[Bluestar]

Originally Posted by roberto

There are two ways of dealing with a forecast overload: reduce it or expand the service, such action do not imply blame

Yes they can, decision that are made and called for show a person's quality.

Now which way round is this; we have immigration into the UK with generous help and we have voluntary re-immigration with help.
Which one are you moaning about?

You mean like when they do dawn raids and take people immediately to send them back to a country they obviously don't want to go to but are somehow bound to it because that's where their life began? They offer money when they break their doors down and come tumbling in? Or do they offer money when they know they're sending back people who are likely to get raped/imprisoned/tortured in their own country?

We only have emigration to come inside england when the person overseas is already rich and probably could already have paid their ticket. Not for the ones who actually need to get out of a violent situation, unless of course you could show a case study which disproves me?

Its an offer

A convenient one, if someone came to my house for dinner or stayed as a guest for a couple of days, i'd never tell them "here's a tenner, could you go now?"

I fail to see how lookig the other way helps anything or anybody

Explain please. I'm not going to take the time to try and decipher half hearted sentences if you can't be bothered to explain properly yourself.

How, why?

They come over to work, their efforts are 'equalised' by merely a subsistent wage. They may live here for a few years, make friends, settle down, kind of like the Israelis actually, they had no right to be there but the fact they settled down gave their arguments and position greater weight. Of course, morally the immigrants are different, they don't make settlements out of old palestinian homes and burn down olive trees. You should be thankful They work hard and support their families. And then, when they're kindly bribed to go back to their country, nobody sees the fact that these people have struggles already, they have worked hard contributing to the country they live in. All people see is a funny accent and incommunicable emotions which form themselves into a divide, stark enough to create fear on both sides. Nobody questions the existence of borders, or how and why a human being can be labelled as "illegal", they just follow the system like slaves.


In Boston, Lincolnshire a lot of the population are complaining that Polish people have taken over. A load of polish people bought independent shops and made them into polish shops.

Do you think that this is good or bad?

Most of the English people were complaining (kind of how they did when indians began the cornershop wave) and they say this is unfair because it's taken away all the nice, english, quaint, independent shops that existed before.

I can understand that, i like independent, quaint shops (even though they're devilishly expensive sometimes! Although there's a lovely, cheap one in Swanage called the curiousity shop, very impressive).

The thing is, they don't actually realise that english people could have had a fair place in the market, they could have bought the places but they didn't, why?

a) Because they have no money
b) because they don't want to have the hassle of being self employed.

Option A usually is caused by the fact that Polish people in this country save more, they work the factory jobs that normal English people don't want to work and they save money until it becomes capital. Whereas English people, will enjoy going out on the piss and having entertainment hand in hand with work.

B comes from the fact that people don't want the hassle of taking their work home, working more than 7.5/8 hours in a day, dealing with stock, accounts, tax. In England, 9-5 days working under a superior are normalised, people think there's job security in that. In most places abroad, self employment is the main type of employment and so it's something that they're used to in regards to habits, good at and familiar with it's workings. According to my understanding, option B is the one that is causing the problem which you/enoch think/thought was caused by immigrants.

In the paper a couple of days ago, there was an individual comment about this persons disgust of how nobody celebrated St Georges' Day. It's not that other cultures exists along side the English one and threaten it, it's just that people feel disillusioned with it. Those who are still loyal to the english culture feel threatened and like Powell point the finger at anything different.

Anyway, the percentage of English people who live in Spain or anywhere else abroad is increasing. So it's not as if population control is needed. So i don't understand why Enoch's speech should be relevant today, whilst i also criticise how it would be beneficially relevant then.

You should read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, it explains why and how the arguments of immigration and machinery causing unemployment are wrong. How the system of wealth distribution and monetary value cause poverty and destitution.

Explain

Explain please.