, Oz, Spain, Canada, London are not petrifying hell-holes. Secondly, people may believe in a division of responsibility between state and citizen. It may be rational to expect the state to largely take control of public safety (they are, after all, in a better position to do so) whereas if I want to get rich, that's largely down to me (I might like a safety-net if all goes awry, and a state that promotes the conditions for economic growth would help, but I have to deploy my own talent to take advantage of that). How I set my own trade-off need not tally with my expectations of how the state should use its powers to set its own.
And a final point on an evidential level: the revealed preferences of migrants are indeed interesting, but may not be representative. Suppose 90% of folk in a country prefer A to B, and the country's polity has historically prioritised A over B as a result. I should not be surprised to discover that emigrants are primarily B-lovers - for them, the spoils are elsewhere.
I'd have thought closer cooperation with our fellow europeans would be the best way to track EU criminals round. Perhaps there is an organisation we could join to help out on this...
I possibly largely agree with you in principle, but I don't think I like your reasoning.
I'm not sure that people make informed, rational and - especially - quantitative decisions about relative hazards, particularly if they are (a) of a comparable order of magnitude (more obviously dangerous places, like active warzones, brutal dictatorships or areas with severe civil unrest are generally absent from lists of desirable migration destinations), (b) relative small (extreme case: moving somewhere that quadruples my chance of being hit by lightning isn't really a big deal), (c) heterogeneous in a way that allows people to believe, possibly correctly, that they will be in a low-risk group (I'm sure lots of migrants to the USA rationalise away the risk of gang violence being inflicted upon them, on the grounds that while it may be more common there it predominantly affects poor and minority areas that they will be avoiding), (d) concern things that are "never going to happen to me" (until they do, of course, but by then it's too late). On a related note I bet most folk don't look up average GDP per capita before migrating, any more than they look up traffic death rates - they'll go with what they thing they can make over there, along with their own (likely overoptimistic) perception of their personal risks.
Two points on a more philosophical level: the fact that people are prepared to trade off between A and B (safety vs economic well-being) does not exclude the possibility they see A as generally more important than B. It just means there are trade-offs possible. And obviously preferences differ between people: there were pioneers attracted to the riches of the New World, despite the dangers, but it took a particular type of person. Today there don't seem to be very many hardy souls volunteering to go to really, really nasty places because there's more coin to be made there - USA, Oz, Spain, Canada, London are not petrifying hell-holes. Secondly, people may believe in a division of responsibility between state and citizen.
And a final point on an evidential level: the revealed preferences of migrants are indeed interesting, but may not be representative. Suppose 90% of folk in a country prefer A to B, and the country's polity has historically prioritised A over B as a result. I should not be surprised to discover that emigrants are primarily B-lovers - for them, the spoils are elsewhere.
There are obviously people in all societies who are willing to risk their lives for high rewards (eg people who are paid to work in dangerous parts of the world, underwater welders, jet pilots etc.). In past ages, soldiers could name their price for taking part in a forlorn hope. But, as you imply, I don't think that negates @Cyclefree's point that security is the most basic function of government.
Mélenchon is 20/1 to in the first round with Betfair. Maybe a value bet.
I am in a good position on Melenchon. I put a fiver on him making the top 2 at 120, but I would say that Macron is the value at 3.55 in that market. The polls are a toss up between him and LePen and he is far more transfer friendly than her.
What does transfer friendliness have to do with who will win the first round ?
Both of you have said that a government's most basic concern is the safety of its citizens.
At first I thought "of course, that makes sense".
And then I thought about it. Heretical thoughts started bubbling through my head. And I thought "bullshit".
Let me start by giving a real, everyday example. The most common kind of voting is not done in the ballot box, but with the feet. You vote for Cornflakes over Bran Flakes when you choose it at the supermarket. And if you emigrate to a country, you are voting with your feet for that form of government.
If you flee Syria for the West, you are knowingly choosing to exchange a fair risk of death in the Med, plus pretty much all your worldy possessions, and a high likelihood of ending up in a camp in Turkey for the chance of a life in the West. Now, it's possible they are voting with their feet for the safer option And its possible that life is simply so shit in those countries that taking those risks is the logical choice.
That's an extreme example of people choosing material wealth over increased risk of sudden death.
But every Brit who emigrates to the US is choosing to go to a country where the risk of sudden death is multiples higher than in the UK. They are voting with their feet for material advancement over the risk of sudden death.
So I pose a question. If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Isn't the real question if he safety of its citizens is paramount why does a government let any of its citizens travel to a country that is less safe than its own.
How does it disprove the revisionist view of dinosaurs. It deals exclusively with an ancestor that lived further back in time from the dinosaurs than they are from us. It makes no comment at all about the main revisionist claims such as warm bloodedness and fur.
It doesn't, of course. I assumed the smiley was understood.
(edit... and yes, I know that Tamiflu is an antiviral. Though it is Swiss.)
An EU migrant with several convictions in his home country, who was unemployed, and living under a bridge murdered a young Indian woman and was today sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Switzerland is safer than the UK! (And richer too.)
Plus also out of the EU
My dream is that we end up like Switzerland.
1. Excellent vocational education 2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1) 3. Grass roots democracy 4. Outside the EU 5. In Schengen
If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Where do most Britons move to?
The three most common countries are: the US, Canada and Australia. All three of these countries have worse: murder rates, automotive death rates, and accident death rates.
Surely Spain is no. 1? Internal migration is often to riskier places too, like inner London.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
Switzerland is safer than the UK! (And richer too.)
Plus also out of the EU
My dream is that we end up like Switzerland.
1. Excellent vocational education 2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1) 3. Grass roots democracy 4. Outside the EU 5. In Schengen
Comments
Edit: did you mean @foxinsoxuk?
But I do think it is a very bad idea to have mass immigration of an alien religion. It causes the problems of segregation, alienation and civil strife. I am not discriminating against Muslims because I dislike Islam, I am not a religious scholar. On a one to one level I have Muslim friends I play Cricket with and whose company I enjoy. But on a wider scale I think it is bad news. It would be the same bad idea for Pakistani society as it is now for English if 10% of Lahore became poor white Christian immigrants
If it were a racial thing, why don't the people you think of as bad guys complain about Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Asians of no particular religion or religion unkown?
Discrimination is wrong when you discriminate on the basis of something which is irrelevant. But discrimination ie making a choice - which is something which all of us do every single day - on the basis of relevant considerations is not just not wrong but essential.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/do-we-need-yorkshiremen-1338559.html
Your comment that some of your best friends are Muslims at the same time proves and disproves your point. You are discriminating en masse a particular community while seeking to absolve yourself by pointing to your individual associations with members of that community.
But in today's world, it is all about individuals. Individual radicalised Muslims, individual West Ham supporters (no offence), individual bank robbers.
I don't think we are at risk of a change in our cultural identity because we have had Muslim immigration, or mass EU immigration. I have more confidence than that.
I absolutely understand that we must guard against threats to us and at this time the threat seems most manifest from radicalised Muslims. But the threat to banks at this time is most manifest from East End bank robbers (no offence).
Judeo-Christianity has its extreme elements; just attend a Westboro Baptist Church meeting. Jihad definitely remains a thing for which stronger measures are called for. So is bank robbing.
Both of you have said that a government's most basic concern is the safety of its citizens.
At first I thought "of course, that makes sense".
And then I thought about it. Heretical thoughts started bubbling through my head. And I thought "bullshit".
Let me start by giving a real, everyday example. The most common kind of voting is not done in the ballot box, but with the feet. You vote for Cornflakes over Bran Flakes when you choose it at the supermarket. And if you emigrate to a country, you are voting with your feet for that form of government.
If you flee Syria for the West, you are knowingly choosing to exchange a fair risk of death in the Med, plus pretty much all your worldy possessions, and a high likelihood of ending up in a camp in Turkey for the chance of a life in the West. Now, it's possible they are voting with their feet for the safer option And its possible that life is simply so shit in those countries that taking those risks is the logical choice.
That's an extreme example of people choosing material wealth over increased risk of sudden death.
But every Brit who emigrates to the US is choosing to go to a country where the risk of sudden death is multiples higher than in the UK. They are voting with their feet for material advancement over the risk of sudden death.
So I pose a question. If safety of the citizens is so much more important than material wealth, why aren't people desperate to migrate to very safe, but ecomically stagnant countries? Why aren't people voting with their feet for governments who prioritise the safety of their citizens over their material well being?
Indeed I think that's quite a straight forward conservative view (http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/essence-1957/ for example)
Harlem? Downtown LA, Detroit, St Louis, Memphis?
How many reasonably well to do europeans choose to move to Peckham? Broadwater Farm?
How about all the Brits that are in Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and the south of France? Hardly bursting with economic activity.
No need to apologise for the West Ham or East End references, I am neither a West Ham supporter nor from the East End. I wish you would stop trying to be so clever; when you simultaneously make stupid errors you look a bit of a cock.
Well, it's a view as they say.
But at least if we are putting life over material things we will get more than £350 million extra per week for the NHS...
They escape the despotic regimes in their own countries or on their doorsteps, our standard of living is better and they basically get to do whatever they like.
How often would that be then - 2 or 3 times a day, once a day?
Show us these posts because it seems to me you are trying to tarnish his name rather than engage.
Just out of interest should no comment be passed on activities undertaken by members of that religion then, we should not throw light on it?
How short some peoples memories are.
The USA is partitioned. On one sided of the divide are Democrats and Moderate Republicans, on the other are supporters of Donald Trump.
All of a sudden, immigration to the UK from the two Americas goes through the roof. The government are allowing so many Americans into the country that people are saying its too much. Many parts of the country are becoming more American than British.
Over time, the immigrants from the Democrat side are generally integrating well, and there are many mixed marriages, and Anglo American children. On the other hand, the Trump immigrants are less likely to interact with the British, and large parts of major cities are majority Trump. They are more racist, sexist and homophobic than the rest of the country. Although it is only a minority, there are some who live by 19th Century Confederate Law rather than that of the UK. Most acts of terror in the last 15 years have been carried out by Trump immigrants in the name of the Confederacy.
Would people on here who think mass immigration of Trump supporters would be a bad thing ignore such things happening after they warned against it? Would it be racist to criticize the Trumps, even if you praised Democrats of the same race?
And if you look at the US, the biggest levels of internal migration are to Texas (where sudden death rates are high). And take California: San Francisco and Palo Alto actually have pretty poor murder rates compared to safe (slow) Sacremento.
2 USA
3 Spain
4 France
5 New Zealand
6 Canada
7 Germany
8 UAE
9 Republic of Ireland
10 Switzerland
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-3033680/The-destinations-Britons-emigrating-revealed-Spain-number-three.html
But we were routinely stopped by the authorities every time we travelled to and from Ireland during the Troubles. Unfair as it may have been to us as individuals, as Irish Catholics we were members of a group posing a much greater risk of terrorism than other groups at that time. And so we understood why the authorities did what they did. It was sensible risk assessment on their part.
And so to bed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/putin-trump-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-fake-news-215018
1. Excellent vocational education
2. Essentially 100% employment, with high incomes even for low skilled workers (see 1)
3. Grass roots democracy
4. Outside the EU
5. In Schengen
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/teleocrater-dinosaurs-aphanosaurs-crocodiles/522489/
Not all EU immigration is wonderful,maybe for the well off or the well off area's.
(edit... and yes, I know that Tamiflu is an antiviral. Though it is Swiss.)
You always know when people use fighting-like metaphors about fairly humdrum domestic politics that they've lost sense of what real fighting is and, through that, a sense of proportion.
Has there been anymore on the rumour about Hamon standing aside in favour of Melenchon in France? Doing the rounds anyway.
I possibly largely agree with you in principle, but I don't think I like your reasoning.
I'm not sure that people make informed, rational and - especially - quantitative decisions about relative hazards, particularly if they are (a) of a comparable order of magnitude (more obviously dangerous places, like active warzones, brutal dictatorships or areas with severe civil unrest are generally absent from lists of desirable migration destinations), (b) relative small (extreme case: moving somewhere that quadruples my chance of being hit by lightning isn't really a big deal), (c) heterogeneous in a way that allows people to believe, possibly correctly, that they will be in a low-risk group (I'm sure lots of migrants to the USA rationalise away the risk of gang violence being inflicted upon them, on the grounds that while it may be more common there it predominantly affects poor and minority areas that they will be avoiding), (d) concern things that are "never going to happen to me" (until they do, of course, but by then it's too late). On a related note I bet most folk don't look up average GDP per capita before migrating, any more than they look up traffic death rates - they'll go with what they thing they can make over there, along with their own (likely overoptimistic) perception of their personal risks.
Two points on a more philosophical level: the fact that people are prepared to trade off between A and B (safety vs economic well-being) does not exclude the possibility they see A as generally more important than B. It just means there are trade-offs possible. And obviously preferences differ between people: there were pioneers attracted to the riches of the New World, despite the dangers, but it took a particular type of person. Today there don't seem to be very many hardy souls volunteering to go to really, really nasty places because there's more coin to be made there - USA, Oz, Spain, Canada, London are not petrifying hell-holes. Secondly, people may believe in a division of responsibility between state and citizen. It may be rational to expect the state to largely take control of public safety (they are, after all, in a better position to do so) whereas if I want to get rich, that's largely down to me (I might like a safety-net if all goes awry, and a state that promotes the conditions for economic growth would help, but I have to deploy my own talent to take advantage of that). How I set my own trade-off need not tally with my expectations of how the state should use its powers to set its own.
And a final point on an evidential level: the revealed preferences of migrants are indeed interesting, but may not be representative. Suppose 90% of folk in a country prefer A to B, and the country's polity has historically prioritised A over B as a result. I should not be surprised to discover that emigrants are primarily B-lovers - for them, the spoils are elsewhere.
6. Lots of chocolate