Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
There is another aspect to this that should be remembered. If the young people come over to the UK, their home countries no longer have the benefit of those young people. People who move between countries (especially within the EU) are often the driven ones, the ones who are willing to work hard.
If we gain an advantage from immigration, then the source countries could well suffer a disadvantage.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Ignoring real concerns over mass immigration is stupid too.
The difficult task here is to balance the overall net benefit that the country/economy gets versus the driving down of wages/living standards and rapid ethnographic/cultural changes that result from rapid/mass immigration.
Framing the argument at immigration good / immigration bad is not helpful. A more nuanced and intelligent discussion is needed.
The Jury is back in the Lee Rigby trial after 90 minutes of considering the evidence. Quick decision suggests a guilty verdict given the way the trial went.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
I wasn't commenting on the merits / demerits of immigration (which I certainly view has having benefits as well as risks) but on the politics. Labour's record on immigration is what it is and if concern in this area is growing then it can't be good politically for Labour.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
Have you got a source for that or are you just making statements that happen to fit your point of view?The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
Have you got a source for that or are you just making statements that happen to fit your point of view?The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Hi tim,
A source for the fact that the economy was a shambles during the Labour years ?
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
Have you got a source for that or are you just making statements that happen to fit your point of view?The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Hi tim,
A source for the fact that the economy was a shambles during the Labour years ?
Have we got a year ?
So you can't quote a source. My conclusion is that you are telling lies.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
Have you got a source for that or are you just making statements that happen to fit your point of view?The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Hi tim,
A source for the fact that the economy was a shambles during the Labour years ?
Have we got a year ?
So you can't quote a source. My conclusion is that you are telling lies.
It's common knowledge. Luckily (For Ed Mili) the electorate will have forgotten about that come 2015...
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Have you considered that the reason why MPs are scared of talking about the benefits is that it jars with many peoples experiences? It would just leave the MP who did attempt to talk up the benefits just looking out of touch.
The evidence suggests that overall there is a net benefit to the economy. But that does not mean that the effect is uniformly positive or welcome.
Simply saying that the country benefits is not good politics.
Somebody on the jury must have been smart enough to say that if we come back in 5 minutes they will appeal on the basis that we did not give it proper consideration. Either that or they wanted lunch.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
I wasn't commenting on the merits / demerits of immigration (which I certainly view has having benefits as well as risks) but on the politics. Labour's record on immigration is what it is and if concern in this area is growing then it can't be good politically for Labour.
The only party that will benefit from the rise in concern about immigration is UKIP. IIRC there was a poll a few months ago that asked which party had the best policies on immigration - UKIP was way out in front - about 40% I think, Labour was second on about 20% with the Tories third a point or two behind Labour.
UKIP can always outbid everyone else on this because they do not need to worry about the practicality of their policy proposals as everyone knows they are not going to have to put them into practice.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Have you considered that the reason why MPs are scared of talking about the benefits is that it jars with many peoples experiences? It would just leave the MP who did attempt to talk up the benefits just looking out of touch.
The evidence suggests that overall there is a net benefit to the economy. But that does not mean that the effect is uniformly positive or welcome.
Simply saying that the country benefits is not good politics.
One of the things the government should really be hammering away at on every media outlet at the moment is that a net 94% of the jobs created in the last 12 months have gone to British citizens. I really don't think we can ask for better evidence of a successful immigration policy than that.
I fear that the nonsense of the Rigby trial as well as the recurrent stories of grooming of under age girls by a significantly disproportionate number of members of the ethnic communties has been a major factor in the increase in the concern levels. Hopefully next year such trials will not be so prevalent.
Can't be good for the party of uncontrolled immigration
Curbing immigration will have a negative effect on our ecomony. Is that what you want?
Unlimited immigration had a disasterous effect on our economy between 97-10.
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
The problem about immigration is that politicians are scared of talking about the benefits.
Have you considered that the reason why MPs are scared of talking about the benefits is that it jars with many peoples experiences? It would just leave the MP who did attempt to talk up the benefits just looking out of touch.
The evidence suggests that overall there is a net benefit to the economy. But that does not mean that the effect is uniformly positive or welcome.
Simply saying that the country benefits is not good politics.
And to the extent that the country does benefit, those who lose out are more likely to notice (and act on that impression / reality) than than those who gain.
The Jury is back in the Lee Rigby trial after 90 minutes of considering the evidence. Quick decision suggests a guilty verdict given the way the trial went.
EDIT: And they're both guilty.
There was no other conclusion they could have come to.
Now that the verdict is in, I'll express the view that Defence Counsel's performance two days ago was shameful. I wonder if it's professional misconduct/contempt of court to put forward a Defence which simply cannot succeed, as a matter of law.
Somebody on the jury must have been smart enough to say that if we come back in 5 minutes they will appeal on the basis that we did not give it proper consideration. Either that or they wanted lunch.
Sticking point might be on Attempted Murder. I'd assume that one would be a Not Guilty ?
An Old Bailey jury has convicted two men of the brutal murder of fusilier Lee Rigby. - It took the jury of eight women and four men about 90 minutes to return guilty verdicts on Michael Adebolajo, 28 and Michael Adebowale, 22.
No doubt the defence counsel’s 4 hour closing argument helped speed things up.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Somebody on the jury must have been smart enough to say that if we come back in 5 minutes they will appeal on the basis that we did not give it proper consideration. Either that or they wanted lunch.
Sticking point might be on Attempted Murder. I'd assume that one would be a Not Guilty ?
Yes it was and you are probably right.
I am not in a position to comment on the code of conduct for English barristers but in Scotland the speech to the jury (at least as reported) would be a disciplinary matter as professional misconduct.
See that it is Not Guilty for the attempted murder. Good. If that had gone guilty it wouldn't have done anything to the upcoming sentence and could well have been grounds for an appeal.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Get off your high horse. DavidL is anything but a partisan ranter.
I find it amusing that Gottlieb was able to rile both the legal eagles on here for not properly defending his client, and also others from a lay perspective.
I think the downsides of an open-door immigration policy outweigh the benefits.
I live in a small village in South Wales and over the past 10 years even we have had an influx of immigrants. They work in shops and pubs and do all sorts of menial jobs (my sister had a Polish guy put her garden fence up recently). There is nothing inherently wrong with it and I'm sure all the immigrants are hard-working, nice people. But they are not all essential to the economy.
When I left school in the mid 90s there were plenty of starter-jobs about. Now there aren't. We have boys at our rugby club, in Uni etc, who can't find part time jobs.
Labour bang on and on about the cost of living crisis. I bet the immigration levels we saw between 1997 and 2010 had a bigger detrimental effect on the living standards of the working classes than the credit-crunch did. But it's all very difficult to prove.
If a village like mine has seen the effects it must be dramatically multiplied in the South East.
If there was a way of organising it so that we took on skilled workers into jobs in which they were needed I think most sensible people would be happy. Last year I worked briefly with a Polish girl who was incredibly bright and incredibly lovely. She spoke five languages (having recently - embarrassingly for me, who can't speak much of it - learnt fluent Welsh) and was an ex teacher. Over here she is now out of work because her qualifications mean nothing. Sad really, because I bet she'd make a better teacher than many we've got.
You'll need to do better than that, HillmanMinx! Saying, essentially, 'Oh no it isn't!' is the very definition of 'hardly adding to the debate', I'd say.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
Mass immigration is not good news for working class or young people, financially or socially.
Financially.... Their chances of a job decrease, and the wages on offer are driven down, because they have no hope of competing with people who have more experience and will work for less coming from a country where the average wage is a quarter (?) of our minimum wage.
Socially... The areas they live in become the areas where the immigrants live, and start feeling less like home. Those that can move out do, those who cant are resentful.
To top it off, politicians of all hues go around announcing how great immigration is, with economic stats that prove it.... and call out anyone with a life story as I have described as racist bigots...
...and the resentment rises still more.
As @DaemonBarber says, the positive effect is not uniform.... as @DavidL says it is stereotypical "Labour supporters" that pay and stereotypical "Conservatives" that benefit...
Its just cheap labour for rich people, it is capitalism in a pure form, maybe that's the type that Ed Miliband should be looking at putting a stop to?
If a village like mine has seen the effects it must be dramatically multiplied in the South East.
I'm not so sure. I live in the South-East and there is no immigration to speak of. Our town is as Anglo-Saxon as it's ever been. It's only when I head west into poorer, more agricultural areas (West Midlands / South-West) that I start to see Polish shops and hear the odd Polish accent.
(Apologies for the anecdata, one data point doth not an argument make etc.)
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
The only subject I tend to rant about is Gordon Brown. On that I just can't help myself.
On immigration I agree that on the whole it is good for the GDP of the country. It is probably good for us culturally at least to a degree but there are losers and I am concerned about them.
To take the most obvious example we still have nearly 1m young unemployed in this country. Many of the jobs the young traditionally get to start off, such as working in cafes and shops, are currently filled with hard working diligent immigrants. Many of these immigrants, especially from the EU, have also had the unfair advantage of an adequate education, something only the select few get in this country. Economic migrants are by their nature driven, ambitious and determined people; ferocious competition for those brought up in a culture of prizes for all.
Labour rightly and understandably laments the problems of youth unemployment. I agree. But they also, with an increasing number of exceptions, support much more generous immigration policies and maintain that it is good for UK plc (which on balance it is). They don't seem to be able to see the causation between one and the other. They harm those they claim to support.
If you think otherwise I would be interested to see your reasoning.
I over reacted (maybe for effect) when I read what the killers of Lee Rigby's lawyer said the other day, and later retracted it. But I stand by that he should be ashamed of himself.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
the conclusion of the House of Lords Committee4 who reported (para.66):
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”.
We could do without going down the American route of absurdly long defined sentances. A convict should either know when they're likely to be releasd or know they will have to serve a whole-life tariff. Saying you can be released when you're 128 years old (or whatever) seems the worst of all worlds. I appreciate that a 90-year old murderer might still find themselves in that practical position but that's a rather different matter.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
The only subject I tend to rant about is Gordon Brown. On that I just can't help myself.
On immigration I agree that on the whole it is good for the GDP of the country. It is probably good for us culturally at least to a degree but there are losers and I am concerned about them.
To take the most obvious example we still have nearly 1m young unemployed in this country. Many of the jobs the young traditionally get to start off, such as working in cafes and shops, are currently filled with hard working diligent immigrants. Many of these immigrants, especially from the EU, have also had the unfair advantage of an adequate education, something only the select few get in this country. Economic migrants are by their nature driven, ambitious and determined people; ferocious competition for those brought up in a culture of prizes for all.
Labour rightly and understandably laments the problems of youth unemployment. I agree. But they also, with an increasing number of exceptions, support much more generous immigration policies and maintain that it is good for UK plc (which on balance it is). They don't seem to be able to see the causation between one and the other. They harm those they claim to support.
If you think otherwise I would be interested to see your reasoning.
I agree with every word of that. Especially the Gordon Brown bit. He got me too, invaded my soul. I couldn't think rationally about him!
@El Capitano - thanks for the "anecdata". I was making a crass assumption that most immigrants settle in the South East. Clearly a bad generalisation.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
I don't think anybody here has tried to deny that immigration is a net benefit in purely national economic terms.
Where the debate actually lies, and where you still fail to offer any defense is in the gap between the experience of those negatively impacted by immigration (real and imagined) and the overall net economic boost. Is it really advisable for an MP to effectively say, yes your wages are kept low and your neighborhood has changed but look at the GDP figures!?
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
It is good for the economy overall, but the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because of it.
On this issue Labour supporters argue that social harmony and the conditions of the poor are less important than profit and the bottom line.
The obvious disadvantage of mass immigration is that by definition, if it's en masse, it's not skilled. If it's not skilled it's not going to add a lot to GDP, yet it almost instantaneously adds to the demand for various public services things like transport and healthcare that are fundable only via more tax from more GDP.
It thus seems bleedin' obvious from first principles that mass immigration is a bad idea. My own hostility to it is tempered, however, by the recognition that if I'd been born in Poland I'd be an immigrant too.
I over reacted (maybe for effect) when I read what the killers of Lee Rigby's lawyer said the other day, and later retracted it. But I stand by that he should be ashamed of himself.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
Hmmm. I thought both your points (or at least the way you expressed them) the other night were well out of order, as was your reaction to TSE's points.
I also think your idea of 'disciplinary action' may differ from other people's ... ;-)
We could do without going down the American route of absurdly long defined sentances. A convict should either know when they're likely to be releasd or know they will have to serve a whole-life tariff. Saying you can be released when you're 128 years old (or whatever) seems the worst of all worlds. I appreciate that a 90-year old murderer might still find themselves in that practical position but that's a rather different matter.
I suspect it is going to be a moot point.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
The obvious disadvantage of mass immigration is that by definition, if it's en masse, it's not skilled. If it's not skilled it's not going to add a lot to GDP, yet it almost instantaneously adds to the demand for various public services things like transport and healthcare that are fundable only via more tax from more GDP.
It thus seems bleedin' obvious from first principles that mass immigration is a bad idea. My own hostility to it is tempered, however, by the recognition that if I'd been born in Poland I'd be an immigrant too.
I also have concerns with the pressure it puts on services at a local area - the effect is spread unevenly, and it is next to impossible to know demand for things like schools and hospitals into the near future.
Totally agree on Gordon Brown. It still makes me angry that Labour MPs in 1997 gave him a coronation without him having to face the inconvenience of an election. He was always, barring his short media honeymoon, going to be an electoral disaster. I blame David Miliband for not having the guts to fight then.
I vote in a top 20 marginal seat and at GE2010 had decided that if there was any chance that Brown would remain PM I would vote tactically for the Tories. In the end I felt I didn't need to but it was closer than I predicted.
On topic, to think, a year ago, the big story was whether we'd have a triple dip recession.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
We could do without going down the American route of absurdly long defined sentances. A convict should either know when they're likely to be releasd or know they will have to serve a whole-life tariff. Saying you can be released when you're 128 years old (or whatever) seems the worst of all worlds. I appreciate that a 90-year old murderer might still find themselves in that practical position but that's a rather different matter.
I suspect it is going to be a moot point.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
Really? That's terrible. I know there is a massive homeless problem amongst ex-servicemen, but had no idea that prison was also a problem of that magnitude.
Has anyone done a study into why this is (and I mean more than 'they commit crimes')?
OGH - Indeed. Gordon Brown ruined millions of lives. In a former age he would have lost his head. In a fair world he should have lost his liberty. Politics has a great many rewards for the top players but still little or no real risks. We should still find ways to shoot the odd one 'pour encourager les autres'.
On topic, to think, a year ago, the big story was whether we'd have a triple dip recession.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Ed Miliband has to replace Balls. That he might not is the one great hope that the Tories have
What I don't get about the British anti-immigration people is that hardly any of them seem to oppose free movement of goods and services, they just want to stop the people moving. Normally anti-immigration goes alongside opposition to free trade, which is sort-of coherent, but if you have free movement of money and goods but not people you're just saying the employer can give your job to a cheaper person from a poorer country, but they have to spend the money overseas instead of in the UK.
Maybe there's some space for a British political party that's properly opposed to globalization of both parts and labour, instead of taking these weird, incoherent half-positions.
We could do without going down the American route of absurdly long defined sentances. A convict should either know when they're likely to be releasd or know they will have to serve a whole-life tariff. Saying you can be released when you're 128 years old (or whatever) seems the worst of all worlds. I appreciate that a 90-year old murderer might still find themselves in that practical position but that's a rather different matter.
I suspect it is going to be a moot point.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
I'm guessing their views on these two could well be described as 'forthright'.
We could do without going down the American route of absurdly long defined sentances. A convict should either know when they're likely to be releasd or know they will have to serve a whole-life tariff. Saying you can be released when you're 128 years old (or whatever) seems the worst of all worlds. I appreciate that a 90-year old murderer might still find themselves in that practical position but that's a rather different matter.
I suspect it is going to be a moot point.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
Really? That's terrible. I know there is a massive homeless problem amongst ex-servicemen, but had no idea that prison was also a problem of that magnitude.
Has anyone done a study into why this is (and I mean more than 'they commit crimes')?
We could do without going down the American route of absurdly long defined sentances. A convict should either know when they're likely to be releasd or know they will have to serve a whole-life tariff. Saying you can be released when you're 128 years old (or whatever) seems the worst of all worlds. I appreciate that a 90-year old murderer might still find themselves in that practical position but that's a rather different matter.
I suspect it is going to be a moot point.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
Really? That's terrible. I know there is a massive homeless problem amongst ex-servicemen, but had no idea that prison was also a problem of that magnitude.
Has anyone done a study into why this is (and I mean more than 'they commit crimes')?
I'll dig out the PDF for the reasons why, but we turn then into killing machines, then when they leave the army, they are given no support.
He's where I got the 10% figure from, is a few years ago, but the trends have remained largely the same
The number of former servicemen in prison or on probation or parole is now more than double the total British deployment in Afghanistan, according to a new survey. An estimated 20,000 veterans are in the criminal justice system, with 8,500 behind bars, almost one in 10 of the prison population.
The proportion of those in prison who are veterans has risen by more than 30% in the last five years.
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
In what way is immigration better for the economy than raising the retirement age for everyone (including firemen) by five years?
I over reacted (maybe for effect) when I read what the killers of Lee Rigby's lawyer said the other day, and later retracted it. But I stand by that he should be ashamed of himself.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
Hmmm. I thought both your points (or at least the way you expressed them) the other night were well out of order, as was your reaction to TSE's points.
I also think your idea of 'disciplinary action' may differ from other people's ... ;-)
I said ten years in jail.. obviously ridiculous... disciplinary action like being suspended from the bench for a while would suffice
On harsh punishment, way beyond custodial sentencing for Lee Rigbys killers I stand by what I said.
Why was it ok for your friend to say I would cheer Jean de Menezes death then refuse to retract it? Isnt that well out of order? I never said anything that could lead to that conclusion
On topic, to think, a year ago, the big story was whether we'd have a triple dip recession.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Ed Miliband has to replace Balls. That he might not is the one great hope that the Tories have
What? You mean even an greater hope than an ever accelerating economic recovery with the prospect that living standards too will rise before May 2015?
the low skilled the young those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
Your partisan ranting hardly adds to the debate.
Here's a novel idea for you: Instead of criticising others for adding nothing to the debate whilst ironically doing likewise, why not suggest how a politician could square the perception-gap circle?
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
It is good for the economy overall, but the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because of it.
On this issue Labour supporters argue that social harmony and the conditions of the poor are less important than profit and the bottom line.
Amazing distortion of the principles of the party
Agree,only this week,I had to go early in the morning to the local health centre for a appointment to see the doctor for my poorly mother.
When I got there,the queue was going out side the door ,majority of the queue were eastern europeans and when finally I got to the reception,they were no more appointments to see the doctor for that day and told to try again in the morning.
For all ye mass open door immigration lovers,this is the real world we real people live in.
On topic, to think, a year ago, the big story was whether we'd have a triple dip recession.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Ed Miliband has to replace Balls. That he might not is the one great hope that the Tories have
For us Blues. I don't think Ed Miliband can or will replace Balls
On topic, to think, a year ago, the big story was whether we'd have a triple dip recession.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Ed Miliband has to replace Balls. That he might not is the one great hope that the Tories have
If he does that, (1) who does he replace Balls with, (2) what does he do with Balls, and (3) how do you think Balls will react, bearing in mind his behaviour before he became SCotE?
It'd also mean that Osborne would have faced five Labour Finance spokesmen across the despatch box and counting.
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
Ed Miliband needs to have a serious talk with Ed Balls and tell him to stop behaving like such a wazzock during PMQs.
LOL the idea of Ed Miliband giving a 'serious talk' to anyone let alone Ed Balls is a bit hard to picture. If he was a teacher in an average comp you can imagine the chaos
I over reacted (maybe for effect) when I read what the killers of Lee Rigby's lawyer said the other day, and later retracted it. But I stand by that he should be ashamed of himself.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
Hmmm. I thought both your points (or at least the way you expressed them) the other night were well out of order, as was your reaction to TSE's points.
I also think your idea of 'disciplinary action' may differ from other people's ... ;-)
I said ten years in jail.. obviously ridiculous... disciplinary action like being suspended from the bench for a while would suffice
On harsh punishment, way beyond custodial sentencing for Lee Rigbys killers I stand by what I said.
Why was it ok for your friend to say I would cheer Jean de Menezes death then refuse to retract it? Isnt that well out of order? I never said anything that could lead to that conclusion
TSE is not my friend. I've never met the bloke and, if the rumours are true, I don't think I could stand being near his shoes. On that point, I think he should provide photographic evidence ... :-)
As I said, I read the conversation and felt you were out of order. That may not have been what you intended. I sometimes find it useful to go back and re-read a fractious thread when my head is cooler.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
So is another explanation for the long-term decline in the crime rate the reduction in the size of the military following the end of the Cold War. An unexpected peace dividend, perhaps?
What I don't get about the British anti-immigration people is that hardly any of them seem to oppose free movement of goods and services, they just want to stop the people moving. Normally anti-immigration goes alongside opposition to free trade, which is sort-of coherent, but if you have free movement of money and goods but not people you're just saying the employer can give your job to a cheaper person from a poorer country, but they have to spend the money overseas instead of in the UK.
Maybe there's some space for a British political party that's properly opposed to globalization of both parts and labour, instead of taking these weird, incoherent half-positions.
But Edmund, building a conservatory on my house can't be outsourced to Asia, we are unlikely to start importing bread, you have to live here to clean our offices, etc etc. There are some things that won't go abroad. So if you're a builder, baker or cleaner you don't care about cheap Chinese TVs, you care about the immigrants taking low wage local jobs
'I wonder how much SeanT's piece on Choudhary has fed into the collective race relations/immigration national psyche. It has over 4000 shares.... '
Interestingly there is a piece about the Woolwich case by the director of hope not hate in the Grauniad. In the piece he equates the people who indoctrinated the terrorists with the EDL. The piece is also headed by an EDL demonstration photo.
Even there, it has not gone down well. As one poster pointed out, how many people have the EDL trained to murder innocents? How many young men have the EDL sent to fight overseas in foreign wars?
The Islam fatigue in our country is becoming more widespread.
On topic, to think, a year ago, the big story was whether we'd have a triple dip recession.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Ed Miliband has to replace Balls. That he might not is the one great hope that the Tories have
Completely agree Mike. Balls is intelligent, aggressive and far from ignorant on economics but he has made the wrong calls because he listened to the wrong people like Blanchflower. He also got caught out by being dishonest about the level of cuts playing to tory stereotypes that helped with the base but bore almost no relation to reality.
Getting rid of Balls will involve taking a hit. The tories will crow that it is an acknoweldgement that they were right and Labour was wrong. It will damage Miliband personally and there is the problem about what to do about the wife as well. But it would be crazy not to take this hit now, still 18 months from the election. The closer the election gets, the harder the choices become. The longer he waits the happier tories will be.
I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Well, (2) may be partly because of (1), but it also hasn't really made much difference in a real-world economic sense.
If the loss of the AAA credit rating had lead to much higher borrowing costs, and the much higher borrowing costs had meant that Osborne had to make further budget cuts or increase taxes, then it would have had more impact.
Three months curbs on welfare is just gesture politics. It's like sticking a plaster over an arterial bleed.
No doubt Farage knows full well that after that 3 months is up the EU election campaign will be getting well underway. At least Crosby and Osbrowne will have a master strategy planned on immigration and the EU like they did for the May local elections. Nothing to worry about there then.
Of course the other factor is that 39% concern with the economy is hardly a ringing endorsement of Osbrowne anyway. Amusingly, the PB Romneys do seem convinced that Osbrowne's out of touch toxicity somehow won't matter in an election campaign. The fact is it's why little Ed can get away with a liability like Balls.
Agree,only this week,I had to go early in the morning to the local health centre for a appointment to see the doctor for my poorly mother.
When I got there,the queue was going out side the door ,majority of the queue were eastern europeans and when finally I got to the reception,they were no more appointments to see the doctor for that day and told to try again in the morning.
For all ye mass open door immigration lovers,this is the real world we real people live in.
Indeed, the issue being that the queueing starts as soon as the immigration happens but the expansion of GP surgeries happens either later when the GDP improvement funds it, or never, because as cleaners and waiters, the immigrants are neutral or even net takers, not net payers.
One supermarket apparently reckons the UK population is now about 80 million based on food sales.
I over reacted (maybe for effect) when I read what the killers of Lee Rigby's lawyer said the other day, and later retracted it. But I stand by that he should be ashamed of himself.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
Hmmm. I thought both your points (or at least the way you expressed them) the other night were well out of order, as was your reaction to TSE's points.
I also think your idea of 'disciplinary action' may differ from other people's ... ;-)
I said
"Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply"
He has tried to make out that he was angry about my call for the lawyer to be prosecuted, but as can be seen, he only brought up Jean de Menezes when I had retracted what I said about the lawyer.
I know it must be boring for everyone, but I am not having him say that about me, refuse to apologise, then lie about why he said it, when its clear in black and white
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
I sincerely hope you are right Mr Fenster, but how do you know what's going on in their heads when they are alone. Or in the middle of the night.
That said I was taught in the early 50's by several men who had relatively recently returned from being PoW's in the Far East and they all seemed to my adolescent eye as no odder than any of the other schoolmasters!
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
So is another explanation for the long-term decline in the crime rate the reduction in the size of the military following the end of the Cold War. An unexpected peace dividend, perhaps?
Before we assume that the military are the cause of criminality I would still like to know what percentage of the male population have served in the military. Then also whether criminals who have in the past being in the military would have been criminals anyway even if never been in the military.
I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Well, (2) may be partly because of (1), but it also hasn't really made much difference in a real-world economic sense.
If the loss of the AAA credit rating had lead to much higher borrowing costs, and the much higher borrowing costs had meant that Osborne had to make further budget cuts or increase taxes, then it would have had more impact.
There's quite a few choice quotes from George between 2007 and 2010 about what our credit rating loss would mean.
I over reacted (maybe for effect) when I read what the killers of Lee Rigby's lawyer said the other day, and later retracted it. But I stand by that he should be ashamed of himself.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
Hmmm. I thought both your points (or at least the way you expressed them) the other night were well out of order, as was your reaction to TSE's points.
I also think your idea of 'disciplinary action' may differ from other people's ... ;-)
I said ten years in jail.. obviously ridiculous... disciplinary action like being suspended from the bench for a while would suffice
On harsh punishment, way beyond custodial sentencing for Lee Rigbys killers I stand by what I said.
Why was it ok for your friend to say I would cheer Jean de Menezes death then refuse to retract it? Isnt that well out of order? I never said anything that could lead to that conclusion
TSE is not my friend. I've never met the bloke and, if the rumours are true, I don't think I could stand being near his shoes. On that point, I think he should provide photographic evidence ... :-)
As I said, I read the conversation and felt you were out of order. That may not have been what you intended. I sometimes find it useful to go back and re-read a fractious thread when my head is cooler.
Have reproduced the conversation downthread, and it is clear he only brought up Jean De Menezes after I had retracted the lawyer comment
Comments
Immigration isn't the problem - it's extending the welfare state to allcomers that upsets people.
If we gain an advantage from immigration, then the source countries could well suffer a disadvantage.
The difficult task here is to balance the overall net benefit that the country/economy gets versus the driving down of wages/living standards and rapid ethnographic/cultural changes that result from rapid/mass immigration.
Framing the argument at immigration good / immigration bad is not helpful. A more nuanced and intelligent discussion is needed.
EDIT: And they're both guilty.
A source for the fact that the economy was a shambles during the Labour years ?
Have we got a year ?
UKIP Gain Outer Hebrides !
It's just as annoying as when tim used to accuse posters like glassfet of being ScottP.
Have you considered that the reason why MPs are scared of talking about the benefits is that it jars with many peoples experiences? It would just leave the MP who did attempt to talk up the benefits just looking out of touch.
The evidence suggests that overall there is a net benefit to the economy. But that does not mean that the effect is uniformly positive or welcome.
Simply saying that the country benefits is not good politics.
UKIP can always outbid everyone else on this because they do not need to worry about the practicality of their policy proposals as everyone knows they are not going to have to put them into practice.
I fear that the nonsense of the Rigby trial as well as the recurrent stories of grooming of under age girls by a significantly disproportionate number of members of the ethnic communties has been a major factor in the increase in the concern levels. Hopefully next year such trials will not be so prevalent.
Now that the verdict is in, I'll express the view that Defence Counsel's performance two days ago was shameful. I wonder if it's professional misconduct/contempt of court to put forward a Defence which simply cannot succeed, as a matter of law.
No doubt the defence counsel’s 4 hour closing argument helped speed things up.
the low skilled
the young
those who are competing for the limited resources of the state.
You only need to look at such a list to see the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty of Labour's various positions. Their natural supporters lose the most and, perversely, the natural supporters of the tories gain more. Yesterday in the face of overwhelming good news on employment we still had Labour spokespeople lamenting the high level of youth unemployment.
It is not simply incoherent, it is dishonest. And they really need to be called on it. Repeatedly.
I am not in a position to comment on the code of conduct for English barristers but in Scotland the speech to the jury (at least as reported) would be a disciplinary matter as professional misconduct.
blank blank moving somewhere with no extradition treaty?
(in my dreams anyway)
Truly a ghastly lawyers' speech for the ages.
I live in a small village in South Wales and over the past 10 years even we have had an influx of immigrants. They work in shops and pubs and do all sorts of menial jobs (my sister had a Polish guy put her garden fence up recently). There is nothing inherently wrong with it and I'm sure all the immigrants are hard-working, nice people. But they are not all essential to the economy.
When I left school in the mid 90s there were plenty of starter-jobs about. Now there aren't. We have boys at our rugby club, in Uni etc, who can't find part time jobs.
Labour bang on and on about the cost of living crisis. I bet the immigration levels we saw between 1997 and 2010 had a bigger detrimental effect on the living standards of the working classes than the credit-crunch did. But it's all very difficult to prove.
If a village like mine has seen the effects it must be dramatically multiplied in the South East.
If there was a way of organising it so that we took on skilled workers into jobs in which they were needed I think most sensible people would be happy. Last year I worked briefly with a Polish girl who was incredibly bright and incredibly lovely. She spoke five languages (having recently - embarrassingly for me, who can't speak much of it - learnt fluent Welsh) and was an ex teacher. Over here she is now out of work because her qualifications mean nothing. Sad really, because I bet she'd make a better teacher than many we've got.
How would you go about making a case for immigration as we currently experience it?
Financially.... Their chances of a job decrease, and the wages on offer are driven down, because they have no hope of competing with people who have more experience and will work for less coming from a country where the average wage is a quarter (?) of our minimum wage.
Socially... The areas they live in become the areas where the immigrants live, and start feeling less like home. Those that can move out do, those who cant are resentful.
To top it off, politicians of all hues go around announcing how great immigration is, with economic stats that prove it.... and call out anyone with a life story as I have described as racist bigots...
...and the resentment rises still more.
As @DaemonBarber says, the positive effect is not uniform.... as @DavidL says it is stereotypical "Labour supporters" that pay and stereotypical "Conservatives" that benefit...
Its just cheap labour for rich people, it is capitalism in a pure form, maybe that's the type that Ed Miliband should be looking at putting a stop to?
(Apologies for the anecdata, one data point doth not an argument make etc.)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9172b1f4-455d-11e3-b98b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2nvarcrTh
It is when posters, of all persuasions, represent their opinions as unsourced facts that really gets me. As immigration is good for the economy reatricting it will be bad. Now can anyone counter that with sourced facts?
On immigration I agree that on the whole it is good for the GDP of the country. It is probably good for us culturally at least to a degree but there are losers and I am concerned about them.
To take the most obvious example we still have nearly 1m young unemployed in this country. Many of the jobs the young traditionally get to start off, such as working in cafes and shops, are currently filled with hard working diligent immigrants. Many of these immigrants, especially from the EU, have also had the unfair advantage of an adequate education, something only the select few get in this country. Economic migrants are by their nature driven, ambitious and determined people; ferocious competition for those brought up in a culture of prizes for all.
Labour rightly and understandably laments the problems of youth unemployment. I agree. But they also, with an increasing number of exceptions, support much more generous immigration policies and maintain that it is good for UK plc (which on balance it is). They don't seem to be able to see the causation between one and the other. They harm those they claim to support.
If you think otherwise I would be interested to see your reasoning.
Now it seems others are moving towards my way of thinking, with disciplinary action being mooted by two other posters. Reassuring.
If only people would play the ball not the man on here eh, and were prepared to apologise for insults?
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP1_34.pdf
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/briefing-papers/category/1
@El Capitano - thanks for the "anecdata". I was making a crass assumption that most immigrants settle in the South East. Clearly a bad generalisation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
Where the debate actually lies, and where you still fail to offer any defense is in the gap between the experience of those negatively impacted by immigration (real and imagined) and the overall net economic boost. Is it really advisable for an MP to effectively say, yes your wages are kept low and your neighborhood has changed but look at the GDP figures!?
On this issue Labour supporters argue that social harmony and the conditions of the poor are less important than profit and the bottom line.
Amazing distortion of the principles of the party
It thus seems bleedin' obvious from first principles that mass immigration is a bad idea. My own hostility to it is tempered, however, by the recognition that if I'd been born in Poland I'd be an immigrant too.
I also think your idea of 'disciplinary action' may differ from other people's ... ;-)
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
Totally agree on Gordon Brown. It still makes me angry that Labour MPs in 1997 gave him a coronation without him having to face the inconvenience of an election. He was always, barring his short media honeymoon, going to be an electoral disaster. I blame David Miliband for not having the guts to fight then.
I vote in a top 20 marginal seat and at GE2010 had decided that if there was any chance that Brown would remain PM I would vote tactically for the Tories. In the end I felt I didn't need to but it was closer than I predicted.
Though, I am surprised, the removal of our AAA credit rating, hasn't been
1) Mentioned more often by Labour
2) Seen permanent damage to George Osborne and the Coalition's economic credibility. In fact his and the coalition's lead on economic matters have widened this year.
Has anyone done a study into why this is (and I mean more than 'they commit crimes')?
Maybe there's some space for a British political party that's properly opposed to globalization of both parts and labour, instead of taking these weird, incoherent half-positions.
When the economy did spurt ahead wages went through the roof, inflation jumped, then rates, and then we ended up bust very quickly.
There was a can of worms before mass immigration, just a different one to what we have now.
He's where I got the 10% figure from, is a few years ago, but the trends have remained largely the same
The number of former servicemen in prison or on probation or parole is now more than double the total British deployment in Afghanistan, according to a new survey. An estimated 20,000 veterans are in the criminal justice system, with 8,500 behind bars, almost one in 10 of the prison population.
The proportion of those in prison who are veterans has risen by more than 30% in the last five years.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/sep/24/jailed-veteran-servicemen-outnumber-troops
Can it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee that HillmanMinx is tim? It sure smells like him.
From loving Simon Hughes yesterday, to out and out Labour ranter today.
On harsh punishment, way beyond custodial sentencing for Lee Rigbys killers I stand by what I said.
Why was it ok for your friend to say I would cheer Jean de Menezes death then refuse to retract it? Isnt that well out of order? I never said anything that could lead to that conclusion
When I got there,the queue was going out side the door ,majority of the queue were eastern europeans and when finally I got to the reception,they were no more appointments to see the doctor for that day and told to try again in the morning.
For all ye mass open door immigration lovers,this is the real world we real people live in.
Approximately 10% of the prison population is made up of those who have served in the military......
Yes but what percentage of the population have served in the military?
It'd also mean that Osborne would have faced five Labour Finance spokesmen across the despatch box and counting.
Reminds me of when I read the book 'Nam' by Mark Baker. Stories about the Vietnam War.
Horrific stuff.
American teenager gets plucked from happy, suburban town, sent to a hell-hole for nine months, where he is armed to the teeth and spends his time killing, raping, maiming and bombing his way through the jungle and then gets put back on a plane without his weapon and packed off to his pretty little middle class town, with meatloaf on the kitchen table and The Byrds on the radio.
What could possibly go wrong?
We have four boys at our club who served in Helmand Province and they are all level-headed and nice. One boy did see some bad, bad stuff when he served for the Marines alongside the Americans, but he is philisophical about it. Good rugby player too. Tough and hard.
As I said, I read the conversation and felt you were out of order. That may not have been what you intended. I sometimes find it useful to go back and re-read a fractious thread when my head is cooler.
Interestingly there is a piece about the Woolwich case by the director of hope not hate in the Grauniad. In the piece he equates the people who indoctrinated the terrorists with the EDL. The piece is also headed by an EDL demonstration photo.
Even there, it has not gone down well. As one poster pointed out, how many people have the EDL trained to murder innocents? How many young men have the EDL sent to fight overseas in foreign wars?
The Islam fatigue in our country is becoming more widespread.
Getting rid of Balls will involve taking a hit. The tories will crow that it is an acknoweldgement that they were right and Labour was wrong. It will damage Miliband personally and there is the problem about what to do about the wife as well. But it would be crazy not to take this hit now, still 18 months from the election. The closer the election gets, the harder the choices become. The longer he waits the happier tories will be.
If the loss of the AAA credit rating had lead to much higher borrowing costs, and the much higher borrowing costs had meant that Osborne had to make further budget cuts or increase taxes, then it would have had more impact.
Obviously. No doubt Farage knows full well that after that 3 months is up the EU election campaign will be getting well underway. At least Crosby and Osbrowne will have a master strategy planned on immigration and the EU like they did for the May local elections. Nothing to worry about there then.
Of course the other factor is that 39% concern with the economy is hardly a ringing endorsement of Osbrowne anyway. Amusingly, the PB Romneys do seem convinced that Osbrowne's out of touch toxicity somehow won't matter in an election campaign. The fact is it's why little Ed can get away with a liability like Balls.
One supermarket apparently reckons the UK population is now about 80 million based on food sales.
I said
"Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply"
@TheScreamingEagles said
"When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has tried to make out that he was angry about my call for the lawyer to be prosecuted, but as can be seen, he only brought up Jean de Menezes when I had retracted what I said about the lawyer.
I know it must be boring for everyone, but I am not having him say that about me, refuse to apologise, then lie about why he said it, when its clear in black and white
That said I was taught in the early 50's by several men who had relatively recently returned from being PoW's in the Far East and they all seemed to my adolescent eye as no odder than any of the other schoolmasters!
Labour could have quoted those.
So he is lying
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/09/erwin-james-soldiers-prison
Note, the author spent 20 years in prison for murder.