Immigration in the UK. Enoch Powell 40 years on............

cockneyred · 20th April 2008, 21:18

lot of labourites here i think (allegedly)

lynchie · 20th April 2008, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuengirola Red

show me a country that does more to promote and cater for immigrants than the UK ,no wonder its the most prized destination for the parasites of the world ,here in Spain if you don't put into the system you don't get anything in return ,don't get me wrong theres to many white British scroungers who are far worse than than the majority of the immigrants and i bet the majority of those are BNP voters

I seem to remember seeing a lot of stats showing that the UK is nowhere near the top of the league of countries for taking in immigrants. It's a myth, propogated by certain elements of the media, and fear-mongerers.

topper · 20th April 2008, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Made-up statements have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq in the past decade. Many of us might see Blair as an extremist nutjob in some of his policies - it depends on your viewpoint. Politicians tend to play fast and loose with the truth that's for sure.

exactly - its strange how made up statements from people one has an affinity for are overlooked - funny that

Fitzjames · 20th April 2008, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyred

lot of labourites here i think (allegedly)

lot of racists here I think (allegedly)

noodlehair · 20th April 2008, 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Made-up statements have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq in the past decade. Many of us might see Blair as an extremist nutjob in some of his policies - it depends on your viewpoint. Politicians tend to play fast and loose with the truth that's for sure.

True, and it led to the invasion of a foreign country, using our own troops, and subsequently caused the death of some of those troops, as well as thousands of innocent people. All for reasons that were never fully explained...fantastic.

I don't know that I'd call Blair an extremist nutjob. Wrong or right Iraq was an inevitability, and would have been even if we'd chosen not to get involved. He had to make a decision, made it, then failed to produce the evidence to justify why.

lynchie · 20th April 2008, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by noodlehair

True, and it led to the invasion of a foreign country, using our own troops, and subsequently caused the death of some of those troops, as well as thousands of innocent people. All for reasons that were never fully explained...fantastic.

I don't know that I'd call Blair an extremist nutjob. Wrong or right Iraq was an inevitability, and would have been even if we'd chosen not to get involved. He had to make a decision, made it, then failed to produce the evidence to justify why.

It also has no bearing on whether Enoch Powell was a racist nutjob.

He was by the way.

massey · 20th April 2008, 23:10

This country's a soft touch,I still don't understand how we give housing to families from africa europe etc with alot having 6-7 kids i work in london and see this ina lot of places and houses i work in, when there are still alot of british homeless people knocking about the street and myself who has been on council list for years and still have no hope despite being born here,working since i left school and paying tax for about ten years and still not even 1st 2nd 3rd in line.Say what you like about me not earning over 20 k or having the right job etc to get a place of my own but this country still shits on its own british born citizens.

ukbob · 20th April 2008, 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan

Show me any self respecting country which do not have immigrants.

Move on people, there is no such thing as immigrants in the present world system. It's time we focused on our needs as a country rather than the country of origin of our neighbours/co workers.

That is a can of worms. You are stating about any self respecting country and then focusing on "our needs" as a county. What are our needs compared to the other self respecting countries? Should they not be all the same and are they all the same?
In other words do all of these other self respecting countries respect the needs and beliefs of immigrants as we in England do?

iguanamanc · 21st April 2008, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockneyred

lot of labourites here i think (allegedly)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitzjames

lot of racists here I think (allegedly)

One can be right wing and not be a racist in the same way that one can be left wing and not have a beard or wear corduroys.

iguanamanc · 21st April 2008, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by noodlehair

True, and it led to the invasion of a foreign country, using our own troops, and subsequently caused the death of some of those troops, as well as thousands of innocent people. All for reasons that were never fully explained...fantastic.

I don't know that I'd call Blair an extremist nutjob. Wrong or right Iraq was an inevitability, and would have been even if we'd chosen not to get involved. He had to make a decision, made it, then failed to produce the evidence to justify why.

George Bush appeared hell bent on that, whether it was to safeguard oil supplies, to carry on what his father failed to finish, or whatever. I think many of us consider the real reason why we went to war was out of some mistaken loyalty to this so-called 'special relationship' between the US and the UK. What has the UK ever gained out of this?

Donald Rumsfeld had already indicated that the US would go it alone if need be in Iraq. We could have backed out of that arena, in the same way that virtually every other country did. The UN eventually stated that the US-led invasion was illegal according to their Charter. Not only will we be involved with a long drawn out conflict in Iraq, there is also Afghanistan. History tells us that no invading country has ever succeeded in Afghanistan, and we have the recent experience of the Russians to remind us. However, to a certain extent, I see more logic for our presence in Afghanistan - as a mission to reduce the supply of illegal opiates into the UK, for example.

Both of these escapades have made the UK a more likely target for extremist reprisals, as we have already witnessed. This would have been anticipated and written into the equation as Blair and his Burnley-supporting puppet master dreamed about weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to get us into this sorry mess.

Sorry Noodles, but Tony Blair warrants consideration as an extremist nutjob in my eyes.

spinoza · 22nd April 2008, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

It's been exactly 40 years since Enoch Powell made a controversial speech about immigration into the UK, which was really an attack on the 1968 Race Relations Act. That speech has been incorrectly labelled as "Rivers of Blood" (for full transcript see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...607.xml&page=1).

I was 15 years old at that time and his speech left a considerable impression on me. As a whole, 1968 was a memorable year for political events (Tet offensive in Vietnam, student riots at the Sorbonne, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Soviet tanks rolling in to Prague) and I was fortunate to have been at Wembley when we won the European Cup.

This week, I have listened to a couple of radio phone-ins on the topic of Powell's speech, one at least by a presenter who wasn't even born at that time. He described Powell as a "racist" and a "loony". Believe me, Powell was neither of those things. He was sacked from the Conservative shadow cabinet after his Birmingham speech, mainly because he had dared to open the can of worms about immigration and race relations in the UK. This man could have been a great Prime Minister who would have left a considerable legacy to this country.

Agree or disagree?

The man's an idiot. His entire immigration policy as set out in the speech makes no allowance for citizenship rights or human resource management, and is quite frankly appallingly racist.

If you think he would have made a good prime minister then you're off your rocker.

spinoza · 22nd April 2008, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

One can be right wing and not be a racist in the same way that one can be left wing and not have a beard or wear corduroys.

Enoch Powell was both right wing and racist. Get over it.

Plechazunga · 22nd April 2008, 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukbob

That is a can of worms. You are stating about any self respecting country and then focusing on "our needs" as a county. What are our needs compared to the other self respecting countries? Should they not be all the same and are they all the same?
In other words do all of these other self respecting countries respect the needs and beliefs of immigrants as we in England do?

Well, a lot of "self-respecting" - and successful - countries take in a lot more immigrants than we do

The US was made what it is by successive waves of immigrants. The fact that it's now trying to erect more barriers to immigration shows how much it's lost its sense of what it is and stands for in recent years

In general, immigrants keep the peace, work fecking hard and contribute economically and culturally beyond their numbers.

Fitzjames · 22nd April 2008, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Well, a lot of "self-respecting" - and successful - countries take in a lot more immigrants than we do

The US was made what it is by successive waves of immigrants. The fact that it's now trying to erect more barriers to immigration shows how much it's lost its sense of what it is and stands for in recent years

In general, immigrants keep the peace, work fecking hard and contribute economically and culturally beyond their numbers.

I agree totally.well almost totally. USA has tended over 200 years to be choosey about some of the "huddled masses". For example Chinese or "oriental migration" and even within European migration, some were extended a warmer welcome than others.
(that leaves out the huddled masses already there......blacks, hispanics, native americans).
But I agree with your main point.....migrants are generally peaceable, hard workers and contributers to society. I think migration can be at times a "young male" activity. And certainly in my own small town any "trouble" seems to be young male trouble, without the civilising influence of ladies (God bless them!"

Nothing unusual in that of course.
Young males follow the mob.
Young males on holiday in Ibiza, Lanzarote, can be a pain in the neck.
Young males on a night out of barracks in Catterick, Portsmouth, Aldershot, Colchester etc...same thing
Young males at footy at Anfield, Stamford Bridge, Ibrox, etc...same thing.
And dont start me on young male students.......durty bassards.

Plechazunga · 22nd April 2008, 15:38

Yeah any country has to weigh the benefits of migration against political realities at home. But America's record has been exemplary overall.

iguanamanc · 23rd April 2008, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Well, a lot of "self-respecting" - and successful - countries take in a lot more immigrants than we do

The US was made what it is by successive waves of immigrants. The fact that it's now trying to erect more barriers to immigration shows how much it's lost its sense of what it is and stands for in recent years

In general, immigrants keep the peace, work fecking hard and contribute economically and culturally beyond their numbers.

Those are excellent attributes to have and use in their own country of origin.

iguanamanc · 23rd April 2008, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

The man's an idiot. His entire immigration policy as set out in the speech makes no allowance for citizenship rights or human resource management, and is quite frankly appallingly racist.

If you think he would have made a good prime minister then you're off your rocker.

I'm not off my rocker. I am talking about a specific time and a place. Were you in the UK in the late 1960s?

Powell was certainly not so politically correct that he had to counterbalance his speech by referring to citizenship rights and human resource management and lessen its impact. Powell and Michael Foot were acknowledged as the two greatest parliamentary debaters of that era.

Those were days before the pendulum had swung so far that you can't even fart in the same room as an immigrant without him claiming that you are infringing his civil rights to that good clean air that he has fought so hard to attain and been persecuted against because of it.

iguanamanc · 23rd April 2008, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Enoch Powell was both right wing and racist. Get over it.

I was referring to the ironic posts 41 and 44 not Powell.

lot of immigrants here I think (allegedly)

spinoza · 24th April 2008, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Those are excellent attributes to have and use in their own country of origin.

And it's their right to use them where they wish, as long as they don't break any laws.

spinoza · 24th April 2008, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

I'm not off my rocker. I am talking about a specific time and a place. Were you in the UK in the late 1960s?

No, but that doesn't matter. Powell's immigration policy is wrong. I have no idea what he thought on economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, but if his immigration policy is so short sighted, I don't hold out much hope. Besides, I would have thought that racism should disqualify anyone from holding elected office. It certainly does in my eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Powell was certainly not so politically correct that he had to counterbalance his speech by referring to citizenship rights and human resource management and lessen its impact. Powell and Michael Foot were acknowledged as the two greatest parliamentary debaters of that era.

It's not politically correct to refer to citizenship rights or human resource management. It's simply correct. Or do you believe that my right to vote is inferior to yours simply because I'm an immigrant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iguanamanc

Those were days before the pendulum had swung so far that you can't even fart in the same room as an immigrant without him claiming that you are infringing his civil rights to that good clean air that he has fought so hard to attain and been persecuted against because of it.

Hyperbole doesn't help.

topper · 24th April 2008, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

No, but that doesn't matter. Powell's immigration policy is wrong. I have no idea what he thought on economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, but if his immigration policy is so short sighted, I don't hold out much hope. Besides, I would have thought that racism should disqualify anyone from holding elected office. It certainly does in my eyes.

It's not politically correct to refer to citizenship rights or human resource management. It's simply correct. Or do you believe that my right to vote is inferior to yours simply because I'm an immigrant?

Hyperbole doesn't help.

but it does make the point though

can you vote in UK General Elections ? if you can its equal to any other UK voter

spinoza · 24th April 2008, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper

but it does make the point though

Actually it obscures the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper

can you vote in UK General Elections ? if you can its equal to any other UK voter

Yes I can vote. Iguanamanc seems to agree with Enoch Powell that immigrants magically gain all the rights that they want in this country. That's not true (today, anyway). Immigrants are granted certain rights by law depending on their background and circumstance. They then gain other rights depending on how far they want to integrate. But once they have those rights then they are equal with native-born British citizens, and I find it appalling that these can be altered retrospectively even today.

Powell seemed happy to have no second class native born citizens. He was fine with restricting immigrants' rights to make them second class citizens however.

topper · 24th April 2008, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Actually it obscures the point.

Yes I can vote. Iguanamanc seems to agree with Enoch Powell that immigrants magically gain all the rights that they want in this country. That's not true (today, anyway). Immigrants are granted certain rights by law depending on their background and circumstance. They then gain other rights depending on how far they want to integrate. But once they have those rights then they are equal with native-born British citizens, and I find it appalling that these can be altered retrospectively even today.

Powell seemed happy to have no second class native born citizens. He was fine with restricting immigrants' rights to make them second class citizens however.

if they then turn criminal/go down a terrorist route I see no problem in withdrawing their membership to the UK club - which has enough native nutters on its own anyway

spinoza · 24th April 2008, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper

if they then turn criminal/go down a terrorist route I see no problem in withdrawing their membership to the UK club - which has enough native nutters on its own anyway

The Home Office has just lost a court case whereby it has been prevented from changing the terms of a visa programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7336360.stm

Really irritating this - the fucking goalposts keep changing and I keep having to pay for new advice every year. What it amounts to is retrospectively altering people's rights in response to political pressure from "concerned citizens" who hold similar views to the ones Iguanamanc has expressed.

topper · 24th April 2008, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

The Home Office has just lost a court case whereby it has been prevented from changing the terms of a visa programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7336360.stm

Really irritating this - the fucking goalposts keep changing and I keep having to pay for new advice every year. What it amounts to is retrospectively altering people's rights in response to political pressure from "concerned citizens" who hold similar views to the ones Iguanamanc has expressed.

to be fair to "concerned citizens" lots of the changes they demand are because of the fear created by some of our citizens and guests towards the general populationIf the UK Government had tackled the immigration problem (perceived or not ) earlier then everbody would have been so much more comfortable

20th April 2008, 21:18	#41 (permalink)
cockneyred Reserve Team Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SHINE MY NINE Posts: 1,223	lot of labourites here i think (allegedly)

20th April 2008, 23:10	#47 (permalink)
massey Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: schmoogen Posts: 2,326	This country's a soft touch,I still don't understand how we give housing to families from africa europe etc with alot having 6-7 kids i work in london and see this ina lot of places and houses i work in, when there are still alot of british homeless people knocking about the street and myself who has been on council list for years and still have no hope despite being born here,working since i left school and paying tax for about ten years and still not even 1st 2nd 3rd in line.Say what you like about me not earning over 20 k or having the right job etc to get a place of my own but this country still shits on its own british born citizens.

22nd April 2008, 15:38	#55 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint and chairs are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: My enthusiasm is the same. I love this club. It is not about brochures. Posts: 49,334	Yeah any country has to weigh the benefits of migration against political realities at home. But America's record has been exemplary overall.