Imigration

[Dave225]

CliveH - 2013-01-23 10:53 PM

 

Dave225 - 2013-01-23 7:44 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-01-22 8:24 PM

 

The last UK gov stats available are for 2011

 

"Final figures for 2010 show that annual net migration to the UK was 252,000, the highest calendar year figure on record.

 

Emigration reached its lowest calendar year figure since 2001 at 339,000 in 2010. Immigration remained steady at 591,000. Declining emigration is the main driver for the increase in net migration.

 

More recent provisional data show net migration was 245,000 for the year ending March 2011. This compares to 222,000 in the year ending March 2010. Immigration remains steady at 582,000 and emigration is at its joint lowest since December 2001 at 336,000 in the year to March 2011 (The year ending June 2005 also had 336,000 people emigrating).

 

Final calendar year figures show that in 2010, there were 238,000 people arriving to study in the UK.

 

This is the highest calendar year figure on record. Provisional figures indicate that this has decreased by approximately 7,000 in the year ending March 2011.

 

Fewer people are emigrating from the UK for work-related reasons. Figures for the year ending March 2011 show that 174,000 emigrants left the UK for work related reasons. This is its lowest for five years and compares to 203,000 in the year to March 2010."

 

............................

 

The figures contrast markedly from 2007 when emigration from the UK for work related reasons was considerably higher.

 

However Clive there are also reports just out that look at these numbers in a different way. They state that over the last decade nearly 3.6 million Brits have permanently left the UK and of these nearly 2 million were in the 25-44 age group. While many retirees often think of moving to warmer climes, in fact only 125000 actually took the plunge, although this could be in part due to entry restrictions from many of the popular destinations and doubts about moving to the EU.

 

The numbers also showed that 10% of graduates from our top universities are now working abroad. So, not only are we losing some of our best brains we are also losing the very group of workers we are hoping will support the country, and of course the retiree group by not leaving are becoming a larger share of the population.

 

As I think that everyone now agrees that the population of the UK is now rising fairly rapidly then the fact that 3.6 million left suggests the rise is from other sources, unless those that remain are breeding ‘like rabbits’. Seriously as for many years the UK birth rate has been declining the sudden reversal is not likely due to a reversal in our home grown family planning, plus job security now makes many here less likely to have children, therefore it can be construed as being due to other reasons and immigration by people more likely to have children has to be considered.

 

If these changes continue then it is probable that the demographic nature of the UK will change significantly and one could technically construe that the UK as a nation as we have known for generations may disappear. What will replace it may or may not be as good, but it will certainly be different. While other nations have seen similar influxes over the years I doubt any of them have seen such a marked change in such a short period of time and I suspect if faced with such a change would be taking significant action to stop it. Even the US that for so many years encouraged 'all the poor and impoverished to come to the land of opportunity' have now closed the gates.

 

Your post summary Clive stated that the numbers have dropped in recent years, which is good, but still does not escape the fact that those that have left in total are significant numbers, and are dare I say, valuable contributors to society, but are now performing that for other nations, so are we making the same point I wonder?

 

Not Sure. :-S

 

In our local area we train nurses that leave the UK to work in Australia (Wanted down under?) and the USA and Canada whilst our Hospitals employ Nurses from Malaysia Singapore and South Africa.

 

As for where people live - we have a number of friends/clients that bought houses in Normandy France and live there supposedly all of the time - this had huge advantages - it was cheaper to by a place in France - one guy bought a nice place which needed doing up but was liveable in France for just over £30K - by supposedly living there he had his cars modified (lights mainly) for French driving and used them in the UK with French numberplates/registration such that no exorbitant UK road tax was liable. A small advantage agreed - but one that was - still is - enormously attractive!!

 

It worked well of a while but now the UK is cheaper than France to live - and house prices in France - like Spain Portugal etc have fallen - tho Spain has more like fallen off the edge of a property price cliff, - so that many have "migrated" back.

 

So yes the figures are open to interpretation.

 

But my point is that emigration can never be a bad thing. I have worked in other countries and not only did I love the experience - it also made me more able and content to work in the UK.

 

Some have that urge - others do not. I, having worked abroad, have long felt that those that never have experienced it - never want others to do it either.

 

In either direction.

 

NO offence meant.

 

 

None taken. I agree that working in another country is an eye opener in many cases, and have done it many times, however, is that the same thing as emigration where you permanently leave your roots behind? Of course the many who have left have various reasons for doing so, economic, curiosity or possibly even getting away from the 'mother in law'. My point was that when it is a number that is for example 50% of the population of Scotland, then the number is significant, and if ever increasing numbers are coming the other way, one has to ask 'why and what will be the end result'

 

I have relatives in Australia who left for the usual economic reasons but still hanker after 'the old country' and visit regularly. No, they will not come back to live because they are now 'foreigners' officially and probably would not be allowed in. My sister in law, who was born in the UK, educated etc but now lives in Oz was stopped at immigration as she did not have a visa for the UK. Yes, she was wrong but she said it just did not cross her mind that she was no longer 'British' or an alien to her country of birth. I also during my world travels looked at various places where I thought I could settle down, but for any number of reasons did not, and yes, sometimes I regret not taking the plunge but as family were here that is a powerful reason, especially as you get to the 2nd half of life.

 

My point is that if so many actually cut the 'umbilical' even with all the reasons that stopped me, then things need to be looked at. Why educate and train people for other countries? Then we have to import from other countries alternatives which invariably are not familiar with our systems or methods, so we get a substandard service. The NHS is constantly being rammed down our throats as a world beater system but so many of us have been amazed at the superior service offered in so called 'poor countries' that one has to question the blind assumption of the former. How many of us are actually scared to go to hospital because we may come out with something we did not have to start with? My own industry is desperately looking for engineers but as there are so few now here they are having to import, and this is from the nation that created most of the engineering triumphs we take for granted.

 

As they say, it is totally illogical.

[Brian Kirby]

I think, if I may say, Dave, it is mostly because an idea took hold within the teaching profession, some long time back, that education is a good in itself, and should not be directed toward fitting our pupils for the needs of our economy. That idea seems to me to have been on the one hand fostered, and on the other acquiesced with, by both political traditions. The one because it feared using schools to serve up cannon fodder to industry, and the other because it has a deep seated fear of planning anything, preferring to believe that a laissez faire approach will always deliver what is needed. What I think you are charting, is that both, for different, equally well intentioned reasons, were wrong. It can never be possible to predict how many doctors or engineers the economy will require in, say 10 years time. However, it is possible to assess an approximate number, and to gear basic education accordingly. That is what we seem to have missed, and others to have seen.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-25 4:24 PM

 

I think, if I may say, Dave, it is mostly because an idea took hold within the teaching profession, some long time back, that education is a good in itself, and should not be directed toward fitting our pupils for the needs of our economy. That idea seems to me to have been on the one hand fostered, and on the other acquiesced with, by both political traditions. The one because it feared using schools to serve up cannon fodder to industry, and the other because it has a deep seated fear of planning anything, preferring to believe that a laissez faire approach will always deliver what is needed. What I think you are charting, is that both, for different, equally well intentioned reasons, were wrong. It can never be possible to predict how many doctors or engineers the economy will require in, say 10 years time. However, it is possible to assess an approximate number, and to gear basic education accordingly. That is what we seem to have missed, and others to have seen.

 

Ten / fifteen years ago I wish I had trained as an immigration officer , benefits advisor , police translator etc . Never without work and as much overtime as you like .

[Dave225]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-25 4:24 PM

 

I think, if I may say, Dave, it is mostly because an idea took hold within the teaching profession, some long time back, that education is a good in itself, and should not be directed toward fitting our pupils for the needs of our economy. That idea seems to me to have been on the one hand fostered, and on the other acquiesced with, by both political traditions. The one because it feared using schools to serve up cannon fodder to industry, and the other because it has a deep seated fear of planning anything, preferring to believe that a laissez faire approach will always deliver what is needed. What I think you are charting, is that both, for different, equally well intentioned reasons, were wrong. It can never be possible to predict how many doctors or engineers the economy will require in, say 10 years time. However, it is possible to assess an approximate number, and to gear basic education accordingly. That is what we seem to have missed, and others to have seen.

 

You are missing the point. We do have the engineers and doctors and what the report I mentioned showed was that far too many of them have left these shores, and I am asking why. Having lived abroad for many years I found British engineers, doctors, nurses and teachers etc virtually everywhere making good lives for themselves and boosting the countries in which they were living. So, why were they so desperate to leave the UK? Were the opportunities not there or bureaucracy so overwhelming or they wanted things for their children that they felt the UK could not provide. For each one who left we have had to import a non British national which seems absurd. Companies in certain industries are crying out for staff, but of course they are looking for the correct staff. You mention that education is an issue and yes, it is but so many people have decided to bypass the State system, or desperately try to get their children into the good schools, that there is a pool of well qualified kids growing up out there, but losing them at the end is not in my mind the best answer. Independent schools are by no means restricted to the rich and priviledged, many middle classes send their children to them in the hope they will get the skills they need to prosper, and in may cases they do. Of course a large number do stay, but the loss of 2 million in 10 years is too many.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2013-01-25 8:39 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-25 4:24 PM

 

I think, if I may say, Dave, it is mostly because an idea took hold within the teaching profession, some long time back, that education is a good in itself, and should not be directed toward fitting our pupils for the needs of our economy. That idea seems to me to have been on the one hand fostered, and on the other acquiesced with, by both political traditions. The one because it feared using schools to serve up cannon fodder to industry, and the other because it has a deep seated fear of planning anything, preferring to believe that a laissez faire approach will always deliver what is needed. What I think you are charting, is that both, for different, equally well intentioned reasons, were wrong. It can never be possible to predict how many doctors or engineers the economy will require in, say 10 years time. However, it is possible to assess an approximate number, and to gear basic education accordingly. That is what we seem to have missed, and others to have seen.

 

Ten / fifteen years ago I wish I had trained as an immigration officer , benefits advisor , police translator etc . Never without work and as much overtime as you like .

 

Fortunately when Sue & I were young we both did ten years of public service ;-) .....................To earn the same benefits in the private sector would take 30 years 8-)...................at least now days *-)

 

I forgot to say the best earner at the moment is fostering ;-)..................loadsa money :D

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2013-01-25 9:02 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-01-25 8:39 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-25 4:24 PM

 

I think, if I may say, Dave, it is mostly because an idea took hold within the teaching profession, some long time back, that education is a good in itself, and should not be directed toward fitting our pupils for the needs of our economy. That idea seems to me to have been on the one hand fostered, and on the other acquiesced with, by both political traditions. The one because it feared using schools to serve up cannon fodder to industry, and the other because it has a deep seated fear of planning anything, preferring to believe that a laissez faire approach will always deliver what is needed. What I think you are charting, is that both, for different, equally well intentioned reasons, were wrong. It can never be possible to predict how many doctors or engineers the economy will require in, say 10 years time. However, it is possible to assess an approximate number, and to gear basic education accordingly. That is what we seem to have missed, and others to have seen.

 

Ten / fifteen years ago I wish I had trained as an immigration officer , benefits advisor , police translator etc . Never without work and as much overtime as you like .

 

Fortunately when Sue & I were young we both did ten years of public service ;-) .....................To earn the same benefits in the private sector would take 30 years 8-)...................at least now days *-)

 

I forgot to say the best earner at the moment is fostering ;-)..................loadsa money :D

 

 

Your right Dave and it's fashionable too . At one time Jimmy Choo shoes , a Ferrari , a crocodile skin handbag or a top from Burtons were the height of fashion , now you foster or adopt an African child have a photo shoot for Hello magazine and you are a fashion icon

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2013-01-25 9:32 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-01-25 9:02 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-01-25 8:39 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-25 4:24 PM

 

I think, if I may say, Dave, it is mostly because an idea took hold within the teaching profession, some long time back, that education is a good in itself, and should not be directed toward fitting our pupils for the needs of our economy. That idea seems to me to have been on the one hand fostered, and on the other acquiesced with, by both political traditions. The one because it feared using schools to serve up cannon fodder to industry, and the other because it has a deep seated fear of planning anything, preferring to believe that a laissez faire approach will always deliver what is needed. What I think you are charting, is that both, for different, equally well intentioned reasons, were wrong. It can never be possible to predict how many doctors or engineers the economy will require in, say 10 years time. However, it is possible to assess an approximate number, and to gear basic education accordingly. That is what we seem to have missed, and others to have seen.

 

Ten / fifteen years ago I wish I had trained as an immigration officer , benefits advisor , police translator etc . Never without work and as much overtime as you like .

 

Fortunately when Sue & I were young we both did ten years of public service ;-) .....................To earn the same benefits in the private sector would take 30 years 8-)...................at least now days *-)

 

I forgot to say the best earner at the moment is fostering ;-)..................loadsa money :D

 

 

Your right Dave and it's fashionable too . At one time Jimmy Choo shoes , a Ferrari , a crocodile skin handbag or a top from Burtons were the height of fashion , now you foster or adopt an African child have a photo shoot for Hello magazine and you are a fashion icon

 

Must admit I'd thought about it................and the money!..................we were talking today to a couple who paid their mortgage off fostering, and the stories they told 8-)...............................but given the choice I still prefer a dog :D

[Guest pelmetman]

Rabid nonsense from that racist rag the "Mail"? *-)................Oooop's my mistake :$.........I mean the "Telegraph" (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

'I feel like a stranger where I live’

As new figures show 'white flight' from cities is rising, one Londoner writes a provocative personal piece about how immigration has drastically changed the borough where she has lived for 17 years

 

By Jane Kelly7:30AM GMT 29 Jan 2013

"When you go swimming, it’s much healthier to keep your whole body completely covered, you know.” The Muslim lady behind the counter in my local pharmacy has recently started giving me advice like this. It’s kindly meant and I’m always glad to hear her views because she is one of the few people in west London where I live who talks to me.

 

The streets around Acton, which has been my home since 1996, have taken on a new identity. Most of the shops are now owned by Muslims and even the fish and chip shop and Indian takeaway are Halal. It seems that almost overnight it’s changed from Acton Vale into Acton Veil.

 

Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they never look me in the face.

 

I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments. I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a place where I am a stranger.

 

I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays, though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what was on TV last night.

 

More worryingly, I feel that public spaces are becoming contested. One food store has recently installed a sign banning alcohol on the premises. Fair enough. But it also says: “No alcohol allowed on the streets near this shop.” I am no fan of street drinking, and rowdy behaviour and loutish individuals are an aspect of modern British ''culture’’ I hate. But I feel uneasy that this shopkeeper wants to control the streets outside his shop. I asked him what he meant by his notice but he just smiled at me wistfully.

Perhaps he and his fellow Muslims want to turn the area into another Tower Hamlets, the east London borough where ''suggestive’’ advertising is banned and last year a woman was refused a job in a pharmacy because she wasn’t veiled.

 

On the other hand, maybe I should be grateful. At least in Acton there is just a sign in a shop. Since the start of the year there have been several reports from around London of a more aggressive approach. Television news footage last week showed incidents filmed on a mobile phone on a Saturday night, in the borough of Waltham Forest, of men shouting “This is a Muslim area” at white Britons.

 

The video commentary stated: “From women walking the street dressed like complete naked animals with no self-respect, to drunk people carrying alcohol, we try our best to capture and forbid it all.”

Another scene showed hooded youths forcing a man to drop his can of lager, telling him they were the “Muslim patrol” and that alcohol is a “forbidden evil”. The gang then approached a group of white girls enjoying a good night out, telling them to “forbid themselves from dressing like this and exposing themselves outside the mosque”.

 

Worse, though, is film footage from last week, thought to have been taken in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, which showed members of a group who also called themselves a “Muslim patrol” harassing a man who appeared to be wearing make-up, calling him a “bloody fag”. In the video posted on YouTube last week, the passer-by is told he is “walking through a Muslim area dressed like a fag” and ordered to get out. Last Thursday, police were reported to have arrested five “vigilantes” suspected of homophobic abuse.

 

There are, of course, other Europeans in my area who may share my feelings but I’m not able to talk to them easily about this situation as they are mostly immigrants, too. At Christmas I spoke to an elderly white woman about the lack of parsnips in the local greengrocer, but she turned out to have no English and I was left grumbling to myself.

 

Poles have settled in Ealing since the Second World War and are well assimilated, but since 2004 about 370,000 east Europeans have arrived in London. Almost half the populations of nearby Ealing and Hammersmith were born outside the UK. Not surprisingly, at my bus stop I rarely hear English spoken. I realise that we can’t return to the time when buses were mainly occupied by white ladies in their best hats and gloves going shopping, but I do feel nostalgic for the days when a journey on public transport didn’t leave me feeling as if I have only just arrived in a strange country myself.

 

There are other “cultural differences” that bother me, too. Over the past year I have been involved in rescuing a dog that was kept in a freezing shed for months. The owners spoke no English. A Somali neighbour kept a dog that he told me he was training to fight, before it was stolen by other dog fighters. I have tried to re-home several cats owned by a family who refuse to neuter their animals, because of their religion.

 

In the Nineties, when I arrived, this part of Acton was a traditional working-class area. Now there is no trace of any kind of community – that word so cherished by the Left. Instead it has been transformed into a giant transit camp and is home to no one. The scale of immigration over recent years has created communities throughout London that never need to – or want to – interact with outsiders.

 

It wasn’t always the case: since the 1890s thousands of Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Chinese workers, among others, have arrived in the capital, often displacing the indigenous population. Yes, there was hateful overt racism and discrimination, I’m not denying that. But, over time, I believe we settled down into a happy mix of incorporation and shared aspiration, with disparate peoples walking the same pavements but returning to very different homes – something the Americans call “sundown segregation”.

 

But now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists, wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by the white population – the rate of white flight from our cities is soaring. According to the Office for National Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter of their population of white, British people. The number in Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844 (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.

 

I suspect that many white people in London and the Home Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly one million pupils do not have English as a first language.

 

I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond my reach. I see London turning into a place almost exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.

 

It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.

 

Well done Mr Blair..........>:-)

[Guest pelmetman]

More rabid "Telegraph" nonsense(lol) (lol)

 

 

Nearly 50,000 children who live abroad are receiving benefits claimed by immigrant families living in Britain, figures revealed today.

 

The data will add to concerns about the impact of an expected wave of immigration when temporary controls lapse at the end of the year

 

By Telegraph reporters3:39PM GMT 29 Jan 201322 Comments

 

Just under 30,000 families are claiming child benefits and tax credit for offspring who live outside the UK but within the European Union, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

Poland is home to the highest number of children in the region who are receiving benefits claimed in the UK with more than half the total, 25,659, receiving welfare.

 

The figures were disclosed by Treasury minister Sajid Javid in a written answer to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

 

Mr Vaz said: "I am very surprised at this figure. Most people would consider it wrong for people to receive child benefit when the children are living abroad permanently."

 

On December 31 there were 24,082 ongoing child benefit awards in respect of 40,171 children living in the European Economic Area, Mr Javid revealed.

 

There were also 4,011 ongoing child tax credit awards claimed in respect of 6,838 children.

Parents can claim child benefits of £20.30 a week for their eldest child and £13.40 a week for each of their other children, while child tax credit is worth at least £545 a year.

 

The data will add to concerns about the impact of an expected wave of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria when temporary controls lapse at the end of the year.

 

The Government has refused to give an estimate of the numbers of people who might move to Britain after gaining the right to live and work in the UK from the end of December.

 

But campaigners Migration Watch UK have predicted that up to 250,000 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants - equal to the population of Newcastle - could come to Britain within five years.

Mr Javid said: "The main purpose of child benefit and the child tax credit is to support families in the UK. Consequently, the rules for these benefits generally do not provide for them to be paid in respect of children who live abroad."

 

However, Mr Javid said child benefit and child tax credit are family benefits which are protected by European Commission regulations that cover the social security rights of nationals of all EEA member states.

Around 7.5 million families are currently claiming child benefit for around 13 million children and roughly 5.2 million families are receiving child tax credit for almost 9.3 million children.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

A very well written piece. Jane Kelly is listed as consulting editor of the Salisbury Review: "The Quarterly Journal of Conservative Thought. ‘Seriously Right’ " so, IMO, there is liable to be some element of political bias in her views.

 

It may well represent Acton as she sees it, it may well represent Acton as the majority of nominally British residents see it, it may even be a balanced appraisal of what Acton is now like.

 

However, its source (Telegraph), and her political credentials, make me just a little uneasy about accepting what she writes at face value. So, while I'm sure there is a truth there, I doubt, in traditional Telegraph style, that it is the whole truth.

 

Shame really, because it would be interesting to know what the less politically biased view might be. I'm not rejecting the piece but I am sceptical, and suspicious that it was written largely to suit its target audience. To put it another way, had that been published in the Guardian, I would be far more concerned about the future of Acton! :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-29 5:34 PM

 

A very well written piece. Jane Kelly is listed as consulting editor of the Salisbury Review: "The Quarterly Journal of Conservative Thought. ‘Seriously Right’ " so, IMO, there is liable to be some element of political bias in her views.

 

It may well represent Acton as she sees it, it may well represent Acton as the majority of nominally British residents see it, it may even be a balanced appraisal of what Acton is now like.

 

However, its source (Telegraph), and her political credentials, make me just a little uneasy about accepting what she writes at face value. So, while I'm sure there is a truth there, I doubt, in traditional Telegraph style, that it is the whole truth.

 

Shame really, because it would be interesting to know what the less politically biased view might be. I'm not rejecting the piece but I am sceptical, and suspicious that it was written largely to suit its target audience. To put it another way, had that been published in the Guardian, I would be far more concerned about the future of Acton! :-D

 

You've not been to Acton for a while then Brian?.............as I suspect you'll find a similar story in many of the London boroughs ;-).............accept maybe twendy wendy Notting Hill *-).............

 

"To put it another way, had that been published in the Guardian, I would be far more concerned about the future of Acton!"................

 

By then Brian I suspect there won't be a single anglo saxon left inside the M25..........which will no doubt please the Guardian reader Tony Blair >:-)

[Brian Kirby]

Well, it should allay a few fears that one immigrant son of wealthy parents, and one UK born son of poor immigrants, both Muslims, both MPs, one from Labour (the privileged one, with the dubious past) and one from the Conservatives (the impoverished one, with the more honourable past) are both in agreement that a benefits fiddle is wrong.

 

Between the two of them, they knock back a lot of stereotypes, and represent something far more optimistic about immigrants in the UK than a lot of the posts in this string. Good for them!

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-29 5:52 PM

 

Well, it should allay a few fears that one immigrant son of wealthy parents, and one UK born son of poor immigrants, both Muslims, both MPs, one from Labour (the privileged one, with the dubious past) and one from the Conservatives (the impoverished one, with the more honourable past) are both in agreement that a benefits fiddle is wrong.

 

Between the two of them, they knock back a lot of stereotypes, and represent something far more optimistic about immigrants in the UK than a lot of the posts in this string. Good for them!

 

And? :-S..................So the muslim enclave's that are appearing in many UK towns & cities are a figment of the locals imagination? *-)

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2013-01-29 5:42 PM...................You've not been to Acton for a while then Brian?.............as I suspect you'll find a similar story in many of the London boroughs ;-).............accept maybe twendy wendy Notting Hill *-).............

No Dave, the closest I've been to Acton is Hammersmith and Paddington, just before Christmas. You?

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2013-01-29 5:56 PM..............And? :-S..................So the muslim enclave's that are appearing in many UK towns & cities are a figment of the locals imagination? *-)

Not necessarily. But, how anything appears, depends on one's point of view. The more extreme the view, the more the world sees to be against the viewer. To someone on the extreme right, the world seems dominated by communists. To someone on the extreme left, the world seems dominated by fascists. To me, the world seems dominated by extremists of both left and right, all of whom seem borderline certifiable! :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-29 5:59 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-01-29 5:42 PM...................You've not been to Acton for a while then Brian?.............as I suspect you'll find a similar story in many of the London boroughs ;-).............accept maybe twendy wendy Notting Hill *-).............

No Dave, the closest I've been to Acton is Hammersmith and Paddington, just before Christmas. You?[/quote

 

Pleased to report haven't been to central London since Red Ken brought in the congestion charge.......or inside the M25 since they introduced the LEZ B-)...................

 

Don't need to go as it was bad enough last time I went, and we hear from friends who live there that its getting worse *-).....................If you don't believe me why does the recent census show a white flight ;-)............unless the figures were altered by some rabid right winger :-S

[donna miller]

It really doesn't matter what the author of that piece's political views are, the fact of the matter is that what she has told is really happening, like it or not!

Does the political bias of (anybody's) chosen newspaper make the story any less credible? Maybe the mail or Guardian does like to write in a style that pleases or excites its readers, but surely every paper does just that.

I've always been taught that it's not what's said, it's about how it's received.

 

[Dave225]

Unfortunately this sort of occurrence is becoming more common even outside of London, which I fully accept is the worst. We all note the new cities of the Midlands where in certain districts virtually no white face is ever seen and there was Boston where a young resident was shouted down for actually complaining she felt a ‘foreigner in her own town’. There are other similar towns dotted round the UK. Although here north of the Wall we have not seen the marked changes that England has suffered that does not mean to say we all live a fully integrated society in peace and harmony. Cities here have what can only be described as ‘ghettos’ mostly of East Europeans who have gradually ‘encouraged’ the existing residents to move away. I am not suggesting intimidation is used, but once you find yourself the only one speaking English in shops and on the street, it does get a bit lonely. If a town of say 150000 souls suddenly over a period of a few years gets an influx of 40000 nationals of another country living in a smallish area of the town it is absurd to suggest no effect will take place.

 

Now some from the more liberal side argue that over time these frictional forces will disappear as everyone becomes integrated into one big happy family, and yes, I do agree that in previous bursts of immigration this has happened. However much was as a result of the War where displaced people were given sanctuary here, or even were POWs who felt this was better than going home. The big thing though was these people appreciated what the UK was offering and strove to repay that in any way they could. However, nothing in the past has seen the huge numbers and rapidity of arrivals that we have seen in the last decade and once a community of a single nationality exists, there is little reason for them to integrate more than a bare minimum. This is certainly the case where elderly parents arrive subsequently and live virtually cut off from the UK as a whole. In some respects I am not saying that separated communities should be banned, after all The Amish have lived in the US without really integrating at all, and they have large Hispanic communities, but the US is a far larger country than the UK so there is space for a larger number of people per square mile. Yet even in the US they are desperately trying to stop further immigration, so they must recognise the inherent problems it can bring. If diversity and integration, so beloved of the liberals, is to be the watchword for the new UK then it has to apply across the board and a set of rules outlining what each arrival is expected to achieve, should be in force, not a stupid citizenship exam. Basically everyone wishing to settle here should make his/her aim to be as British as possible as soon as possible. Making exceptions for religious or other spurious reasons should not be acceptable.

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-29 6:06 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-01-29 5:56 PM..............And? :-S..................So the muslim enclave's that are appearing in many UK towns & cities are a figment of the locals imagination? *-)

Not necessarily. But, how anything appears, depends on one's point of view. The more extreme the view, the more the world sees to be against the viewer. To someone on the extreme right, the world seems dominated by communists. To someone on the extreme left, the world seems dominated by fascists. To me, the world seems dominated by extremists of both left and right, all of whom seem borderline certifiable! :-D

 

I think the only borderline certifiable are people who like yourself seem happy for the UK to be transformed in to a place unrecognisable to many of us in just the last decade, and our parents generation would think they had landed on another planet, and the generations died to defend their heritage, language, and history, that is obviously no concern of yours, but to the majority it is, so why don't you stop pandering to the minorities for once..

 

You also seem to never answer the question,when is enough, enough. Probably only when they are camped out on your front lawn, and blocking your exit of your van !

 

I will say one thing, it seems finally that all the main stream parties have woken up to the issue, so what are they collectively in your book, extreme right, or extreme left wing, and all Daily Mail readers whom you so despise, oh or Telegraph readers, no they are reading the Public mood..

 

[Brian Kirby]

donna miller - 2013-01-29 6:20 PM.......................Does the political bias of (anybody's) chosen newspaper make the story any less credible? ......................

Not necessarily, Donna. However, as I said it does make me suspicious. Strongly held political views tend to skew the way things are reported, especially where there is a political dimension to what is being reported. I'm definitely not claiming that any paper is unbiased in its reporting, just marking that the Telegraph is a notable right wing broadsheet, that can be expected (on past performance) to present its facts with a right wing bias. On the question of immigration, that would be inclined to favour placing the worst construction on stories of "native" alienation at the hands of immigrants, in preference to any other presentation. The whole truth, while it may not be that much better is, I suspect, not quite that bad. That is all I'm arguing.

[Brian Kirby]

1footinthegrave - 2013-01-29 6:37 PM...............I think the only borderline certifiable are people who like yourself seem happy for the UK to be transformed in to a place unrecognisable to many of us in just the last decade, and our parents generation would think they had landed on another planet, and the generations died to defend their heritage, language, and history, that is obviously no concern of yours, but to the majority it is, so why don't you stop pandering to the minorities for once..

 

You also seem to never answer the question,when is enough, enough. Probably only when they are camped out on your front lawn, and blocking your exit of your van !

 

I will say one thing, it seems finally that all the main stream parties have woken up to the issue, so what are they collectively in your book, extreme right, or extreme left wing, and all Daily Mail readers whom you so despise, oh or Telegraph readers, no they are reading the Public mood..

Are you completely incapable of expressing your thoughts without resorting to personal attacks? If you were to take the trouble to read what I actually write, you would see that you have had your answer more than once. You do not persuade me of your extreme and ill-tempered views by resorting to insult. Rather the opposite, in fact. I discount them precisely because of how they are written. You do not argue, you rant and rave. Intelligent discussion on those terms is impossible. I'll try again when you learn reason and manners, not before.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

yes,unless someone alludes to me being some left wing rabid whatever,a nd you compound the problem as you have just done again by including "extreme and ill-tempered views" why, because they do not fit with yours ?

 

To be fair, I thought your summary of my personality in another thread was totally uncalled for, but I did not see any apology forthcoming, even in part, and I tend to treat people as I am treated.

 

 

The problem with you ( with respect ) and as others have said on numerous occasions is you have a tendency to use so many words in the majority of your posts, it;s like drowning in treacle, and the message is lost..

 

So let's have it, do you think we have a problem with immigration or not, if not, when is enough, enough, fairly simple stuff really.

 

And do please remember others have views you may not agree with, but they are just as valid as yours, whatever paper they read.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2013-01-29 6:06 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-01-29 5:56 PM..............And? :-S..................So the muslim enclave's that are appearing in many UK towns & cities are a figment of the locals imagination? *-)

Not necessarily. But, how anything appears, depends on one's point of view. The more extreme the view, the more the world sees to be against the viewer. To someone on the extreme right, the world seems dominated by communists. To someone on the extreme left, the world seems dominated by fascists. To me, the world seems dominated by extremists of both left and right, all of whom seem borderline certifiable! :-D

 

I see that's the view from the leafy well to do East Sussex Brian...............I wonder if that'll change when your view is blighted by a mosque and your the only white anglo saxon left? ;-)

[thebishbus]

Whether you doubters accept it or not these Muslim no-go areas are there. Two weeks ago my sons partner had a job to do in London. After completing the job she left for home, but took a wrong turning in London and got lost She could not believe it, it was as though she was in a different country, not a white face in sight, only Asian looking men, and women covered up in black from head to toe. She tried to ask directions, NO ONE would or could speak to her, they just stared at her and walked away, she felt really frightened . Fortunately she has blue tooth, she locked the doors and phoned my son for help. Using his computer he redirected her on to the correct route. Perhaps you doubters should go and look at these areas yourselves , or better still send your wives to have have a wander around, and see how they get on.

 

Brian B.

[CliveH]

What about ChinaTown in Liverpool?

 

On my last visit to Singapore we spent a couple of days in 'Little India' and Singapore's 'ChinaTown'. It was like moving from country to country almost by way of crossing the street. It was great!

 

And of course - we Brits are SO well known for our ability to "go native" and fit in with the culture of other countries when we live abroad.

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)