talkFORUM Archive

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:English is now a foreign language in London, says Terence Stamp

"It’s very sad how few English people there are in London now"
"When I grew up in East London everyone seemed to speak English, and now you can barely get by speaking our own language."


Who can disagree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Stamp.html

He must have hated all the Yiddish being spoken in Whitechapel and the Italian in Shoreditch and Clerkenwell while growing up.

London is a global city, which looks beyond the confines of the goldfish bowl it inhabits. Part of that package is to have a global make up.

There've always been enclaves in major cities tick, - the scale of the transformation to encompass the majority of our capital is a different universe altogether.
It is this inability to recognise the difference that much of the blame can be placed.
It is a pity that so few in the public eye (and therefore having a voice) highlight the elephant in the room.

The world is a changing place with cities leading the way in transformation, dominating evermore the economic, technological and political agendas of the day. Cities like New York, London, Los Angeles, Toronto, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Dubai are highly mixed with cities like Hong Kong not far behind.

Advances in travel and communication technology as well as social cooperation make for a more mixed environment. It is not without its challenges but it is how our social structure is evolving and expanding.

No-one has stated that the issue is unique to London.
The 'issue' being rate of change, which I would say is not the 'evolution' you suggest but rather social engineering, and the resulting 'problem' is one of lack of integration which has resulted in the change that the actor in question mentions.

Roy Twing wrote:No-one has stated that the issue is unique to London.
The 'issue' being rate of change, which I would say is not the 'evolution' you suggest but rather social engineering, and the resulting 'problem' is one of lack of integration which has resulted in the change that the actor in question mentions.

It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased, helped by technological advances. Transient populations are a result of that. It is harsh controls that amount to social engineering.

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:No-one has stated that the issue is unique to London.
The 'issue' being rate of change, which I would say is not the 'evolution' you suggest but rather social engineering, and the resulting 'problem' is one of lack of integration which has resulted in the change that the actor in question mentions.

It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased, helped by technological advances. Transient populations are a result of that. It is harsh controls that amount to social engineering.

For starters - if one of the cornerstones of the EU (freedom of movement of people) is not social engineering, I don't know what is.

Japan, South Korea and china are not multicultural and they are all thriving economies years ahead of the rest of the world. British people want to study media studies and hairdressing whereas in Asia they study engineering and robotics.

The Tick wrote:[
It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased

I wouldn't say that society is "flourishing" at the moment. I would say it is more divided than ever since the end of WW2.

As for an increase in trade, well, we are emerging from the worst recession since the early 1930's, which the Eurozone still appears to be in & even China's economy is looking a bit iffy. To equate free movement of labour with a flourishing economy is not necessarily correct.

There is nothing wrong with the free movement of labour, as long as it is skilled and fulfills what a certain country requires (& is prepared to pay for).

Free movement of unskilled labour merely depresses the labour market in the low paid sector and increases the strain on a country's infrastructure (schools, NHS, transport, welfare etc).

theleader82 wrote:Japan, South Korea and china are not multicultural and they are all thriving economies years ahead of the rest of the world. British people want to study media studies and hairdressing whereas in Asia they study engineering and robotics.

China is in trouble.
Have you seen what the government is doing to stop it's stock market crashing?

Roy Twing wrote:
For starters - if one of the cornerstones of the EU (freedom of movement of people) is not social engineering, I don't know what is.

Indeed.

A cornerstone that Dave will not be able to get us out of.

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:No-one has stated that the issue is unique to London.
The 'issue' being rate of change, which I would say is not the 'evolution' you suggest but rather social engineering, and the resulting 'problem' is one of lack of integration which has resulted in the change that the actor in question mentions.

It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased, helped by technological advances. Transient populations are a result of that. It is harsh controls that amount to social engineering.

For starters - if one of the cornerstones of the EU (freedom of movement of people) is not social engineering, I don't know what is.

It simplifies a process that has been going on anyway. The establishment of nation states and creation of borders on natural land/sea itself could be described as social engineering.

There is no deliberate attempt to change the composition of society here.

The Tick wrote: There is no deliberate attempt to change the composition of society here.

Really?

Sorry, Tick - I couldn't disagree more.

Steve Hunt wrote:

The Tick wrote:[
It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased

I wouldn't say that society is "flourishing" at the moment. I would say it is more divided than ever since the end of WW2.

As for an increase in trade, well, we are emerging from the worst recession since the early 1930's, which the Eurozone still appears to be in & even China's economy is looking a bit iffy. To equate free movement of labour with a flourishing economy is not necessarily correct.

There is nothing wrong with the free movement of labour, as long as it is skilled and fulfills what a certain country requires (& is prepared to pay for).

Free movement of unskilled labour merely depresses the labour market in the low paid sector and increases the strain on a country's infrastructure (schools, NHS, transport, welfare etc).

Society is not flourishing in the sense that the poor (of all creeds and backgrounds) are kept down by an economic elite and are reduced to blaming one another.

And the idea that society was any better in the past is also wrong. Poverty and its social strife were more abundant in Britain prior to WWII.

Steve Hunt wrote:

The Tick wrote: There is no deliberate attempt to change the composition of society here.

Really?

Sorry, Tick - I couldn't disagree more.

Economic desperation followed by economic advantage has encouraged immigration (and emigration).

The Tick wrote:
Society is not flourishing in the sense that the poor (of all creeds and backgrounds) are kept down by an economic elite

I agree.

But the question is, how and under what system has this economic elite been able to flourish?

The Tick wrote:

Steve Hunt wrote:

The Tick wrote: There is no deliberate attempt to change the composition of society here.

Really?

Sorry, Tick - I couldn't disagree more.

Economic desperation followed by economic advantage has encouraged immigration (and emigration).

Again, I agree - whilst the economic consequences may be good (or at least temporarily good), the social consequences have been by and large disastrous leading to the divisions in society you have already alluded to.

Steve Hunt wrote:

The Tick wrote:
Society is not flourishing in the sense that the poor (of all creeds and backgrounds) are kept down by an economic elite

I agree.

But the question is, how and under what system has this economic elite been able to flourish?

Neoliberal capitalism. When corporations are able to not give a damn what national governments or people feel.

You only need look at the devastation caused primarily by European and American corporations in the Third World, sometimes going as far as patronising dictatorships and profiting from conflict. The devastation to these countries is partly what encourages people to leave for the wealthier nations. Why stay at home when it has been ruined and your chances of prosperity there have been pulled from under your feet?

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:No-one has stated that the issue is unique to London.
The 'issue' being rate of change, which I would say is not the 'evolution' you suggest but rather social engineering, and the resulting 'problem' is one of lack of integration which has resulted in the change that the actor in question mentions.

It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased, helped by technological advances. Transient populations are a result of that. It is harsh controls that amount to social engineering.

For starters - if one of the cornerstones of the EU (freedom of movement of people) is not social engineering, I don't know what is.

It simplifies a process that has been going on anyway. The establishment of nation states and creation of borders on natural land/sea itself could be described as social engineering.

There is no deliberate attempt to change the composition of society here.

I seem to vaguely recall something to do with 'rubbing the right's noses in something of other'.

Not sure what that comment pertains to.

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:No-one has stated that the issue is unique to London.
The 'issue' being rate of change, which I would say is not the 'evolution' you suggest but rather social engineering, and the resulting 'problem' is one of lack of integration which has resulted in the change that the actor in question mentions.

It is not social engineering. For economies and societies to flourish freedom of movement and trade has increased, helped by technological advances. Transient populations are a result of that. It is harsh controls that amount to social engineering.

For starters - if one of the cornerstones of the EU (freedom of movement of people) is not social engineering, I don't know what is.

It simplifies a process that has been going on anyway. The establishment of nation states and creation of borders on natural land/sea itself could be described as social engineering.

There is no deliberate attempt to change the composition of society here.

I seem to vaguely recall something to do with 'rubbing the right's noses in something of other'.

Ah the Andrew Neather bollocks repeated and repeated and until thick cunts think it's true!

He was right about you and your fellow far rightists though "The Right see plots everywhere and will hyperventilate at the drop of a chapati"

Deep breaths Griffin, deep breaths.

The Tick wrote:Not sure what that comment pertains to.

An article in the Standard years ago, though it'll come as no surprise as Twango has posted it, it's a load of old bollocks.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Neather

The Tick wrote:Not sure what that comment pertains to.

This might help you:

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83

the rotary club wrote:

The Tick wrote:Not sure what that comment pertains to.

An article in the Standard years ago, though it'll come as no surprise as Twango has posted it, it's a load of old bollocks.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Neather

Thanks.

Seems that Roy has decided to mistake the desire to undermine the right's perception of immigrants as a desire to change the demographic composition of an entire nation.

Roy Twing wrote:

The Tick wrote:Not sure what that comment pertains to.

This might help you:

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83

migrationwatch - a one eyed organisation writing for for a one eyed audience, eh Griffin?

The Tick wrote:

the rotary club wrote:

The Tick wrote:Not sure what that comment pertains to.

An article in the Standard years ago, though it'll come as no surprise as Twango has posted it, it's a load of old bollocks.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Neather

Thanks.

Seems that Roy has decided to mistake the desire to undermine the right's perception of immigrants as a desire to change the demographic composition of an entire nation.

Although to be fair he's been aided and abetted by the mainstream media.

He's a propagandists dream.

I've never been able to grasp how anti-EU types throw in the word "socialist" in their attacks.

The EU is in fact Adam Smith's wet dream, the essence of capitalism. National boundaries cannot be used to obstruct the market- we can go where we want if we can find the lowest price; what economists call the "perfect market" As part of it, inevitably, labour can move too, to find the best returns for its work.

It's amazing that this seems to be a surprise now, years later.

Perhaps the "socialist" bit is just a gratuitous insult because I know people who volunteer it seem to think it is a powerful and decisive put-down.

In any event, I think more at the heart of our discomfort is this...

We kind of KNOW it has to be and we can't retreat to some kind of pre-60s Commonwealth model ( if not only because the other players in that one are not specially subservient to us as they were then)...but we feel like passengers getting travel-sick from the ride it's giving us...the trouble is the bus is being driven by France and Germany and they don't want any help with the steering. For decades we have tried to keep the EU at arms length, in that arrogant way we have with foreigners. Now we are stuffed.

If we vote "yes" I dearly hope we move on to a much more assertive rather than aggressive stance within the community.

Who, and in what context, associates the EU with socialism?
It’s long been evident that the obvious main beneficiaries of open borders and free movement of a seemingly endless pool of cheap labour is big business, at the expense of the existing population, usually at the bottom of the skill spectrum.
What I’ve not been able to grasp is why the labour & liberal parties (and their followers) are so in favour of the damned thing, given their supposed concern for the poorest and most needy in OUR society?
Perhaps the ‘socialist’ bit pertains to that bafflement?

I agree with some of your last paragraph, - we do ‘know it has to be’, - not because it is impossible or even illogical to halt its onslaught (arguably quite the reverse) but because there is an overwhelming mainstream political will that will not allow us to leave the political union of the EEC.
I wish I knew the genuine reasons behind such a destructive dogma.