Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About zuzuspetals

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bury, Lancs
  1. To be fair, she didn't pay 6 quid for some fags. She paid a few pence for the fags, and the rest was tax. So, to help the poor give them ciggy vouchers! The politician didn't want the population to rise, just not to fall, ie not enough workers to fund the pension promises made to boomers and public sector staff. And from that report "21.9% of new births were last year to non-UK born mothers". That seems extraordinarily high. If you add the immigrants themselves coming in, it seems obvious that without immigration the population would fall. The report also says "the planet faces the biggest generation of young people in history ". The planet as a whole. Britons have fewer children now than at any point in history, and our rising population is spillover from third world areas. Talk of NHS family planning clinics is therefore self serving claptrap and irrelevant. Quite a dishonest little article really. An heroic but unsuccessful attempt to pretend that Britains rising population is due to women's access to contraception, because, of course, you can't criticise immigration. What are you, a Nazi?
  2. Last year the proportion of babies born to overseas mothers was 21%. The year before 20%. Before that 19%. This year more than 22%. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 I imagine these figures will show another jump next year. What we're presumably seeing is a point of inflexion, where the rising graph of babies born annually to first, second and third generation immigrants at last compensates for the falling graph of native fertility - helped of course by 186,000 abortions per year. ( In the sense that I wouldn't think there were many little Mohammeds or Ayeshas among the 186,416 babies terminated in 2006. ) Speaking of which "Mohammed could soon become the most popular boy’s name in the country, as more and more Muslim parents choose to name their sons after the Islamic Prophet. When all the different spellings of the name are added up, the name was second only to Jack in last year’s registration of boys’ births."
  3. Unions do not exist to benefit the general public, the country, the nation, whatever. They exist to benefit their members exclusively. They are as partisan as big business in asking for favours: however their demands and requests are wrapped up in the talk of the common good but their aim is for their members to profit at the expense of everybody else.
  4. My local council flies the Pakistani flag instead of the union flag on Pakistani independence day. Am I the only one who finds this vaguely creepy? I mean, we have a large Jewish population, Poles, Irish, Ukranian. Why show preferential treatment to the Pakistanis? I wonder if it's just self flagellating white multiculti twits or whether the Pakistani population actually demanded it.
  5. One other thing, the reason immigration is being talked about more freely now, is precisely because the prospective immigrants from the EU are largely white and people are therefore not paranoid about being accused of racism. Or so I thought, but apparently I was wrong. You can't even talk about limits on immigration from Romania without RACIST being shouted.
  6. Patprimer74, if I may tackle the Indepenent’s points one by one – Claim: Britain is confronted with an HIV time bomb when Romanian teenagers descend on our over-stretched health service. Reality: There are 15,850 Romanians with HIV/Aids, according to the UN. Two thirds were infected while living in children's state institutions during the late 1980s. The infection rate is 0.7 per cent of the population - slightly less than in the UK. There seems to be no contradiction here between "claim" and "reality", at least insofar as the latter is expressed by the Independent. The overall infection rate in Romania is surely irrelevant - the problem has to do with the 10,000 children infected in the 1980's. Given that there are only just over 25,000 HIV cases among 20-30 year olds in the entire UK, a significant influx of the Romanian patients could indeed increase their ranks substantially. The "reality" presented by the Indy in no way refutes this. Claim: Unemployment has soared to its highest level for more than six years as thousands of workers arrive from eastern Europe. Reality: While the unemployment rate rose last month, the number of people in work grew by 42,000 over the three months to March 2006 and by 240,000 over the year, to reach 28.94 million - the highest number of people in work since records began in 1971. Again, the "reality" doesn't contradict what the headline would have us believe is a "lie". Indeed, the Independent's disingenuousness - their admission that "the unemployment rate rose last month", as if this were a blip appears itself intended to deceive. In fact, the unemployment rate has been rising for some time, and now stands at 5.5%, up from 4.8% a year ago - an increase of nearly 15% in that time. Claim: Earnings of British builders and other manual workers have slumped by 50 per cent as a flood of east European migrants drives down wages. Reality: The annual growth rate in average earnings excluding bonuses, was 3.9 per cent in June 2006, up 0.1 per cent on the previous month. Including bonuses wages grew by 4.3 per cent, up 0.2 per cent on the previous month. The Sun claims that earnings of some "British builders and other manual workers" have been halved. This was not a fabrication on their part, but a statement of the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, quoted as saying that: "Many migrants are undercutting wages. The day rate for building workers in Southampton has fallen by 50 per cent, Pounds 120 to Pounds 60, since May 2004". The Indy responds by quoting stats for earners in all sectors. The claim may indeed be crap - but the rebuttal doesn't even address it. Claim [Print edition]: An unchecked flow of workers from overseas is harmful to the members of society who can least afford it (the young and unskilled) Reality [Print edition]: The CBI says migrants are providing vital skills and that British school leavers lack the necessary qualifications for even simple jobs. The Indy again avoids the question. Rather than address the cited article's statement that "a study of the impact of migration into America between 1979 and 1995, by George Borjas of Harvard, concluded that immigration had reduced the wages of unskilled workers (those without American high-school diplomas) by five percentage points", the Independent simply makes the claim that young people here can't do any jobs at all. Claim [Web edition]: The unprecedented influx of newcomers has had an impact on the availability of social housing. Reality [Web edition]: The shortage of homes in Britain pre-dates the arrival of east European workers. Accession state workers do not qualify for council housing. The Independent seems to believe that, given a pre-existing shortage of homes, an influx of perhaps 600,000 immigrants has had no effect on the availability of social housing. Even though the new migrants will not be directly occupying council flats, it seems scarcely credible that there wouldn't be a significant knock-on effect. Claim: Mafia chiefs in Bulgaria are plotting to flood Britain with heroin, prostitutes and guns when they join the EU in January. Reality: The Centre for the Study of Democracy, a Sofia-based think-tank, found the crime rate in Bulgaria was lower than the European average with crime rates falling by half between 2001 and 2004. It is now safer than Denmark and Australia. Of interest is a report on this study by a Sofia newspaper, this report, which lists as one factor contributing to the decline "emigration of many criminals to the EU after the establishment of a visa-free regime with most European countries". In any event, the Indy's "response" consists of yet another transparent avoidance of the issue, which has to do with organised crime, not the general crime rate. An Economist report from last October seems more to the point: "More than 50 Bulgarian mobsters have died in car-bombings and shoot-outs in Sofia and other cities in the past three years. The pace is accelerating, with eight murders in the past three months. One reason is that Bulgaria is a conduit between Turkey and Europe for trafficking in people and drugs." Claim: The UK is likely to surge up the league of favoured destinations for trafficked women and children once Romania and Bulgaria join the EU next year. Reality: The US State Department recently welcomed Bulgarian efforts to crack down on trafficking, offering witnesses protection and allowing suspects to be extradited to stand trial abroad. The number of trafficking convictions in Bulgarian courts increased nearly fivefold in 2005 - up to 34. As the Telegraph articleclearly points out, it is true that Romanian and Bulgarian authorities are taking steps to curb what is a huge problem in those countries. But the problem unquestionably remains - and to assume that the UK will not become a preferred destination for trafficked children once accession makes entry so much easier seems naive. The Independent's "reality" provides little encouragement. Claim:A leaked government report warned that schools and hospitals will struggle to cope with an influx of people from eastern Europe. Reality: Immigrants make up 8 per cent of the workforce but contribute 10 per cent of the UK's GDP. Ernst & Young reports they are net tax contributors - rather than a burden - to the public purse, easing the pensions bill through tax and keeping interest rates at least 0.5 per cent lower - equivalent to £500 a year on the average mortgage. The Times' claim is a simple fact - a leaked government report did include such warnings. And the Indy once again deflects, turning the topic away from the pressure of new immigrants on schools and hospitals and onto GDP and tax contribution of all current immigrants, including those in high-paying jobs - unlike the vast majority of prospective immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania, whose contributions, if any, will almost certainly be considerably lower. Claim: Britain will be swamped by up to 145,000 poverty-stricken migrants from Bulgaria and Romania who are expected to flock here once they join the EU. Reality: Think-tank the IPPR estimates 56,000 will arrive from both countries in the first year - 41,000 of them from Romania. A Bulgarian government survey revealed only 2.9 per cent of its nationals planned to migrate. Hmmm - let's see. Population of Bulgaria: 7,917,600. Multiply by 2.9%: 229,600. Interestingly, that figure represents almost exactly 1% of Romania's population, so an out-of-the-air assumption that only a third as many Romanians plan to leave leads to a total of 450,000 potential emigrants. Given that Britain was one of only 3 EU states that unreservedly opened its doors to EU workers last time (the others being Sweden and Ireland), the statistic cited by the Indy seems to support the 145,000 claim - it certainly doesn't contradict it. All in all, the reader expecting the exposé of media "lies" promised on the cover can't help but be cruelly disappointed, as in none of their attempts could the Indy researchers point to an actual untruth. I always think that the Indy's headlines are the broadsheet equivalent of the girls' nudey shots to be found at the Star/Sport end of the market: both approaches pose as "news"; both claim to be revealing but are actually more revealing about the corrupt thought processes that put them there on the front page; and both are shameless in their grab for attention.
  7. So presumably Moslems could be biased too. Is it worth the agro to ask if you are Moslem? Or is one's religion only relevant if you are Jewish?
  8. If two people were shooting at each other (persons A & and one of them (person A) got behind me to shield themsevles from harm while still shooting at the other person (person , I would blame THAT person (A) for anything that might happen to me, as I wouldn't have been involved if person A hadn't used me as a shield.
  9. The guilt for every one of those Palestinian deaths lies in the hands of Hezbollah who specifically use women and children as human shields.
  10. Some quick numbers. The oil market (80 million barrels a day at $70 per barrel?) is about $5 billion a day or a couple of $ trillion a year. The forex markets are $1.5 trillion a day in London alone. Trading all oil globally in euros with the necessary switching in and out of the euro would be a day or two’s forex market trading spaced out over a year. So Iran prices its oil (or oil contract) in euros? So what? Anyone wanting to buy it will simply swap their dollars, yen, renmimbi, pounds, krone whatever into euros, pay for it, then when they sell it either get dollars, yen, etc for it or swap the proceeds into whatever they want. As to direct profits that the US makes by being the reserve currency this is mainly to do with the issue of fiat currency...the actual dollar bills...that get stashed under mattresses around the world. Value of about $20 billion a year (it’s known as seignorage). Yes, a tasty chunk of change but in the context of their $12 trillion a year economy, not worth really worrying over.
  11. Nice try realistbear, but anyone who writes "Im appauled by the evil Christian neo - cons 'chosen race' arrogant attitude to other cultures and the enviroment." and apparently means it, is impervious to argument. In fact is a prime example of the kind of thinking excoriated in Coulter's excellent book "Godless".
  12. What we have here is a classic example of two parties each with something to offer and each needing something the others don't have. Iraq has oil reserves and resources. What it does not have is capital and expertise to develop these reserves quickly and efficiently (their oil industry has been deprived of capital, spare parts and new technology for the better part of 15 years remember). The big oil companies have the expertise, the capital and the new technologies. They also have a market. They need crude oil. Iraq will offer the development and pumping contracts in exchange for tax, royalties and employment. All those employed Iraqis will pay income tax on their earnings. There will be duty and VAt paid on imported parts and equipment. Interestingly enough, there was a chap at Wits University a few years ago doing post-grad research into the total financial benefit to a country when a mineral resource was exploited. He didn't just look at the tax and royalty payments, but the whole financial inflow to the country. His preliminary research showed that the majority of the cash value of the reserve actually stayed in the country the foreign company took by far the smaller portion. I would say Iraq is in the stronger position in this negotiation as they control the oil and there are several companies in Britain and the US alone who would be willing to bid for the pumping contract. Since I doubt the descendants of one of the oldest trading civilisations on earth have lost any of their business acumen a good Iraqi negotiating team will probably get a pretty tasty deal from whichever companies do win the contracts. Perhaps if these mugus from the tofu weaving classes actually took their heads out of their bums every once in a while, they'd see that what is being proposed in Iraq is entirely normal and could even be seen as a sign of development. If the oil industry is interested in setting up long term contracts it means they have a reasonably favourable view of that country's future.
  13. Or 1929, scenes like this happened in London too. Take in the scene. People queuing in a civilised manner. They're even smartly dressed. I cannot imagine seeing people behaving with this type of decorum in Britain in hard times. The attitude now is that good manners are for suckers.
  14. I was leafing through Abu Hamza’s sermons this afternoon. OK, he’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and I wouldn’t vote for him myself. But in his wider argument that the UK is a moral cesspit and that the British are filthy drunken animals, I thought he made some valid points. "They want only to look at nude pictures, go to football matches, have a few pints and go to sleep." This is not an ignorant ill-informed caricature; it is actually quite accurate, and the only riposte I can think of is that it beats blowing yourself up.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.