Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

davidg

Bbc Programme On Immimgration

Recommended Posts

Did anyone catch the BBC programme on immigration with Margaret Harpie and Nick Sourpuss? I assume it was the usual BBC propaganda.

I saw about 5 minutes before the news where Nick, who looked like he was sucking a lemon, asked a legal expert if it was really true that immigrants caused all the crime as UKIP and their supporters suggested. Not at all was the reply, immigrants are under represented in the crime figures. To this Nick, who now looked like he'd swallowed a turd, comments, there you have it, pure propaganda by anti immigration nutjobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people actually come over here to do crime!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people actually come over here to do crime!

Be fair, Mr P - they're the ones who usually hot foot it back home to avoid bring caught. Or they're passengers in the Hercules aircraft that takes recalcitrants back home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A BBC programme on immigration...

I didn't watch it but let me guess the conclusion:

Immigration is great, immigrants are great. If you think anything else you are a bigoted racist idiot who reads the Daily Mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone catch the BBC programme on immigration with Margaret Harpie and Nick Sourpuss? I assume it was the usual BBC propaganda.

I saw about 5 minutes before the news where Nick, who looked like he was sucking a lemon, asked a legal expert if it was really true that immigrants caused all the crime as UKIP and their supporters suggested. Not at all was the reply, immigrants are under represented in the crime figures. To this Nick, who now looked like he'd swallowed a turd, comments, there you have it, pure propaganda by anti immigration nutjobs.

One of the conclusions was that British youngsters need to grow tits, share a house with 20 others and everything will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That pair are typical of the elites who would continue to let immigrants pour in.

They are neither going to be living next door to them nor competing with them for unskilled jobs so do not see why people would have a problem with immigration unless they're thick racist bigots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your idea of what might be an 'immigrant' probably isn't the same one they're using.

Like theirs probably doesn't include people who were born here...whereas yours may do?

erm, why would someone who was born in the UK be considered an immigrant? very odd comment of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed a lot more romainian/bulgarian type people hanging around and wandering around town. They tend to be in families or large groups, short stature and overweight and with poor taste in clothing. The office where I work is close to a HMRC office that coordinated the benefits, so and sometimes they mistakenly think my workplace is HMRC and the receptionist gets an earful of abuse. The propaganda tells me there is something going on to our disadvantage, but its a mystery in terms of who benefits because they do not appear to be good employee material.

What puzzles me is why does UK benefits system allow this? If, say UK unemployed folks wanted to live in a Spanish area off the backs of the Spanish taxpayer then would that be allowed, or is the UK unique rewarding this behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed a lot more romainian/bulgarian type people hanging around and wandering around town. They tend to be in families or large groups, short stature and overweight and with poor taste in clothing. The office where I work is close to a HMRC office that coordinated the benefits, so and sometimes they mistakenly think my workplace is HMRC and the receptionist gets an earful of abuse. The propaganda tells me there is something going on to our disadvantage, but its a mystery in terms of who benefits because they do not appear to be good employee material.

What puzzles me is why does UK benefits system allow this? If, say UK unemployed folks wanted to live in a Spanish area off the backs of the Spanish taxpayer then would that be allowed, or is the UK unique rewarding this behaviour?

The older I get, the more of the world I see, and the more I realise that the UK 1930-1975 was a truely exceptional place where politeness, social cohesion, and a social safety net paid for by all and shared by all was a miracle of social fairness. Yes, it wasnt perfect, but it was pretty good and improving over time.

Unfortunately, it all relied upon the underlying culture being based on

i) seeing almost all brits as your fellow subject, so not minding paying tax for their support

ii) shame in claiming, so false/overclaiming was reduced

iii) lack of cultural things such as cousin marrying /drug taking impacting the NHS

iv) social pressures against single motherhood (see native brit community for how this is impacting benefit costs compared to 50 years ago)

v) pride in education

vi) looking down on uncouthness

vii) a relatively uncorrupted political system to limit pork barrelling

Each of the above is gone, and largely because the brits assumed that all cultures were as nice as theirs, and also that the planners failed to consider that behaviours change in response to the rewards on offer. Single mother 50 years ago = penniless and shamed. Single mother now = accomodation and income.

I don't see how it can be got back. I suspect we will move towards a system of you only get out what you get in, but in the longer term we are going back to the workhouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigration = growth....people just another commodity. :unsure:

Ah ha! yes! More people buy more sausages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the program, and it was very one sided - it was pro immigration. Now, I do think most migrants (I say most, as I was only half watching it) shown in the program was a benefit, and did, as a whole, benefit the country. I did also show how the few unemployed Brits couldn't really be arsed to find a job, and saw themselves above low paid jobs.

But there was another program called Benefits Britain which I had recorded, and each episode focused on different type of benefit claimants. The program I refer to shown how an people came from Romania, worked shelf employed for a while to get an NI number, and then claimed as many benefits as possible - including all associated child benefits, where their young children lived back home with their mother. Also, others who came here just for NHS treatment.

Like everything, there are two sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the program, and it was very one sided - it was pro immigration. Now, I do think most migrants (I say most, as I was only half watching it) shown in the program was a benefit, and did, as a whole, benefit the country

I don't. People are people, we don't want or need more people. Whilst some people benefit the country more than others no-one (or at least very few) are that great that it's worth piling them in by the thousands. We'd be better off trying to get our own wastes of space a bit more worthwhile. I'd be happy enough swapping them with useful people from abroad (but would prefer them to just go and no-one come back in return) but who would want them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your idea of what might be an 'immigrant' probably isn't the same one they're using.

Like theirs probably doesn't include people who were born here...whereas yours may do?

You still complain about the Norman immigrants of 1066.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the first one, and didn't get the impression it was either pro or anti immigration. It certainly pointed out that wage levels had fallen in trades, and found a Polish building boss who didn't employ Brits, to the annoyance of the young worker looking for a job. However it also showed a smart French girl who'd got a cafe job, and demonstrated to a young Brit that perhaps he too could get such a job if only he stopped looking for warehouse work. All very well, but those jobs tend to be allocated to overqualified euro bimbos, both m and f, see pret a manger. On the other side we had an older couple from Ilford stating that all the old community stuff such as community dancing and bingoetc had disappeared since the immigrants had moved in. I fear that they may have seen thosee changes in many parts of all white England, modern life has changed many things. But overall a good first episode, and I wish I had seen the following programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the level of crime amongst immigrants would be lower than the average[+]. The majority of immigration over the last decade or so has come from EU countries and I would imagine those people have been attracted to the UK by its open and dynamic work environment. If you come to work you don't come to commit crimes and risk getting booted out. So Nic Hewers faux rage at finding out this obvious truth (which he must have known already) confirmed my prejudging of the programme. Indeed I believe Farage's claim wasn't that immigrants commit more crime but that he had been told by London police sources that certain ethnic groups were responsible for a large number of certain crimes (Scottish bankers and white collar fraud for example :-) ). Hewer sets up a straw man argument that immigrants commit more crime.

[+] I don't know if the UK breaks crime down by country of origin but they do in Switzerland where French, German and British immigrants commit few offences (including driving) than locals but Serbians and Romanians are vastly over represented in statistics. Romanians (largely Roma) for petty theft and Serbians in organized crime. There is a discussion to have around those sort of statistics. It may be that, on balance, despite certain drawbacks, that an open immigration policy wrt to EU states is a good thing but Hewer's lemon sucking didn't give me the impression this programme would have that discussion; but I note the post above this one by Trampa501 with interest; which is why I started this thread. Maybe one to watch on catch-up. Hewer and Margaret wosserface are not my favourite presenters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the program, and it was very one sided - it was pro immigration. Now, I do think most migrants (I say most, as I was only half watching it) shown in the program was a benefit, and did, as a whole, benefit the country. I did also show how the few unemployed Brits couldn't really be arsed to find a job, and saw themselves above low paid jobs.

But there was another program called Benefits Britain which I had recorded, and each episode focused on different type of benefit claimants. The program I refer to shown how an people came from Romania, worked shelf employed for a while to get an NI number, and then claimed as many benefits as possible - including all associated child benefits, where their young children lived back home with their mother. Also, others who came here just for NHS treatment.

Like everything, there are two sides.

You make a very good point. There is both good and bad in all of this and whilst we should be encouraging the young professionals, even semi skilled trades from the rest of the zone who want to get on and work all the time we have a benefits system which is 'needs' based rather than 'contribution' based we will get a proportion of free-loaders.

The Romanians portrayed on the CH5 program are the bottom end of the pile. They are not here to work and get on they are here to make best use of the benefit (and health) system whilst at the same time putting very little back in the way of economic value into society.

I would have had a lot more respect for the BBC program if it had showed the very worst abuses alongside the best contributions erto the French girl waiting on. They are supposed to be the anti bias publicly funded station and they do not present the true picture.

Instead that is left to marginal channels like 5.

Bottom line of all of this is it comes down to the way our benefits system is organised and it is fair to point out at this juncture that there are also significant levels of abuse from within the indigenous communities.

There needs to be a fundamental radical will within Government to deal with this, moving the benefit system from needs to contribution like the rest of the EU. Until that happens the UK will be a feckless immigrant magnet and it will attract ever more people till there are real problems with public services, schools the NHS ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the first one, and didn't get the impression it was either pro or anti immigration. It certainly pointed out that wage levels had fallen in trades, and found a Polish building boss who didn't employ Brits, to the annoyance of the young worker looking for a job. However it also showed a smart French girl who'd got a cafe job, and demonstrated to a young Brit that perhaps he too could get such a job if only he stopped looking for warehouse work. All very well, but those jobs tend to be allocated to overqualified euro bimbos, both m and f, see pret a manger. On the other side we had an older couple from Ilford stating that all the old community stuff such as community dancing and bingoetc had disappeared since the immigrants had moved in. I fear that they may have seen thosee changes in many parts of all white England, modern life has changed many things. But overall a good first episode, and I wish I had seen the following programme.

I saw the first one and thought it was well balanced however by the 2nd one it was very much one sided in supporting immigration. It didn't help that they focussed only on the immigrants bringing value and didnt bother to seek out the not so positive ones!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate the manipulation of basic logic for the purposes of propaganda. Immigrants as a whole being underrepresented in crime statistics could mean all sorts of things. The most likely one being that some types of immigrant are underrepresented, some over, with a overall skew to lower criminality. The idea that because, say, French immigrants Asa whole are very law abiding and a great asset to the UK means that it's somehow wrong to ask whether that also applies to other groups is preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most countries in EU have a contribution based benefit system, no payment in, no benefits. Here it is needs based, so if you have no money and no job you will be eligible for ALL benefits even though you have not paid in. Many years ago we had a contribution based system where if you became unemployed the amount you received was based on your previous salary.

So at the General Election, we need to vote only for those candidates who guarantee to revert to a contribution based system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at the General Election, we need to vote only for those candidates who guarantee to revert to a contribution based system.

None of them will. The stark reality of it all comes down to one fundamental. It is discriminatory to treat Euro citizens (from elsewhere in the zone) differently from the indigenous population in benefit and social mobility claims.

Means the same for home grown citizens. In many parts of the Country some families have been on these benefits for generations. To cut those from under them would very possibly lead to social disorder.

Not to mention the inequality of housing benefit and all the rest of it which go some way to propping significant parts of the economy up. Other parts like the main supermarkets rely on low paid part time workers as part of their business models. If working tax(payer) support was removed it would mean them having to pay a reasonable living wage.

Duncan Smith had a go with Universal Credit (not the answer but at least a start on the road) but as we know from these pages that has been behest with all sorts of teething problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.