The Times.."work Longer Or Allow More Immigration"

[Prescience]

why not make him make us all white, English speaking, god fearing Christians!

then you don’t need to close "your" borders.

You used to go around proudly proclaiming you were a xenophobe until you found out it was a bad thing you really are an odd one jess. Ill put it down to old age….

It is so sad that the young 'uns only have the revisionist version of "History" they were sort of taught, by Lefty Liberal Ivory Tower Dwelling Pinko Do Gooder "teachers" to use as a comparitive yardstick, by which to adjudge which society was preferrable.

If you had any experience of what such as Churchill stood for and had lived through, for example, the aftermath of World War II, then rather than sneer and try (and fail) to poke fun, you would enjoy, inevitably, a wholly different perspective.

Your knowledge and experience of "War" is what you see in movies: and it is mainly false.

This Lefty Utopia which masquerades as Once Great Britain is a mere shadow of its former self: it's like a ravaged whore strutting her stuff outside Bayswater Tube Station, 'cos she is too raddled to work anymore in Park Lane.

Britain, today, is a Godless morally bankrupt apology for a nation state: four decades of self-indulgence and the belief in the right to instant gratification; over-pre-occupation with self at the expense of others: and the constant secondhand drip-fed perspective of either marketeers with concepts to sell, or idiot politicians and social "Reformers" have so clouded the average person's knowledge, judgement and vision, we are left with a majority unable to adequately balance what is good from what is fundamentally bad.

It ought to be abundantly clear even to the intellectually challenged, that Aunt Jess writes from a position of considerable experience and a solid academic background: at least this lady can write decent English and uses verbs correctly: and employs adverbs and adjectives in the right places. One sees little in terms of gerunds and tautology: let alone split infinitives.

Oh that the majority of posters on this board enjoyed similar prowess!

It is easier to sneer than respect, isn't it?

[wickywackywoo]

why not make him make us all white, English speaking, god fearing Christians!

then you don’t need to close "your" borders.

You used to go around proudly proclaiming you were a xenophobe until you found out it was a bad thing you really are an odd one jess. Ill put it down to old age….

You'll be old as well one day cells. You might have grown up a bit by then and have started living in the same world as the rest of us by then.

[Guest joeschmo]

You'll be old as well one day cells. You might have grown up a bit by then and have started living in the same world as the rest of us by then.

Poor bloke if he has to inhabit your sad little world

[Guest Skinty]

Britain, today, is a Godless morally bankrupt apology for a nation state:

Well, at least it has something going for it then.

It's a shame though that religion is on the rise because of immigration.

[wickywackywoo]

Poor bloke if he has to inhabit your sad little world

There is no world sadder than that of somebody stupid enough to still be voting Labour.

[Guest AuntJess]

why not make him make us all white, English speaking, god fearing Christians!

then you don’t need to close "your" borders.

You used to go around proudly proclaiming you were a xenophobe until you found out it was a bad thing you really are an odd one jess. Ill put it down to old age….

Please do! I know what it is to be young: you don't know what it is to be old. Maybe life experience will inform you..Maybe.

Would that educators and parents adhered to this maxim.

I do beseech you to direct your efforts more to preparing youth for the path and less to preparing the path for the youth.- Ben Lindsey

[whiterabbit]

so lets get this right in your mind..................

its ok to describe the hundreds of thousands of foreigners as 3rd world trash....

do you know the queens husband, father off prince Charles, prince William and price Harry is a foreigner? is he 3rd world trash as well?

your truly are a dickhead.

you are describing a problem with our system. if benefits are too lax then the answer isn’t to not let immigrants arrive, it is to tighten benefits.

where did i say that?

i quite clearly said if i were old i would emigrate to get more bang for my buck. it is a simple logical fact that old people in the uk would do well to emigrate.

oh so the immigrants which make up 10% of the population are taking all the benefits. is that right?

if we chuck them out your going to live in utopia with no tax and three full time carers for every old person in the country.

they are doing well because of utterly ignorant fools like yourself who are so stupid that they blame their ills on foreigners rather than looking in the mirror.

I love it.......... a spotty little p***k like you just and of school who knows it all yet has done f**k all.

FWIW I don't blame my ills on immigrants as personally I am doing very well thanks. I do however blame a significant portion of the problems I see with this country on recent 3rd world immigration and multiculturalism.

Ever add up how much it costs to put all the asylum seekers in nice houses in London etc? My ex girlfriend paid 550k for her flat in W14 and her neighbor on the same landing is an asylum seeker from Columbia! Are you seriously saying if the real figures came out as to the cost of immigration and that money was instead given to our own indiginous people they wouldn't be better off? Then again that suits people like you who want to bring everyone down to the same level.

Prince Phillip is hardly 3rd world trash. He is not from the 3rd world. Take a drive through some of our more recently enriched areas and you can see for yourself what I am referring to.

Then again I have a brain and life experience of working and paying taxes as opposed to being an indoctrinated PC schoolboy.

[wickywackywoo]

I love it.......... a spotty little p***k like you just and of school who knows it all yet has done f**k all.

FWIW I don't blame my ills on immigrants as personally I am doing very well thanks. I do however blame a significant portion of the problems I see with this country on recent 3rd world immigration and multiculturalism.

Ever add up how much it costs to put all the asylum seekers in nice houses in London etc? My ex girlfriend paid 550k for her flat in W14 and her neighbor on the same landing is an asylum seeker from Columbia! Are you seriously saying if the real figures came out as to the cost of immigration and that money was instead given to our own indiginous people they wouldn't be better off? Then again that suits people like you who want to bring everyone down to the same level.

Prince Phillip is hardly 3rd world trash. He is not from the 3rd world. Take a drive through some of our more recently enriched areas and you can see for yourself what I am referring to.

Then again I have a brain and life experience of working and paying taxes as opposed to being an indoctrinated PC schoolboy.

A good point. We're told again and again how little immigrants are costing - mars bar a day blah blah blah, but I have always thought this to be complete and utter nonsense.

I suspect the the real cost of immigration in monetary terms is absolutely f*cking huge. Government (in particular this one) are so incompetent they are not capable of pulling all the figures involved from different departments/councils etc and adding them up correctly. In many cases I doubt the figures are even available and in many cases suppressed. I'll bet the rampant health tourism, immigrants claiming Child Benefit/Childrens Tax Credits etc for kids in their home country aren't available.

We've all seen and heard of numerous examples like your ex-girlfriend's flat. Remember that the tax take has doubled in the last ten years - where's it all gone. My guess is that if the real figures were available as to how much of our money has been given away to foreigners, there'd be serious riots. The British people are having the p1ss taken BIG TIME.

[I_Claudius]

It is so sad that the young 'uns only have the revisionist version of "History" they were sort of taught, by Lefty Liberal Ivory Tower Dwelling Pinko Do Gooder "teachers" to use as a comparitive yardstick, by which to adjudge which society was preferrable.

If you had any experience of what such as Churchill stood for and had lived through, for example, the aftermath of World War II, then rather than sneer and try (and fail) to poke fun, you would enjoy, inevitably, a wholly different perspective.

Your knowledge and experience of "War" is what you see in movies: and it is mainly false.

This Lefty Utopia which masquerades as Once Great Britain is a mere shadow of its former self: it's like a ravaged whore strutting her stuff outside Bayswater Tube Station, 'cos she is too raddled to work anymore in Park Lane.

Britain, today, is a Godless morally bankrupt apology for a nation state: four decades of self-indulgence and the belief in the right to instant gratification; over-pre-occupation with self at the expense of others: and the constant secondhand drip-fed perspective of either marketeers with concepts to sell, or idiot politicians and social "Reformers" have so clouded the average person's knowledge, judgement and vision, we are left with a majority unable to adequately balance what is good from what is fundamentally bad.

It ought to be abundantly clear even to the intellectually challenged, that Aunt Jess writes from a position of considerable experience and a solid academic background: at least this lady can write decent English and uses verbs correctly: and employs adverbs and adjectives in the right places. One sees little in terms of gerunds and tautology: let alone split infinitives.

Oh that the majority of posters on this board enjoyed similar prowess!

It is easier to sneer than respect, isn't it?

Hate to say it but you can come across more than a bit pompous in the post above imho.

4 generations ago it was generally accepted that men with no property and all women shouldn't have the vote, that poor houses were a great way to deal with poverty, exploitation of the working man was far, far worse than it is now, a lack of universal healthcare contributed to a life expectancy of 50, homosexuality was illegal etc etc etc

Painting a rosy picture of an all white morally superior utopian history isn't that accurate imo; we've progressed (and also in some ways regressed) a lot over the last 100 years or so.

[SHERWICK]

A good point. We're told again and again how little immigrants are costing - mars bar a day blah blah blah, but I have always thought this to be complete and utter nonsense.

In fairness, the report said that the immigrants were making us a mars bar a week, not costing us.

Also, it said that the immigrants were making a mars bar 'per person', though probably complete and utter nonsense in any case.

[wickywackywoo]

In fairness, the report said that the immigrants were making us a mars bar a week, not costing us.

Also, it said that the immigrants were making a mars bar 'per person', though probably complete and utter nonsense in any case.

Well, where's my mars bar then?

[wickywackywoo]

In fairness, the report said that the immigrants were making us a mars bar a week, not costing us.

Also, it said that the immigrants were making a mars bar 'per person', though probably complete and utter nonsense in any case.

Well, where's my mars bar then?

[I_Claudius]

Pompous? Do I detect a bit of green eye there, because of the way he puts his elegant prose forward?

The pomposity I referred to had nothing to do with his writing style, it was (I thought obviously) the content, the pertinent bits of which I highlighted.

Are you racially blind against white people then I Claudius?

Because no where in Prescience's post, do I read him referring to race?

Or have we found out your agenda?

You might want to check the context (a thread about immigration by other races into the UK) and the post to which his reply was made.

why not make him make us all white, English speaking, god fearing Christians!

then you don’t need to close "your" borders.

[oracle]

So the economic benefit works out at a mars bar a week.

benefit to whom?

what about the social consequences of creating a hyper-competitive job market and burgeoning benifit-dependent underclass?

can't really be defined in terms of mars bars,but is certainly detrimental.

[Prescience]

Hate to say it but you can come across more than a bit pompous in the post above imho.

4 generations ago it was generally accepted that men with no property and all women shouldn't have the vote, that poor houses were a great way to deal with poverty, exploitation of the working man was far, far worse than it is now, a lack of universal healthcare contributed to a life expectancy of 50, homosexuality was illegal etc etc etc

Painting a rosy picture of an all white morally superior utopian history isn't that accurate imo; we've progressed (and also in some ways regressed) a lot over the last 100 years or so.

Well I know that kids start screwing at ever younger ages, but I do find it hard to visualise four generations in four decades: which is what I wrote.

Do you know the difference between "Generations" and "Decades"?

[I_Claudius]

Well I know that kids start screwing at ever younger ages, but I do find it hard to visualise four generations in four decades: which is what I wrote.

Do you know the difference between "Generations" and "Decades"?

oops.........

Got to hold up my hands to that, I totally misread your initial post.

My genuine apologies.

Why do you choose 40 years as your frame of reference out of interest?

[Guest anorthosite]

Well, where's my mars bar then?

Here you go:

[whiterabbit]

You know when there is discussion around immigrants all the government try and justify is some kind of quantifiable "hard costs" to do with extra workers paying tax this year only etc which is still all boll**ks.

All other real costs are hidden in different buckets that can't be audited easily or in expansion of governement/local services etc to meet new needs.

What about the soft costs that can't be measured directly in production terms but hit at a later stage and never stop. Things like extra crime, extra NHS, councils hiring interpretors, prison spaces, prisons hiring imans, policing of multicultiural demonstrations, schools, constant immigrant lawsuits, detention camps, transports of illegals back to country of origin, children taken into care etc etc.

Basically to measure the true cost of a non lifetime working immigrant would lead to a staggering amount in the multiple millons per person over a lifetime at least. One asylum seeking family alone in London must run direct costs of over 60k a year plus all the other soft costs. Multiply this by 20 or 30 years and by 100,000s of non working immigrants and you could probably lower the retirement age for indiginous people if all the money was re-directed.

Of course no one seems to be running these numbers even if only to dispute the above................

[Guest AuntJess]

You know when there is discussion around immigrants all the government try and justify is some kind of quantifiable "hard costs" to do with extra workers paying tax this year only etc which is still all boll**ks.

All other real costs are hidden in different buckets that can't be audited easily or in expansion of governement/local services etc to meet new needs.

What about the soft costs that can't be measured directly in production terms but hit at a later stage and never stop. Things like extra crime, extra NHS, councils hiring interpretors, prison spaces, prisons hiring imans, policing of multicultiural demonstrations, schools, constant immigrant lawsuits, detention camps, transports of illegals back to country of origin, children taken into care etc etc.

Basically to measure the true cost of a non lifetime working immigrant would lead to a staggering amount in the multiple millons per person over a lifetime at least. One asylum seeking family alone in London must run direct costs of over 60k a year plus all the other soft costs. Multiply this by 20 or 30 years and by 100,000s of non working immigrants and you could probably lower the retirement age for indiginous people if all the money was re-directed.

Of course no one seems to be running these numbers even if only to dispute the above................

You forgot one.. at least. The FMU

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/nat...-marriage-unit/

[cells]

You know when there is discussion around immigrants all the government try and justify is some kind of quantifiable "hard costs" to do with extra workers paying tax this year only etc which is still all boll**ks.

All other real costs are hidden in different buckets that can't be audited easily or in expansion of governement/local services etc to meet new needs.

What about the soft costs that can't be measured directly in production terms but hit at a later stage and never stop. Things like extra crime, extra NHS, councils hiring interpretors, prison spaces, prisons hiring imans, policing of multicultiural demonstrations, schools, constant immigrant lawsuits, detention camps, transports of illegals back to country of origin, children taken into care etc etc.

Basically to measure the true cost of a non lifetime working immigrant would lead to a staggering amount in the multiple millons per person over a lifetime at least. One asylum seeking family alone in London must run direct costs of over 60k a year plus all the other soft costs. Multiply this by 20 or 30 years and by 100,000s of non working immigrants and you could probably lower the retirement age for indiginous people if all the money was re-directed.

Of course no one seems to be running these numbers even if only to dispute the above................

I suggest you cover up, your ignorance is showing dear!

Sure there are immigrant families which are big drains, just like there are English families which are big drains. However there are also very productive immigrants.

I know a Sri Lankan family, the mother and farther are both GPs. The eldest son will be starting his 6th and final year at medicine school at imperial college. The youngest son is in the 4th year of medicine school at Cambridge. The daughter is surprise surprise also doing medicine starting this September. How much tax do you think that family of 5 pays and will pay in the future? Plus they took little from the state. The children were all privately educated and presumably they haven’t used the NHS much. Also they are one of the nicest families I know.

But no, pretending immigrants are all 3rd world scum that take your jobs and create misery is the Nazi stance.

Do you have one of these tattooed on your **** by any chance?

[Guest AuntJess]

He doesn't refer to race does he?

All he states (as far as I can see) is what is happening on a daily basis with regards Africans targeting geting Britain as a destination.

Nothing wrong in that.

The post you highlight is from cells and it is he (cells) which makes a poor assumption I would suggest.

Nope. Nothing wrong with wanting to preserve a decent standard of living - for self and family - and reap the rewards of one's own investment in the country of one's birth, instead of witnessing the dreadful effects of indiscriminate immigration - year in, year out. Wholesale immigration which was never in any manifesto and has never been ratified by the British public.

Instead we have specious claims and all to often find the need to cite Godwin's law. If anything we should be making more of the fact that, despite the PTB's insistence that we are a democracy, we are - in effect - in a dictatorship.

I can only assume that the hard liners in the 'we must throw open our borders to the world without any kind of censure', to have been brainwashed in the school system - which has been hitting the skids for decades, and which has been becoming increasingly left-wing - or themselves be undeserving recipients of the taxpayer's largesse..or both.

[Prescience]

oops.........

Got to hold up my hands to that, I totally misread your initial post.

My genuine apologies.

Why do you choose 40 years as your frame of reference out of interest?

Fair question. And a very critical question, too.

In the 1960s, there was a Post WWII upsurge of socio-economic revolution. After the austerity and privation of firstly the 1930s and then a global war which effectively bankrupted Britain and placed us in hock for many years to the USA, economic activity boomed from circa 1955. Younger people suddenly had much greater levels of disposable income: Socialism was seen as the answer to hundreds of years of aristocratic exploitation and ownership of nearly everything: and most of the capital.

Aided and abetted by such as the Oxford graduates who spawned Beyond the Fringe, Private Eye, The Establishment Club and etc, the social order changed, fairly rapidly. The Rule Book was effectively screwed up: and thrown away.

Unfortunately, no one (as so often happens) intent on breaking up established social mores thought to create and develop a new Rule Book.

It was no different to Dubya Bush: invading Iraq but having no plan to manage the "Peace"!

By the 1970s, the simple credo became perhaps "I can do anything I want to do And damn the consequences!"

Simultaneously, as the working class enjoyed greater disposable income, the marketeers increasingly addressed the Nirvana of new markets, not before extant.

The old political and social order relating to government, jurisprudence, banking and land ownership persisted with perhaps one singular difference: a new breed of self-serving amoral and venal politician realised they could boost themselves to fame and fortune by promising to right all society's ills: and miraculously square the fiscal circle and really at last, re-distribute wealth on a more equitable basis: the dreams of Herbert Asquith and his "People's Budget" would at least be realised!

Trouble was, the "Wealth" they were re-distributing was not the centuries old aristocratic wealth (Using Trusts expensive tax lawyers and clever tax planning the aristos had not only preserved their fortunes but added to it), but the common man's taxes merely recycled.

So, why did I pick a forty year time spectrum? Being of an age, I enjoyed first hand experience of firstly the trends: and the accelerating change thereafter.

And none of it has been change for the good.

And now to address your earlier post.

Hate to say it but you can come across more than a bit pompous in the post above imho.

4 generations ago it was generally accepted that men with no property and all women shouldn't have the vote, that poor houses were a great way to deal with poverty, exploitation of the working man was far, far worse than it is now, a lack of universal healthcare contributed to a life expectancy of 50, homosexuality was illegal etc etc etc

Painting a rosy picture of an all white morally superior utopian history isn't that accurate imo; we've progressed (and also in some ways regressed) a lot over the last 100 years or so.

An excellent example of real racism at work!

Where did I mention anything about a "White morally superior utopia"?

What I do robustly maintain, is that stable societies are preferred to unstable societies.

One of the key flaws in the basic concept of "Multiculturalism" is trying to organise any non-homogenous dynamic social group where no one clear culture pertains.

Much of my professional work until a few years ago was in consultancy: when large companies merge, one Corporate Culture must prevail. If not, then the result is chaos.

Imagine a huge group which is, over time, the result of perhaps the merger and acquisition of 15 companies. Now imagine the business where those constituent 15 parts all stick like glue to the ethos and Corporate Culture of the original operations!

Where people have no Rule Book to follow, then once again, the result is chaos.

And this is precisely what Britain now suffers: Social Chaos, engineered by idiot Liberals and political idealogues.

[Prescience]

I suggest you cover up, your ignorance is showing dear!

Sure there are immigrant families which are big drains, just like there are English families which are big drains. However there are also very productive immigrants.

I know a Sri Lankan family, the mother and farther are both GPs. The eldest son will be starting his 6th and final year at medicine school at imperial college. The youngest son is in the 4th year of medicine school at Cambridge. The daughter is surprise surprise also doing medicine starting this September. How much tax do you think that family of 5 pays and will pay in the future? Plus they took little from the state. The children were all privately educated and presumably they haven’t used the NHS much. Also they are one of the nicest families I know.

But no, pretending immigrants are all 3rd world scum that take your jobs and create misery is the Nazi stance.

Do you have one of these tattooed on your **** by any chance?

What a damned fool your are cells!

Why is it that you advocates of unfettered mass immigration must always try and justify your idiot position by citing the unique?

It is, as always, the exception that proves the rule.

The core problem with this unmanaged disaster is that the vast majority of immigrants couldn't speak proper English, refused to adopt the cultural mores of their new land and had and have little apposite work skills to offer Britain!

[Guest AuntJess]

Fair question. And a very critical question, too.

In the 1960s, there was a Post WWII upsurge of socio-economic revolution. After the austerity and privation of firstly the 1930s and then a global war which effectively bankrupted Britain and placed us in hock for many years to the USA, economic activity boomed from circa 1955. Younger people suddenly had much greater levels of disposable income: Socialism was seen as the answer to hundreds of years of aristocratic exploitation and ownership of nearly everything: and most of the capital.

Aided and abetted by such as the Oxford graduates who spawned Beyond the Fringe, Private Eye, The Establishment Club and etc, the social order changed, fairly rapidly. The Rule Book was effectively screwed up: and thrown away.

Unfortunately, no one (as so often happens) intent on breaking up established social mores thought to create and develop a new Rule Book.

It was no different to Dubya Bush: invading Iraq but having no plan to manage the "Peace"!

By the 1970s, the simple credo became perhaps "I can do anything I want to do And damn the consequences!"

Simultaneously, as the working class enjoyed greater disposable income, the marketeers increasingly addressed the Nirvana of new markets, not before extant.

The old political and social order relating to government, jurisprudence, banking and land ownership persisted with perhaps one singular difference: a new breed of self-serving amoral and venal politician realised they could boost themselves to fame and fortune by promising to right all society's ills: and miraculously square the fiscal circle and really at last, re-distribute wealth on a more equitable basis: the dreams of Herbert Asquith and his "People's Budget" would at least be realised!

Trouble was, the "Wealth" they were re-distributing was not the centuries old aristocratic wealth (Using Trusts expensive tax lawyers and clever tax planning the aristos had not only preserved their fortunes but added to it), but the common man's taxes merely recycled.

So, why did I pick a forty year time spectrum? Being of an age, I enjoyed first hand experience of firstly the trends: and the accelerating change thereafter.

And none of it has been change for the good.

And now to address your earlier post.

An excellent example of real racism at work!

Where did I mention anything about a "White morally superior utopia"?

What I do robustly maintain, is that stable societies are preferred to unstable societies.

One of the key flaws in the basic concept of "Multiculturalism" is trying to organise any non-homogenous dynamic social group where no one clear culture pertains.

Much of my professional work until a few years ago was in consultancy: when large companies merge, one Corporate Culture must prevail. If not, then the result is chaos.

Imagine a huge group which is, over time, the result of perhaps the merger and acquisition of 15 companies. Now imagine the business where those constituent 15 parts all stick like glue to the ethos and Corporate Culture of the original operations!

Where people have no Rule Book to follow, then once again, the result is chaos.

And this is precisely what Britain now suffers: Social Chaos, engineered by idiot Liberals and political idealogues.

Wow! Who the hell can improve on that exposition? Certainly none of the pro-multi-culturalists, as I believe them to hold these views due to a lack of insight into all manner of disciplines, which might inform them of the folly of such a policy.

[dispossessed]

Mmmm, seems a bit bubble like to me.