Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Lolly’s Mate
I don’t really want to go down this particular road again, so I will take your word for the fact that Harrow is a hotbed of anti-white hatred.
However, you also state that ‘this country used to be proud of its freedom of speech, but thats not allowed now.’ Could you explain what you mean? You have stated your views openly and plainly on this forum, as we all have. No-one has stopped you and no-one is likely to stop you. As I said before, you are free to hold whatever opinions you like, and express them whenever and wherever you like. Could you tell us who is stopping you? I would repeat, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to express your views. But it does mean that you should expect your views to be challenged. As should we all.
You state ‘it will become almost impossible to have an opinion, point of view or a personal dislike for anything within the next 10 years’. Why?
I learnt that there is a Turner painting entitled ‘Dudley’ which I was completely unaware of (courtesy of David Dimbleby’s excellent series) and that the Albanian for horse is ‘Kal’.
Some interesting arguments
However, we are all free to say what we want. Sometimes those who wish to express their hatred of another group, or indeed strong opinions in general, seem remarkably sensitive to criticism. No-one can stop you posting up your views on homosexuality on this or any other forum, nor indeed, from shouting them in the middle of the street, in a pub or your own living room. You are entirely free to do so.
But having expressed those views, you should also expect that other people will wish to put the contrary views. If you wish to stand on a street corner and tell everyone your opinion about homosexuality, no-one will stop you and you won’t be arrested. All that has changed in the last twenty years or so is that you are far more likely to find people coming up to disagree with you. That shouldn’t be a problem. The days when someone can tell a racist joke in a pub and expect everyone else to laugh are gone. Societies change. But no-one will physically stop you telling that joke. You may feel more self-conscious about doing so and fear that others may not share your opinions. But that is not the same thing as being prevented from telling it.
On the subject of homosexuality, it should be remembered that gay men are frequently attacked and occasionally killed, even in this country, simply for being gay.
I did hear that one of the companies that may be involved in the ID card scheme is the same outfit responsible for the excellent computer system currently operated by the CSA.
I have some experience of government IT contracts and they usually follow the same pattern. Ministers with no experience of private industry sign contracts which contain no penalties for failure to deliver. Computer system crashes, or, as in the case of the Inland Revenue, the CSA (twice) and the Home Office, never get off the ground. The same IT companies then receive further payments to put right what they were paid to do in the first place.
What is the going rate for old rope these days?
Dave
I agree that minorities can be as bigotted as majorities, and that really the only sensible rule in life is to treat people as you find them, on an individual basis.
Alchemist rightly points out my use of the Black Country accent, where I should have used the Brummie. I find the Brummie accent harder to transcribe and less amusing, but that is no excuse.
(Edited by Aranalde at 8:21 am on June 17, 2005)
Good evening all
I’m afraid that while peace may have broken out on this Forum, I found myself involved in an argument at work today, and as the subject was close to the original title of this thread, I thought I’d mention it.
I currently work in Birmingham. Someone mentioned during one of those long dull mid-afternoons that characterise office life that Birmingham is now known as ‘The Venice of England’. This, obviously caused me to chuckle loudly. Cue much Brummie outrage.
Although I do feel a little sad that no-one has yet voted for Birmingham, I can’t really bring myself to do it.
Is there anyone here who has been to both Venice and Birmingham who could verify the outlandish claims of the Birmingham Tourist Board (motto: ‘Yow ay frum rowernd ere, am ya?’) and thus enable me to vote for my adopted city with a clear conscience
<br>
Thanks for the comments
I agree this does seem to be unlike every other forum I’ve seen in terms of healthy debate without the abuse.
By the way, who is Stavros?
Dave
I think its clear we have opposing views on the link between the economy and immigration. I also think its clear that our argument is not really going anywhere.
I respect your strong opinions on the subject and the knowledge of the subject you have demonstrated. Although I did post a link to an economics article earlier today, I will not be posting any further links and I think, in all honesty, other people here will be relieved at that.
As I said to Lolly’s Mate, I am a newcomer here and am not looking to make enemies. Presumably, we share a mutual interest in racing. These debates have been interesting, but I think probably enough is enough. Neither of us is going to persuade the other.
And I extend the same apology to you as to Lolly’s Mate, if I have caused offence in the way I have expressed myself, then I apologise.
Lolly’s Mate
Having just re-read our various posts, it struck me that there was too much vitriol in some of my remarks.
Whilst I don’t retract my opinion and remain in profound disagreement with your view of Britain, I can’t deny that I have not shown you or your views the same respect that we are all entitled to.
I am also concious of the fact that I am a newcomer here and that this is, primarily, a racing forum, an interest which we presumably have in common.
Therefore I would like to apologise, not for the opinions I have expressed, but for the way that I have expressed them and for any offence that I have caused.
And I would hope that, wherever you and your family eventually settle, you find what you are looking for.
Dave
Tsuyoshi Yamada’s article was talking about some of the economic effects of immigration.
Your statement was that governments stop and start immigration and that there is only an economic aspect to immigration.
I can see nothing in the article that supports your proposal. Perhaps you would point to the paragraph which supports your contention that governments can start and stop immigration and that there are no other aspects to immigration beside the economic.
And while you’re at it, have a read of this
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imearn.html
<br>I agree that understanding why things happen in the world can be boring. It can also be interesting. I think Grasshopper may have been referring to the fact that our particular circular argument is becoming tedious. Which it is.
(Edited by Aranalde at 8:15 am on June 16, 2005)
Lolly’s Mate
This is just becoming tedious now.
If, by refuting the nonsense you peddle, I wind you up, well thats your problem.
Obviously you are a minority since there is only one of you. I am a minority too. If you mean, you are a member of a minority, to my mind it doesn’t matter whether you are or not. You are a human being and entitled to as much respect as the next person.
Answer me this, if it is so hard for white people to get employment with the metropolitan police force, why are the overwhelming majority of policemen white? This is something we can see with our own eyes.
The headmaster of the local school who has no control over his pupils? There is no reason on earth why he should have no control over Somalian pupils. I would agree with you that discipline in schools is breaking down, but that is across the board. Being Somalian makes no difference whatsoever. If he has no control over his pupils, perhaps the school needs a new headmaster.
In order to prove your point that Harrow is a racial battleground and white people are persecuted, you have, to date, cited the building of a Hindu temple, an incident at a local school involving your wife and a whole lot of second hand rumour.
Let me ask you some very simple questions.
You stated that the Hindu temple and the Hindu school were not for locals.
Why do you not consider the local Hindu people who will attend both school and temple to be locals?
Why, when referring to Navin Shah do you make snide remarks about broken English?
Because his English is broken, why do you feel that he is less worthy of respect?
I asked you for specific proof that the planning department of your local council was acting against ‘whites’. You have not provided it. Because you can’t. Indeed, as you state, you are not able to show me any proof.
I asked you whether you were campaigning for the right to use racially abusive names whenever you liked. To date, you have not answered these question.
Lolly’s mate, if Harrow is such a hell-hole, if white people are being persecuted all the time, I would have thought you could provide me with first-hand information, things that have happened to you directly, every day. Instead, you direct me to speak to a bunch of people who agree with you. That is not an argument. I am talking to you not your friends. If you can’t muster an argument, if you are incapable of backing up what you say with evidence and if you are unable to answer my questions then we aren’t going to get very far, are we.
<br>
(Edited by Aranalde at 8:18 am on June 16, 2005)
Ride were a much-maligned band in my opinion, but I suspect they spent a little too much time fiddling with their flangers and not enough time with a pen and paper. Here is one example, from OX4
<br>I don’t think I want to stay in this room<br>Anymore<br>If I crawl across the floor<br>Then I’d be closer to that door<br>It’s too far
Though Sky writes like a baboon with a broken typewriter, he has pointed out that some of my posts on this forum have been, not to put too fine a point on it, taking all things into consideration, without wishing to beat about the bush, at the end of the day, a little on the lengthy side.
Fair point, I think.
As a newcomer here, I am concious that I am not quite used to the prevailing etiquette and, if short and pithy is the preferred style, I will endeavour to comply. (Starting with my next post, obviously).
Dave
With apologies to Grasshopper (and indeed everyone else) I must once again point out that the information you are using does not support the argument you are putting forward.
You stated and continue to state that governments can stop or start immigration and that there are no other aspects of immigration, other than the economic. In order to support that theory, you would need to produce evidence.
The article you used is interesting enough. It talks about the economic effects of immigration. I would readily accept that immigration affects the economy, amongst other things. But nowhere in the article does it state that that governments can stop or start immigration. Nowhere does it state that immigration is all about the economy.
And I would like to point out that this discussion we are having, tedious though it is becoming, is not a debate at the Oxford Union. We have not agreed to debate a proposition. You have put forward a theory. I thought it was interesting but asked to see the evidence. To date there has been no evidence to support your theory. It is not up to me to prove that it is wrong.
Or to put it another way. Lets say you came onto this forum and stated that last night you had been abducted by aliens. I might say that was interesting, but can you prove it? I don’t have to prove it, you reply, its up to everyone else to prove that it didn’t happen. You then refer to an episode of the X-files to prove your point.
Finally, I think perhaps, given that people on this forum are beginning to tire of the discussion, we should continue our argument on the economic effects of immigration by email or perhaps carrier pigeon.
Dave
I’m afraid you have misunderstood. You asserted, out of nowhere, that immigration is all about the economy. This is potentially interesting. But, to date, you have produced no evidence. Alan Greenspan does not say in the quote you have used that immigration is all about the economy. You now state that ‘a few other economists’ agree with you. Well thats interesting. Lets see who they are.
Now, the subject of border controls. I agree, border controls are one of the ways in which a government can regulate and seek to control immigration. But you previously went further than that. You stated that governments can start and stop immigration. Border controls can help to limit immigration, but they can’t stop it. Immigrants arrive here for many reasons, some of them are asylum seekers, refugees, families of UK residents, EU citizens, businessmen, illegal travellers. Use of work permits will certainly have an impact. But it won’t stop immigration altogether.
And I’m afraid I don’t agree that having an opinion is somehow worthy of merit. Every concious being on the planet has at least one opinion, of some sort.
The fact that the people in your Chinese restaurant don’t get offended by such names does not justify you in using them when referring to all Chinese people. Many people learn to laugh off such insults to avoid trouble, or to try and fit in. I have direct personal experience of this in my family. If you happen to know for a fact that one individual doesn’t mind such insults, then that’s fair enough, although I still don’t understand why you would want to use them. But you can’t then take that circumstance and broaden it to include all Chinese people. And for one thing, I was brought up to believe that it was simple good manners not to go out of your way to insult people.
However, you may have a point when you mention your ten year old daughter. My daughter is not two yet, so the conversations I have with her fall some way short of the Oxford Union level of debate. Perhaps it is starting to affect my brain!
<br>:biggrin:
Good post Grasshopper.
Informed and intelligent argument is always preferable to blind prejudice and conspiracy theories.
Dave, for about the fourteenth time, the quote you used does not, repeat does not demonstrate that governments can start and stop immigration. It was a leading economic figure discussing the effects of immigration on the economy. We have now spent around a dozen or so posts going over the same ground. You have put forward a theory about immigration, which, to my mind, you have not proven. I asked you in a previous post how exactly a government can start and stop immigration. You have not answered. The quote you keep using does not support the weight of your argument. If you can’t see that, then we really aren’t going to get very far with this debate.
Lolly’s Mate
You aren’t too outspoken for me at all. One of the comforting myths that loudmouth racists like to cling to is that they are brave and maverick loners, speaking out courageously. When in fact, they are loudmouth racists.
Grasshopper has already dealt rather eloquently with your nonsense about racially abusive names. It wasn’t okay then and it isn’t okay now. Maybe immigrants in the 1950s felt they had to put up with insulting and racist comments everywhere they went. Now they don’t. An improvement, I would say. Or are you campaigning for the right to be racially abusive and insulting whenever you feel like it?
So the Hindu temple that is being built in your area looks like a Hindu temple. Well who’d have thought. You’d think they’d have the decency to disguise it as a block of flats, or maybe a branch of Tesco. I find it laughable that you are complaining that the temple will not be ‘in keeping’ with the architecture of the area. Gaudy supermarkets and intrusive billboards go up every day in this country, whilst run-down, condemned factories and terraces epitomise many parts of our inner cities. If the temple is well-built and well-designed, it will surely only add to the local architecture. Where I live there are mosques and temples that are some of the nicest, cleanest buildings in the area, surrounded by dingy abandoned tower blocks and defunct warehouses.
In the next sentence, you excell yourself. You state that the building of a Hindu Temple is oppressive and another example of one rule for some and no rules for ‘people who have lived here all our lives’. You don’t seem to have grasped this point, Lolly’s Mate, but the schoolchildren who will go to the Hindu school and the Hindus who will go to the temple are local. They were born in England. They are English. Yet you continue to portray them as outsiders, as ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. Now, you tell me, is this racist? Because I can think of no other reason why a Hindu child born in your area is not local, whereas you are.
Finally, and perhaps most bafflingly, having already brought up the thorny question of roses, you decide to talk about trees. Though there are many fine trees in our area (all of them born and bred here, I might add) I must confess I have never really found them attractive in that sense. Please explain your baffling reference to the hugging of trees.
Dave
Not at all. He was talking about his opinion on one of the important aspects of immigration, namely, how it affects the economy. What he said was interesting. But you were saying that it supported your statement that all immigration everywhere is all about economic growth and that governments can stop or start immigration as they see fit. I don’t think his quote supports that.
Immigration affects the economy. That is obvious. But you are attempting to go one step further and assert that all immigration is started by governments who are working to an agenda of unlimited economic growth. Greenspan was talking about the effects of immigration. His quote did not support the assertion that immigration is started by governments.
As I have already said, immigration starts with people travelling from one country to another in search of a better life, a better job, or fleeing persecution. It starts with people, not governments. It is ‘about’ people. Governments can control it or not control it. They can’t stop it.
When governments are deciding how to administrate the immigration system, they have to take into account many different factors, besides the economic.
I think in essence we have two opposite positions. I believe that immigration starts with people and governments have to decide how to deal with it. Economic considerations are part of that decision. You believe that governments start immigration in order to pursue an economic agenda and that, presumably, if there was no such agenda, there would be no immigration. I disagree with you, and I don’t think the quote from Greenspan carries the weight of your assertion.
But it is an interesting idea and I would welcome the chance to debate it further with you, even if we may ultimately have to agree to disagree on this.
