ChatterBank1 min ago
What do you think about this?
40 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smilingcrow. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jake-the-peg
/// The key is to get the right immigrants, talented and dynamic individuals and get them to bring their famillies and stay ///
Never though I'd say this but regarding this statement, for once I couldn't agree with you more.
'BUT' and there is one coming, there is one whole problem, that being the fact that this is not what has actually happened.
/// The key is to get the right immigrants, talented and dynamic individuals and get them to bring their famillies and stay ///
Never though I'd say this but regarding this statement, for once I couldn't agree with you more.
'BUT' and there is one coming, there is one whole problem, that being the fact that this is not what has actually happened.
AOG
The labour gevernment brought in an immigration points system for exactly this reason
http://www.ukba.homeo...v.uk/pointscalculator
What has this government done - crack down on student visas!
This is Brain dead for two good reasons
1/ Students pay good money to come to the UK and study - they pay good money into the UK economy, to the Universities and surrounding economies
2/ These are the sort of graduates that we want to be attracting to stay in the UK anyway!
Yes there have been bogus fraudulent application problems but the answer is to police these better not to reduce numbers blindly just to hit some arbitary immigration target
The labour gevernment brought in an immigration points system for exactly this reason
http://www.ukba.homeo...v.uk/pointscalculator
What has this government done - crack down on student visas!
This is Brain dead for two good reasons
1/ Students pay good money to come to the UK and study - they pay good money into the UK economy, to the Universities and surrounding economies
2/ These are the sort of graduates that we want to be attracting to stay in the UK anyway!
Yes there have been bogus fraudulent application problems but the answer is to police these better not to reduce numbers blindly just to hit some arbitary immigration target
"And finely we have allowed them to group together and create small mirror images of the countries that they have left, instead of them being prepared to embrace fully, the culture and ways of their newly adopted country. "
i appreciate your right to an opinion but that comment has really upset me, its horrible
i appreciate your right to an opinion but that comment has really upset me, its horrible
-- answer removed --
Baldric
Where have I said that?
But what I have noticed is the fact that I got my figures round the wrong way.
Should have been 62,262,000 people in Britain which is 60,496,640 acres. 60,496,640/62,262,000 = .971 which make it less than an acre per person.
I was simply answering the chuckfickens post below, who happened to have the area of England wrong, England as an area of 32,224,000 acres and a population of 51,456,400 people (his figure) 32224000/51456400 = .626 of an acres between us.
/// England is about 60496640 acres and has a population of about 51456400 ///
/// 60496640/51456400=1.176 ///
/// (gawd knows where 6.17 comes from) ///
Where have I said that?
But what I have noticed is the fact that I got my figures round the wrong way.
Should have been 62,262,000 people in Britain which is 60,496,640 acres. 60,496,640/62,262,000 = .971 which make it less than an acre per person.
I was simply answering the chuckfickens post below, who happened to have the area of England wrong, England as an area of 32,224,000 acres and a population of 51,456,400 people (his figure) 32224000/51456400 = .626 of an acres between us.
/// England is about 60496640 acres and has a population of about 51456400 ///
/// 60496640/51456400=1.176 ///
/// (gawd knows where 6.17 comes from) ///
Baldric
/// 12:49, Britain or England and Britain at 12:07 as in my post ///
Let me try and explain it again.
In my 12:07 post I was quoting the figures appertaining to Britain.
ChuckFickens corrected me by stating it was England in question.
In my 12:49 post my "Britain or England" remark was simply stating to ChuckFickens that it made very little difference to the figures of how many people to an acre, hence "Britain or England it still works out much about the same".
Hope that clears things up for you? At least I can't be accused for not trying.
/// 12:49, Britain or England and Britain at 12:07 as in my post ///
Let me try and explain it again.
In my 12:07 post I was quoting the figures appertaining to Britain.
ChuckFickens corrected me by stating it was England in question.
In my 12:49 post my "Britain or England" remark was simply stating to ChuckFickens that it made very little difference to the figures of how many people to an acre, hence "Britain or England it still works out much about the same".
Hope that clears things up for you? At least I can't be accused for not trying.
jno
/// well, it's true, fluff, I and my fellow Inuit love nothing more than clubbing little seals to death and chowing down to eat them and never mind what UK health and safety has to say about it. Catch me eating curry and chips and that other UK food. ///
Could that also be where all our swans are going to?
/// well, it's true, fluff, I and my fellow Inuit love nothing more than clubbing little seals to death and chowing down to eat them and never mind what UK health and safety has to say about it. Catch me eating curry and chips and that other UK food. ///
Could that also be where all our swans are going to?
mccfluff
If I have upset you then I apologise, but I can only state what is true, but then perhaps my terminology may be wrong.
When I said "we have allowed them to group together" I actually meant 'encouraged them to group together', by making it attractive for some to settle in certain towns and cities.
If one goes to certain areas of Bradford, Blackburn and certain parts of London etc, they are no longer hardly recognisable as English towns and cities.
The immigrants that have settled in say the USA are fully committed Americans, whereas our immigrants don't class themselves as British/English foremost, and African, Caribbean, Asian, or Eastern European, etc. secondly.
If I have upset you then I apologise, but I can only state what is true, but then perhaps my terminology may be wrong.
When I said "we have allowed them to group together" I actually meant 'encouraged them to group together', by making it attractive for some to settle in certain towns and cities.
If one goes to certain areas of Bradford, Blackburn and certain parts of London etc, they are no longer hardly recognisable as English towns and cities.
The immigrants that have settled in say the USA are fully committed Americans, whereas our immigrants don't class themselves as British/English foremost, and African, Caribbean, Asian, or Eastern European, etc. secondly.
AOG - immigrants settle in certain areas for very simple reasons -
there are others of their race and culture already there, which will ease the transisiton into English society
housing is inexpensive and often near to employment areas where they will find employment with relative ease
these reasons are formulated and acted upon by simple cultural osmosis and have absolutely nothing to do with the native population 'allowing' or even 'encouraging' this behaviour - it is simple human nature.
To infer that the native population allow or encourage such behaviour is to infer that immigranst simply go where they are put because it is where the English would like them which is arrant nonsense - and a somewhat unfoundedly superior point of view.
there are others of their race and culture already there, which will ease the transisiton into English society
housing is inexpensive and often near to employment areas where they will find employment with relative ease
these reasons are formulated and acted upon by simple cultural osmosis and have absolutely nothing to do with the native population 'allowing' or even 'encouraging' this behaviour - it is simple human nature.
To infer that the native population allow or encourage such behaviour is to infer that immigranst simply go where they are put because it is where the English would like them which is arrant nonsense - and a somewhat unfoundedly superior point of view.
why nit pick over figures, it's England that picks up the tab for the major influx of immigrants, not so much the rest of the British Isles. And that means places like London, Manchester, Birmingham get hit, and are indeed overpopulated. If more want to come here perhaps they would like to go to Scotland, where there is lots of space, especially The Highlands, very nice at this time of the year...
And seeing as Scotland may well get its independence if Alex Salmond has his way, then they can take their fair share in the future.
And seeing as Scotland may well get its independence if Alex Salmond has his way, then they can take their fair share in the future.
/// If more want to come here perhaps they would like to go to Scotland, where there is lots of space, especially The Highlands, very nice at this time of the year... ///
They could also benefit from free prescriptions, free glasses, free dentistry, and free care homes.
Oh sorry, come to think about it, they get these things in England also.
They could also benefit from free prescriptions, free glasses, free dentistry, and free care homes.
Oh sorry, come to think about it, they get these things in England also.
The article is right. There is no economic benefit from further immigration. Each extra person in the economy is just another person, they do not add extra beyond that.
But adding people is not a neutral act. England has one of the highest population densities in the world. Despite this, the comments show that many people do not believe that a population density of 1023 people per square mile - 4 suburban gardens per person - is "overpopulated". They deny that reducing the amount of land per person makes us all poorer. These comments are remarkable because land area per head is a measure of wealth. Denying that loss of space makes you poorer is equivalent to saying that if I take half your cash you believe you are no poorer in economic terms and it is proof of muddled thinking.
Some of the people who commented are globalizers and believe that everyone has the right to exploit other countries (hating people who believe that "an accident of birth gives them rights to a section of the planet"). Britain is the home of the die hard imperialist so we should expect comments of this type.
Lastly there are horribly confused or frankly racist comments such as: "a lot of service areas would fall apart if it weren't for immigrant health workers". The article is about current and future benefits of immigration to the economy. Those who believe that the NHS can only function by perpetually replacing the current set of immigrant workers, often from ethnic minorities, by a new set of workers from Eastern Europe are racists of the worst sort. The terms and conditions of working in the NHS should be such that the current staff are kept in post and not endlessly replaced.
Given that it is the globalizers who hate this article, there is another article on the site called "The Future of Globalization" that considers our ecological footprint. It might help them to see the problem with globalization and overpopulation. See http://pol-check.blog...of-globalization.html Media URL: http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/future-of-globalization.html
Description:
But adding people is not a neutral act. England has one of the highest population densities in the world. Despite this, the comments show that many people do not believe that a population density of 1023 people per square mile - 4 suburban gardens per person - is "overpopulated". They deny that reducing the amount of land per person makes us all poorer. These comments are remarkable because land area per head is a measure of wealth. Denying that loss of space makes you poorer is equivalent to saying that if I take half your cash you believe you are no poorer in economic terms and it is proof of muddled thinking.
Some of the people who commented are globalizers and believe that everyone has the right to exploit other countries (hating people who believe that "an accident of birth gives them rights to a section of the planet"). Britain is the home of the die hard imperialist so we should expect comments of this type.
Lastly there are horribly confused or frankly racist comments such as: "a lot of service areas would fall apart if it weren't for immigrant health workers". The article is about current and future benefits of immigration to the economy. Those who believe that the NHS can only function by perpetually replacing the current set of immigrant workers, often from ethnic minorities, by a new set of workers from Eastern Europe are racists of the worst sort. The terms and conditions of working in the NHS should be such that the current staff are kept in post and not endlessly replaced.
Given that it is the globalizers who hate this article, there is another article on the site called "The Future of Globalization" that considers our ecological footprint. It might help them to see the problem with globalization and overpopulation. See http://pol-check.blog...of-globalization.html Media URL: http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/future-of-globalization.html
Description:
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Teenage Boy Killed In Samurai Sword...
News12 mins ago
