The Migrant Crisis: As Reported By Reality

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, but I simply said it's what would happen, mentioning nothing of whether it's right or wrong, or legitimate even. I've even expressly stated that violence in these situations is never legitimate, so I suggest you stop ignoring what I inform you. As for non-state challenges to state authority - if you're not happy and form your own party, is that a challenge to state authority? And if so, is it legitimate?

Islamic terrorism is a completely different kettle of fish. If you're saying terrorism will result out of Muslims being offended, I completely agree. I often say it, in fact.

[Lewis]

You can inform me of whatever you like. But because I'm using the words correctly, I know that whether something is legitimate doesn't have anything to do whether you consider it to be right or wrong. The state derives is authority from violence. Only violence against the state challenges its authority. So no, political parties do not challenge state authority.

You do not consider them being 'offended' (straw man, but you mean their often-cited grievances) to be legitimate. That is my point.

[QE Harold Flair]

I do not agree with any kind of violence. I would only be legitimising extremism if I said it's fair enough, which I don't. You don't seem to understand what it means.

As regards Muslims, no I don't often see their perceived grievances to be legitimate. But even if I did, it would not make their extremism in response to be legitimate. No shifting of the posts here, this is what is being discussed - the actions which follow. Whether the grievances are legitimate or not (and I think they are on the immigration crisis), extremism as a response isn't. All I've said is that it will happen.

[Boydy]

You two need to get a room.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think even the usual Lewis cavalry are embarrassed on this one.

[Lewis]

I do not agree with any kind of violence. I would only be legitimising extremism if I said it's fair enough, which I don't. You don't seem to understand what it means.

As regards Muslims, no I don't often see their perceived grievances to be legitimate. But even if I did, it would not make their extremism in response to be legitimate. No shifting of the posts here, this is what is being discussed - the actions which follow. Whether the grievances are legitimate or not (and I think they are on the immigration crisis), extremism as a response isn't. All I've said is that it will happen.

By apportioning blame you have legitimised it. Once again, that doesn't mean you support it.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, no I haven't. I have said, directly, that I do not agree with extremist responses. Were the uprisings in the Arab spring legitimate? You also seem intent on ignoring the fact that I 'apportion blame' to those who react in extremist ways. In your world that means, by definition, that I am legitimising the government. Can't have it both ways, I fear.

You're supposed to be a historian - do you acknowledge that the economic circumstances Germany had found itself in had anything to do with the rise to power of the Nazi's?

[Lewis]

No, no I haven't. I have said, directly, that I do not agree with extremist responses. Were the uprisings in the Arab spring legitimate?

Yes, although it's kind of a blanket term. I've just seen the edit. Both can be legitimate you dickhead. That is my point. It doesn't mean support.


You're supposed to be a historian - do you acknowledge that the economic circumstances Germany had found itself in had anything to do with the rise to power of the Nazi's?

Yes?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, although it's kind of a blanket term. I've just seen the edit. Both can be legitimate you dickhead. That is my point. It doesn't mean support.



Yes?

So you seem capable in the right moments of understanding why something happens without it meaning you think it is legitimate. Unless you think the Nazi ideas were legitimate, that is.

I'll also remind you that your very first post merely said it was close to legitimising it. Which is also wrong but slightly better than the tangent you've since been on.

[Spoonsky]

What point are you even trying to make here, Lewis?

[QE Harold Flair]

That should be my signature.

[Lewis]

So you seem capable in the right moments of understanding why something happens without it meaning you think it is legitimate. Unless you think the Nazi ideas were legitimate, that is.

I'll also remind you that your very first post merely said it was close to legitimising it. Which is also wrong but slightly better than the tangent you've since been on.

Nazi 'ideas' were not legitimate, because they were based on deranged shite about supranational Jewish interests thwarting Germanic supremacy. By contrast, we do support Israel and oppressive Middle Eastern regimes, so citing those as a reason to attack Western interests is legitimate even if you don't happen to support the grievance or the outcomes. Had Bin Laden repeatedly said he was after us because we control the tides and killed Jill Dando his grievances would not have been legitimate. Do you see how it all depends on a connection to reality and not my personal preference?

It's not a tangent. I wanted to see whether your logic held. It doesn't.

[QE Harold Flair]

But people voted for those ideas. And you've already stated that you undersstand why that happened - so understanding why something happened does not = it is legitimate. Your logic is failing. Again, Bin Laden was a very rich man, who could have lived a life of luxury none of us could dream of and had a stellar education. He had no legitimate right to feel aggrieved, whatsoever. And even if he did, I'm sure you would join me in saying his actions in retaliation were not legitimate?

I like how you're comparing Israel to Nazi Germany - are you sure you don't want to sit over there >>>>>> with Henry and Boydy?

[Benny]

They're shutting down the immigration detention centre in Dover, and my friend (very legitimate source of prison news) tells me that rather than going 'through the hassle' of sorting out where these immigrants are due to be sent (either abroad or in another detention centre in the UK), they're instead releasing them within the country. Luckily these people aren't being detained for crimes other than being an illegal immigrant, so it's not like releasing a bunch of murderers and rapists into the surrounding area, but it's still a seemingly stupid idea to simply 'release' a load of immigrants into an area.

[QE Harold Flair]

Your friend speaks the truth. More and more unknown Muslims from third world hellholes, many of whom hate us and see women as rape-meat. It can only end well.

[Lewis]

But people voted for those ideas. And you've already stated that you undersstand why that happened - so understanding why something happened does not = it is legitimate. Your logic is failing. Again, Bin Laden was a very rich man, who could have lived a life of luxury none of us could dream of and had a stellar education. He had no legitimate right to feel aggrieved, whatsoever. And even if he did, I'm sure you would join me in saying his actions in retaliation were not legitimate?

It is not about simply 'understanding' it or whether you support it. Peter Sutcliffe killed prostitutes because he claimed God told him to. He therefore had a reason and we understand his motivations. His reasons were not legitimate, because they were fucking ridiculous. To legitimise his reasons you would have to believe him and conclude that it was a logical outcome of God being aggrieved by the actions of prostitutes in the Leeds/Bradford area.

Understanding violence against migrants might take the form of saying it's a few racist cunts looking for trouble; but you legitimised it by reasoning that it was a response to governments ignoring the 'wishes of their people'.


I like how you're comparing Israel to Nazi Germany - are you sure you don't want to sit over there >>>>>> with Henry and Boydy?

I like how you can't read.

[QE Harold Flair]

It is not about simply 'understanding' it or whether you support it. Peter Sutcliffe killed prostitutes because he claimed God told him to. He therefore had a reason and we understand his motivations. His reasons were not legitimate, because they were fucking ridiculous. To legitimise his reasons you would have to believe him and conclude that it was a logical outcome of God being aggrieved by the actions of prostitutes in the Leeds/Bradford area.

And Muslims killing because of an ancient book about an invisible magic-man in the sky isn't ridiculous? Who gets to decide what is ridiculous?


Understanding violence against migrants might take the form of saying it's a few racist cunts looking for trouble; but you legitimised it by reasoning that it was a response to governments ignoring the 'wishes of their people'.

It is a response, yes. Just as you agreed that the rise of the Nazi's was a response in part due to the economic hardship in the country. Again, I don't think you are legitimising the Nazi's. The same applies.



I like how you can't read.

That's what you always say. But you went from Nazi Germany in one sentence to Israel's 'occupation' in the next.

[Lewis]

And Muslims killing because of an ancient book about an invisible magic-man in the sky isn't ridiculous? Who gets to decide what is ridiculous?

Simply killing people because of an ancient book about an invisible magic-man in the sky would not be legitimate, just as targeting migrants because they smell of curry would not be legitimate. If you can apportion blame based on (for lack of a better word) 'policy' decisions, such as governments ignoring the 'wishes of their people', then you would have a stronger case for legitimacy. Bin Laden's list of grievances against Saudi Arabia would provide a good example of this.


It is a response, yes. Just as you agreed that the rise of the Nazi's was a response in part due to the economic hardship in the country. Again, I don't think you are legitimising the Nazi's. The same applies.

The rise of the Nazi Party was a legitimate response to the conditions Germany found itself in. It does not then follow that the Holocaust, and the mad old nationalist shite that underpinned it, was equally legitimate.


That's what you always say. But you went from Nazi Germany in one sentence to Israel's 'occupation' in the next.

Two sentences that at no point compared two systems of government. That's why you use grammar and that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Simply killing people because of an ancient book about an invisible magic-man in the sky would not be legitimate, just as targeting migrants because they smell of curry would not be legitimate. If you can apportion blame based on (for lack of a better word) 'policy' decisions, such as governments ignoring the 'wishes of their people', then you would have a stronger case for legitimacy. Bin Laden's list of grievances against Saudi Arabia would provide a good example of this.

Killing people for any reason other than defense or war is not legitimate. This is why you continue to confuse when going on and on about this. I've explicitly stated, several times, that extremism is not legitimate. How many more times do I have to say it? I also did not 'apportion blame', I simply stated what I think will happen and what is happening. It's not a secret that the majority of the country do not want high levels of immigration and yet immigration continues to rise. That is clearly the government ignoring the majority of the country. That's a fact. The only way you could pin the 'legitimising' thing on me is if I condoned the far-right or far left which history shows spring from this, which I do not.




The rise of the Nazi Party was a legitimate response to the conditions Germany found itself in. It does not then follow that the Holocaust, and the mad old nationalist shite that underpinned it, was equally legitimate.

You can't divorce their aims and beliefs from their actions. You can't on one hand say 'mad nationalism' isn't legitimate and then claim the rise of the Nazi party is. That's sort of what the Nazi party stood for, you know. Sort yourself out.




Two sentences that at no point compared two systems of government. That's why you use grammar and that.

It's called an inference. Otherwise why bring them up at all?

[Henry]

Harold is stupid, and the argument here shows again that he doesn't understand words, but Lewis's statement about the Nazi's is a bit odd. He's always had some strange views in that area.

[Angelsaint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/11814498/Anti-immigrant-Sweden-Democrats-now-the-biggest-party-according-to-poll.html

It's coming.I admit I never heard of this, or yougov for that matter.


All this time we should have kept Saint and banned Harold. The Office OWES US an explanation.I prefer to remain banned then Harold banned.

Anywho what was the reason to kill khadaffi? Weapons of mass destruction? Or this:
https://youtu.be/VZZvPlGCt_8

Anywho about the nazis...

https://youtu.be/Q9ZWyvK5Fqc

[Boydy]

Harold, here's the key part highlighted for you when Lewis goes on to mention Israel:


Nazi 'ideas' were not legitimate, because they were based on deranged shite about supranational Jewish interests thwarting Germanic supremacy. By contrast, we do support Israel and oppressive Middle Eastern regimes, so citing those as a reason to attack Western interests is legitimate even if you don't happen to support the grievance or the outcomes. Had Bin Laden repeatedly said he was after us because we control the tides and killed Jill Dando his grievances would not have been legitimate. Do you see how it all depends on a connection to reality and not my personal preference?

It's not a tangent. I wanted to see whether your logic held. It doesn't.

[Lewis]

Killing people for any reason other than defense or war is not legitimate. This is why you continue to confuse when going on and on about this. I've explicitly stated, several times, that extremism is not legitimate. How many more times do I have to say it? I also did not 'apportion blame', I simply stated what I think will happen and what is happening. It's not a secret that the majority of the country do not want high levels of immigration and yet immigration continues to rise. That is clearly the government ignoring the majority of the country. That's a fact. The only way you could pin the 'legitimising' thing on me is if I condoned the far-right or far left which history shows spring from this, which I do not.

Defence and war is a pretty arbitrary standard as to what is and isn't legitimate. What if we invade somebody for their custard supplies? Then what if it turns out they didn't even have any? Oh shit. What have we done?


You can't divorce their aims and beliefs from their actions. You can't on one hand say 'mad nationalism' isn't legitimate and then claim the rise of the Nazi party is. That's sort of what the Nazi party stood for, you know. Sort yourself out.

I'm sure lots of people will be excited about this when you present your findings, but, as not to be lost in all the well-wishing, can I be the first to congratulate you on decisively solving the main debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism) in Third Reich historiography?


It's called an inference. Otherwise why bring them up at all?

You brought them up, so I used them (as an example of something illegitimate) in contrast to something else (something legitimate).

[QE Harold Flair]

Defence and war is a pretty arbitrary standard as to what is and isn't legitimate. What if we invade somebody for their custard supplies? Then what if it turns out they didn't even have any? Oh shit. What have we done?

I'm well aware that there is context to every situation, but I regard it rather unlikely we will invade anyone for custard supplies.



I'm sure lots of people will be excited about this when you present your findings, but, as not to be lost in all the well-wishing, can I be the first to congratulate you on decisively solving the main debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism) in Third Reich historiography?

It's called an opinion. I'm sure you have one too which, if expressed, I could also ppost that link and say 'but look, some people don't agree!'. This seems to be somewhat of a diversionary tactic anyway, since I have shown your inconsistency, which I know you hate.




You brought them up, so I used them (as an example of something illegitimate) in contrast to something else (something legitimate).

Yes, you said the Nazi's were legitimate but mad nationalism isn't. Duh.

[Lewis]

I'm well aware that there is context to every situation, but I regard it rather unlikely we will invade anyone for custard supplies.

Yeah, but if we did you've bound yourself to legitimising it. It's probably better to just use logical thought on a case-by-case basis.


It's called an opinion. I'm sure you have one too which, if expressed, I could also ppost that link and say 'but look, some people don't agree!'. This seems to be somewhat of a diversionary tactic anyway, since I have shown your inconsistency, which I know you hate.

The point of that debate is that the Nazi Party that came to power was radically different from the one wot done the Holocaust. People in the early-thirties didn't think they were going to solve hyper-inflation by killing all the Jews. Most Germans had legitimate reasons to support the Nazis, even if Nazism itself was generally not.


Yes, you said the Nazi's were legitimate but mad nationalism isn't. Duh.

I said that a particular brand of mystical, nineteenth century, blood and soil, the Jews are out to get us nationalism (that Nazism utilised) was not legitimate.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah, but if we did you've bound yourself to legitimising it. It's probably better to just use logical thought on a case-by-case basis.

That's because you're too stupid to understand what 'legitimate' means, even when it was pointed out to you. Again, because I know how much you love going over things repeatedly, saying something will happen does not = legitimising that thing. In fact, that thing is clearly already happening all over Europe, It's a fact - whether you like it or not. And besides that, in your first response you only said it was close to legitimising it. Still wrong, but you clearly are confused yourself.




The point of that debate is that the Nazi Party that came to power was radically different from the one wot done the Holocaust.

As far as nationalism goes, that's utter bollocks. Everyone knew they were a thoroughly 'mad' nationalist party. Their nationalism didn't come as a sudden surprise once they were in power.



I said that a particular brand of mystical, nineteenth century, blood and soil, the Jews are out to get us nationalism (that Nazism utilised) was not legitimate.

No, you didn't say that. You've only just said that now.




Understanding violence against migrants might take the form of saying it's a few racist cunts looking for trouble; but you legitimised it by reasoning that it was a response to governments ignoring the 'wishes of their people'.

Just to come back to this - it is a result of the government having unlimited immigration in opposition to what the vast majority want. I do not condone it or say it should or shouldn't happen, merely that history and elsewhere in Europe right now shows us it probably will. I like to deal in reality, you see.

[Lewis]

That's because you're too stupid to understand what 'legitimate' means, even when it was pointed out to you. Again, because I know how much you love going over things repeatedly, saying something will happen does not = legitimising that thing. In fact, that thing is clearly already happening all over Europe, It's a fact - whether you like it or not. And besides that, in your first response you only said it was close to legitimising it. Still wrong, but you clearly are confused yourself.

I said it was close to legitimising it in order to probe (oo-er) your logic. It's a turn of phrase. You were legitimising it. Sorry for any confusion.


As far as nationalism goes, that's utter bollocks. Everyone knew they were a thoroughly 'mad' nationalist party. Their nationalism didn't come as a sudden surprise once they were in power.

They were openly anti-Semitic, but they didn't stand for election promising to kill all of the Jews in Europe. They didn't even go into the Second World War wanting to do that. Most people thought they would kick a few Jews around and then get on as normal, hence intentionalist interpretations being a bit dated these days.


No, you didn't say that. You've only just said that now.

My second response to your Nazi line of questioning (the first one being 'Yes?') was to say 'Nazi "ideas" were not legitimate, because they were based on deranged shite about supranational Jewish interests thwarting Germanic supremacy'. I then referred to it as 'mad old nationalist shite' in the very next mention of it.


Just to come back to this - it is a result of the government having unlimited immigration in opposition to what the vast majority want. I do not condone it or say it should or shouldn't happen, merely that history and elsewhere in Europe right now shows us it probably will. I like to deal in reality, you see.

You don't have to condone it to legitimise it. You merely have to ascribe logical reasons for it ('result of the government having unlimited immigration in opposition to what the vast majority want'), and you can even strengthen your case with appeals to history. Surely that at least has got through?

[QE Harold Flair]

I said it was close to legitimising it in order to probe (oo-er) your logic. It's a turn of phrase. You were legitimising it. Sorry for any confusion.

I'm sorry, but I can only go on what you actually say. Right?



They were openly anti-Semitic, but they didn't stand for election promising to kill all of the Jews in Europe.

That's okay, then.


They didn't even go into the Second World War wanting to do that. Of course not - they wanted to run over everyone with no resistance.


[QUOTE]Most people thought they would kick a few Jews around and then get on as normal, hence intentionalist interpretations being a bit dated these days.

And you say this is legitimate, right?




My second response to your Nazi line of questioning (the first one being 'Yes?') was to say 'Nazi "ideas" were not legitimate, because they were based on deranged shite about supranational Jewish interests thwarting Germanic supremacy'. I then referred to it as 'mad old nationalist shite' in the very next mention of it.

They got in to power on their ideas, so if their ideas were not legitimate then neither were the party.



You don't have to condone it to legitimise it. You merely have to ascribe logical reasons for it ('result of the government having unlimited immigration in opposition to what the vast majority want'), and you can even strengthen your case with appeals to history. Surely that at least has got through?

Yes, when governments ignore what their population wants, trouble often arises. This happens all the time, and it's a factual statement. Do you disagree this is a factual statement or not?

[Lewis]

I'm sorry, but I can only go on what you actually say. Right?

I said you were legitimising it in the immediate follow-up posts after you took the bite; but yes, I accept the minor error that changes nothing.

How easy was that? No re-shaping the English language... Nothing.


That's okay, then.

Of course not - they wanted to run over everyone with no resistance.

And you say this is legitimate, right?

They got in to power on their ideas, so if their ideas were not legitimate then neither were the party.

Ignoring the general cluelessness about the Third Reich, I never said Nazism or the the party were legitimate. I said their rise to power was a legitimate response to the economic and political crisis in Germany.


Yes, when governments ignore what their population wants, trouble often arises. This happens all the time, and it's a factual statement. Do you disagree this is a factual statement or not?

It is a factual statement. Hence me legitimising it as well.

[QE Harold Flair]

I said you were legitimising it in the immediate follow-up posts after you took the bite; but yes, I accept the minor error that changes nothing.

And I said I wasn't. And round in circles we go. The fact nobody else is backing you up says it all, really. Because we both know they want to.


Ignoring the general cluelessness about the Third Reich

No please, explain where I am clueless.


I never said Nazism or the the party were legitimate. I said their rise to power was a legitimate response to the economic and political crisis in Germany.

Which makes no sense when you say the core beliefs they were based on were not legitimate.


It is a factual statement. Hence me legitimising it as well.

So why did you say I was close to legitimising it if you think it's legitimate yourself?

[Lewis]

And I said I wasn't. And round in circles we go. The fact nobody else is backing you up says it all, really. Because we both know they want to.

We can legitimise your victim complex later.


No please, explain where I am clueless.

I'm not going through the development of the Holocaust for you, but their wanting to 'run over everyone with no resistance' doesn't come into it.


Which makes no sense when you say the core beliefs they were based on were not legitimate.

I never said 'they' were legitimate. I said people turning to them was. It makes sense unless you think everybody doing so identified with every single one of their beliefs.


So why did you say I was close to legitimising it if you think it's legitimate yourself?

To see (as explained several times) if your logic also legitimised the terrorism you never legitimise. It seemingly doesn't, so I have achieved my object in confirming your inconsistency, whether you realise it or not.

[QE Harold Flair]

We can legitimise your victim complex later.

It's again based on evidence. That's how I operate.



I'm not going through the development of the Holocaust for you, but their wanting to 'run over everyone with no resistance' doesn't come into it.

That was not in relation to the holocaust - it was referring to their occupation of other countries. You said they didn't want a world war. Of course they didn't, they wanted to take over other countries without resistance. We didn't go to war because of their Jew hating.


I never said 'they' were legitimate. I said people turning to them was. It makes sense unless you think everybody doing so identified with every single one of their beliefs.

In the same way that 'people turning to right wing extremism' is? Explain the difference.



To see (as explained several times) if your logic also legitimised the terrorism you never legitimise. It seemingly doesn't, so I have achieved my object in confirming your inconsistency, whether you realise it or not.

I take each case on their own merits. The influx of migrants from shithouse countries will cause harm. The concern is therefor justified. Islamic beliefs are not true, and are not justified or, as you like to say, legitimate. No doubt they think it's legitimate, but in my opinion it isn't. Simple as that, really. In any case, it's at the point that they act on their beliefs that I say neither is legitimate. You keep ignoring this. They can believe all the shite they want if they don't act on it.

I'm glad it's been established that you think violence against migrants is legitimate. I'll store that in the wank bank.

[Lewis]

That was not in relation to the holocaust - it was referring to their occupation of other countries. You said they didn't want a world war. Of course they didn't, they wanted to take over other countries without resistance. We didn't go to war because of their Jew hating.

I never said they didn't want a world war (fucking hell). I said they didn't go into the Second World War wanting to kill all of the Jews.


In the same way that 'people turning to right wing extremism' is? Explain the difference.

Yes. I've been saying that all along. Have you even been following this?


I take each case on their own merits. The influx of migrants from shithouse countries will cause harm. The concern is therefor justified. Islamic beliefs are not true, and are not justified or, as you like to say, legitimate. No doubt they think it's legitimate, but in my opinion it isn't. Simple as that, really. In any case, it's at the point that they act on their beliefs that I say neither is legitimate. You keep ignoring this. They can believe all the shite they want if they don't act on it.

I'm glad it's been established that you think violence against migrants is legitimate. I'll store that in the wank bank.

I don't think I said 'violence against migrants', but whatever. The concern is therefore justified. That is, legitimised.

[QE Harold Flair]

I never said they didn't want a world war (fucking hell). I said they didn't go into the Second World War wanting to kill all of the Jews.

They were already persecuting Jews before the second world war. What's your point?




Yes. I've been saying that all along. Have you even been following this?

No, you left your own views about legitimising extremism out until very recently. I do not agree that extremist violence is legitimate. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that one.



I don't think I said 'violence against migrants', but whatever. The concern is therefore justified. That is, legitimised.

The concern is perfectly legitimate, yes. Extremism as a response is not. I think you're a very confused man.

[Lewis]

They were already persecuting Jews before the second world war. What's your point?

That they didn't go into the Second World War wanting to kill all of the Jews. Point being that people didn't initially turn to the Holocaust Party.


No, you left your own views about legitimising extremism out until very recently. I do not agree that extremist violence is legitimate. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

I said you were right to legitimise (BUT NOT SUPPORT) it in posts 244 and 250. Two days ago.


The concern is perfectly legitimate, yes. Extremism as a response is not. I think you're a very confused man.

'You can't divorce their aims and beliefs from their actions', said Harold yesterday.

[QE Harold Flair]

That they didn't go into the Second World War wanting to kill all of the Jews. Point being that people didn't initially turn to the Holocaust Party.

Great, but what does that have to do with anything? Their 'mad nationalism' was known when they came to power.



I said you were right to legitimise (BUT NOT SUPPORT) it in posts 244 and 250. Two days ago.

But I didn't legitimise it. You said 'The concern is therefore justified. That is, legitimised'. Can you really not differentiate between the concern and the actions that follow? It's a legitimate concern that black people commit far more crime than whites doesn't = it's therefore legitimate to imprison all black people.


'You can't divorce their aims and beliefs from their actions', said Harold yesterday.

In a completely different context, namely that the people voting for the Nazi's were voting for a violent group of extremists. A completely different context to mere concern about immigration. You seem to be saying that concern about immigration means literally any response to it is legitmiate. That's ridiculous.

[simon]

Legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate.

[Lewis]

Great, but what does that have to do with anything? Their 'mad nationalism' was known when they came to power.

Which is probably why I've repeatedly said that the party and its ideas were not legitimate. Had people turned to them because they too thought the Jews had taken their jobs then their support would have been equally so. But they didn't, so it wasn't.


But I didn't legitimise it. You said 'The concern is therefore justified. That is, legitimised'. Can you really not differentiate between the concern and the actions that follow? It's a legitimate concern that black people commit far more crime than whites doesn't = it's therefore legitimate to imprison all black people.

I only need to 'differentiate between the concern and the actions that follow' if I mistakenly believe that to legitimise something is to support it. I don't, so I don't.

And no, because 'all black people' don't commit crimes, so that response would be illogical.


In a completely different context, namely that the people voting for the Nazi's were voting for a violent group of extremists. A completely different context to mere concern about immigration. You seem to be saying that concern about immigration means literally any response to it is legitmiate. That's ridiculous.

If the concerns are based on legitimate reasons, such as when the 'government and the EU continually go against the wishes of their people'. If your opposition was based on them speaking foreign on the train, or thinking that they're all potential groomers, then your concerns are not legitimate.

[QE Harold Flair]

Which is probably why I've repeatedly said that the party and its ideas were not legitimate. Had people turned to them because they too thought the Jews had taken their jobs then their support would have been equally so. But they didn't, so it wasn't.

How can the party and their ideas not be legitimate when you say people voting for that party, with those ideas, is? Get a cogent argument, Sir.



I only need to 'differentiate between the concern and the actions that follow' if I mistakenly believe that to legitimise something is to support it. I don't, so I don't.

No, to legitimise means to say it's justified. So you may not support it but you say it is justified. I do not believe it is.


And no, because 'all black people' don't commit crimes, so that response would be illogical.

All immigrants aren't a problem. You've already said violence against migrants if legitimate. Failing to follow your own logic again.



If the concerns are based on legitimate reasons, such as when the 'government and the EU continually go against the wishes of their people'. If your opposition was based on them speaking foreign on the train, or thinking that they're all potential groomers, then your concerns are not legitimate.

Yes, the concerns are legitimate. Attacking people because of those concerns is not. Get this through your head.

[Lewis]

How can the party and their ideas not be legitimate when you say people voting for that party, with those ideas, is? Get a cogent argument, Sir.

Because they primarily turned to it to resolve the economic and political crisis, their ideas on which were as legitimate (or no less legitimate) as other viable options and busted flushes.


No, to legitimise means to say it's justified. So you may not support it but you say it is justified. I do not believe it is.

Well then you probably shouldn't have legitimised it.


All immigrants aren't a problem. You've already said violence against migrants if legitimate. Failing to follow your own logic again.

I don't remember saying 'violence against migrants is legitimate'. Where did that happen?


Yes, the concerns are legitimate. Attacking people because of those concerns is not. Get this through your head.

So what do you do when the 'government and the EU continually go against the wishes of their people'? How can the humble anti-migrant activist make their voice heard against the all-mighty government?

[QE Harold Flair]

Migrants and refugees will be allowed to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has declared.

In an announcement to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, IOC chief Thomas Bach said all nations should help identify athletic talent among any migrants they may be hosting. They will then compete as “stateless” athletes under the Olympic flag and anthem, The Guardian reports.

“This will be a symbol of hope for all the refugees in our world, and will make the world better aware of the magnitude of this crisis,” Mr Bach said.

He added that the IOC has created a $2 million fund “to bring hope through sport to refugees.”

“At the same time, we are assisting high-level refugee athletes to continue their sports careers,” he added.

“We help them to make their dream of sporting excellence come true even when they have to flee from violence and hunger.”

More than 500,000 migrants have entered Europe so far this year, with thousands more set to follow in their footsteps.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was strongly criticised after saying in August that all asylum seekers would be welcome to stay, thus prompting a huge rise in the number of migrants crossing the continent.

Her pledge created a backlash within her own party followed by a hasty retreat, with Interior Minister Thomas de Mazière saying last month: “We want to send a clear signal to those (who are not fleeing war), don’t come here, you have no chance, you will have to leave our country,”

Mr Bach made the announcement after the UN General Assembly adopted a motion calling for a world-wide truce during the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic games. The truce would see all nations lay down their arms from seven days before the Olympics start on 5 August to seven days after the Paralympics finish on 18 September.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b8_1446053728

Olympic anthem is crap. What should the 'Migrant' national anthem be? How about 'Don't You Want Me' by The Human League?

[Angelsaint]

It seems Harold was right. Swedish are attacking, literally, refugees shelters so they have to move or to avoid they go there. Bunch if wankers that vote in the asshole åkensson.

[QE Harold Flair]

Uk population set to become biggest in the whole of Europe by something like 2050 it said on Daily Politics, with the population set to age even more. Answer? More young immigrants - because somehow people forget they get old themselves. And so it continues. It's no fucking wonder the population rises so quickly if those at the top are too thick to work out that those they bring in will also get old. It's also ludicrous that this tiny island will be the biggest by population in the whole of Europe in our lifetime. Crazy, but the damage is done - I'm with Peter Hitchens on that score.


The UK's population is going to swell by almost 10 million people in the next 25 years, taking us to a total of 74.3m by the middle of 2039.
The figures, projected by the Office for National Statistics, suggest that by 2027 the UK will reach the 70 million point. Net migration is expected to account for 51 per cent of the total increase, while a "natural increase" will account for 49 per cent of the growth.
The ONS has had to revise its forecast for growth over the next decade upwards to 4.4m from the 2012 estimate, which was around 250,000 lower.
However the population is projected to continue ageing, with the median age rising from 40 years in 2014 to 40.9 years in mid-2024 and 42.9 by mid-2039, by which point one in 12 people will be 80-plus.
England's population will grow by 7.5 per cent by the middle of 2024 - the fastest rate across the union. Northern Ireland is forecast to grow by 5.3 per cent, while Scotland and Wales will grow by 3.1 per cent, the ONS said.

[Benny]

Our army is going to be massive, let's take over some shithole like France or Sweden.

[Magic]

They'll be Islamic territories by 2050 mate.

[Angelsaint]

Harold, already showed you a documentary made by educated people that showed that that prediction is totally wrong. Why you bringing the subject again?

[Benny]

Perfect, if Harold is correct then they'll be our allies and we can finally smash Russia.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold, already showed you a documentary made by educated people that showed that that prediction is totally wrong. Why you bringing the subject again?

Educated people also disagree with you, and the population is constantly rising. This is something one can't deny.

[phonics]

If the population stopped rising, something would be SERIOUSLY wrong.

[QE Harold Flair]

It would be fine. There comes a time when it not rising is a good thing. Exponential rising is surely unsustainable in the long run.

[Angelsaint]

I try again
https://youtu.be/xYnpJGaMiXo

[QE Harold Flair]

I try again
https://youtu.be/xYnpJGaMiXo

I'm not sure what that documentary has to do with the population in Britain? Can you not just show me some fatcs where the population isn't rising?

[Angelsaint]

And I end with this
https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78

No more multiplying like rabbits quotes please.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think you're confused. I didn't say anything of religion and people having babies. Most of this is due to our government being impotent on immigration and allowing too many in.

[Angelsaint]

I think you're confused. I didn't say anything of religion and people having babies. Most of this is due to our government being impotent on immigration and allowing too many in.
But he clearly says that people having a better quality of life have less babies. They finding a better quality of life in the UK and still having more babies doesn't go against that quote?

[Angelsaint]

So how would Muslim population explode in the UK with 2 kids by couple. Or you mean solely immigration will be the reason for the boom in the population which you know very well it is a ridiculous idea.

[QE Harold Flair]

But he clearly says that people having a better quality of life have less babies. They finding a better quality of life in the UK and still having more babies doesn't go against that quote?

Probably not, because in the third world they would probably have even more. That doesn't mean it's not a lot by our standards when they come here.

[QE Harold Flair]

So how would Muslim population explode in the UK with 2 kids by couple. Or you mean solely immigration will be the reason for the boom in the population which you know very well it is a ridiculous idea.

Immigration makes up 51% and then it claims the remaining 49% is 'natural' growth. That's bollocks of course, because most of that is down to immigrant populations having more children that the actual natives.

[Angelsaint]

, because most of that is down to immigrant populations having more children that the actual natives. Harold THIS IS PROVEN WRONG! In both videos.

[QE Harold Flair]

Your video seems to be something more of a conspiracy piece about not trusting the media sources. Well I don't trust the media, either. Which is why I go by national statistics, which show what I say to be true.

Now this is from 2013 but you get the point:



Over a quarter of births (26.5%) in 2013 were to mothers born outside the UK, a slight increase from 2012 (25.9%).
The number of live births in England and Wales to UK born women decreased by 5.0% compared with 2012, while live births to non-UK born women fell by 2.1%. This represents a change from the general trend of increasing numbers of births to both UK and non-UK born women over the previous decade.
The total fertility rate (TFR) for UK born women has fallen to 1.79 from 1.90 in 2012.
The TFR for non-UK born women has fallen to 2.19 from 2.29 in 2012.
Poland, Pakistan and India were the three most common countries of birth for non-UK born mothers in 2013.
Pakistan remains the most common country of birth for non-UK born fathers between 2008 and 2013, followed by Poland and India.
Newham remains the local authority with the highest percentage of births to non-UK born women (76.1%) in 2013. South Staffordshire has the lowest percentage (3.5%)


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/parents--country-of-birth--england-and-wales/2013/stb-births-by-cob-2013.html

[Angelsaint]

The man spends his life studying population and you call it a conspiracy theory?

[QE Harold Flair]

The Office For National Statistics is not biased. They also spend their time on that, and more specifically on just this country. So they trump him, I suggest.

[Angelsaint]

We are going in circles. You avoiding the truth and me repeating continually.
Just avoid using this argument in the future please.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm the only one who backed up what I said with actual statistics. You find me one piece of statistical evidence and I will consider your position.

[Angelsaint]

Your statistics appoint a fall in all births.

[simon]

This is a proper meeting of the minds, it must be said.

[QE Harold Flair]

A fall on 2012, yes. But that's not the main point. But within that fall (I believe it's a boom now) the non-UK mothers are still a lot higher. And the main point is bolded - over a quarter of new births were to foreign-born mothers. That's not unsubstantial.

Simon - stop derailing the thread

[Angelsaint]

The statistics end in 2012. They represent a fall in fertility. Basically what is said in the video. This is your statistical evidence.

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay I'll admit there's a fall in all births (more so in UK mothers) if you admit that over a quarter of all births are to non-Uk born mothers. And you're right, the fertility rate has fallen, but it starts from a much higher position, so they're still giving birth to many more kids than UK born mothers.

Edit: forget that, I now have the 2014 statistics:



Over a quarter of births (27.0%) in 2014 were to mothers born outside the UK, a slight increase from 2013 (26.5%).
The number of live births in England and Wales to UK born women decreased by 1.1% compared with 2013, while live births to non-UK born women rose by 1.4%.
The total fertility rate (TFR) for UK born women has fallen to 1.76 from 1.77 in 2013.
The TFR for non-UK born women has fallen to 2.09 from 2.13 in 2013.
Poland remains the most common country of birth for non-UK born mothers between 2010 and 2014, followed by Pakistan and India.
Pakistan remains the most common country of birth for non-UK born fathers between 2008 and 2014, followed by Poland and India.
Newham remains the local authority with the highest percentage of births to non-UK born women (76.7%) in 2014. Torfaen has the lowest percentage (3.2%).


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/parents--country-of-birth--england-and-wales/2014/stb-pcb-2014.html

[Angelsaint]

So basically the fertility rate continues to fall exactly like the video claims.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's fine since it changes nothing of what I say.

[QE Harold Flair]

You know, I preferred it when you were being brave and telling the truth about Somalis, but anyway, this is quite excellent:


Debate: Is multiculturalism good for Britain? Note, the title really ought to read - 'Liberal, lefty twat tries the old racist card against other brown man who engages brain and deals in statistics and facts, thus verbally beating him like a redheaded stepchild'

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40b_1446166115

[Kikó]

It really ought to read that. PC gone mad that the truth is squashed by the liberal fascists fighting the communist Nazis.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't think any fair minded person could think that's adequate at all, joking or not. The lefty idiot was basically ignoring facts and pulling the old race card out. Perhaps he wasn't able to see the person he was debating.

[Kikó]

Typical neo-liberal conservative pinko fascist communist playing the race card.

[QE Harold Flair]

Funny stuff.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xhZCfFTDNVM/VLJ0TL2e1yI/AAAAAAAAAWc/Ix_W3vOKx3Y/s1600/cameron%2Bdefending%2Bmuslims.JPG

[Lewis]

And the third step in promoting integration is to ensure there's something worth integrating into. 'To make men love their country,' said Edmund Burke, 'their country ought to be lovable.' Integration has to be about more than immigrant communities, 'their' responsibilities and 'their' duties. It has to be about 'us' too - the quality of life that we offer, our society and our values.

Here the picture is bleak: family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility are part of the normal experience of modern Britain. Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.

Don't you say exactly the same things about Britain?

[QE Harold Flair]

British Asian = Muslim, since it was based on his stay with a Muslim family. It may well be there are aspects I agree with there, but I don't agree with 'Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear' - tough shit. If you're claiming he's just saying we should go back to more Conservative values then he should not couch that within 'British Asian', he should simply say we should go back to British values of the past. We do not want arranged marriages. We do not want women treated as cattle breeding stations who have half the rights of men. We do not want rape gangs targeting white children or acid attacks/honour killings.

And any other intimation that we should adapt more to Islamic/Muzzie beliefs is something that should not be encouraged. We are noty an Islamic country - sorry lads.

[SvN]

What do you have against arranged marriages, assuming both parties are consenting?

[phonics]

British Asian = Muslim?

[QE Harold Flair]

British Asian = Muslim?

I did put this in context once already.

[QE Harold Flair]

What do you have against arranged marriages, assuming both parties are consenting?

How can anyone consent to marry someone they've never met or talked to? Even if some do, it's clearly going to be the case that vast swathes will not be marrying people they want to.

[SvN]

How can anyone consent to marry someone they've never met or talked to? Even if some do, it's clearly going to be the case that vast swathes will not be marrying people they want to.

They're not forced to marry them. Quite often, introduction is simply arranged by third parties. It might be difficult to comprehend because it's so different from the culture you're used to, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It works well for billions of people.

There are, of course, instances of forced marriage, but that's a different thing entirely than arranged marriage.

[QE Harold Flair]

They're not forced to marry them. The introduction is simply arranged by third parties. It might be difficult to comprehend because it's so different from the culture you're used to, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It works well for billions of people.

There are, of course, instances of forced marriage, but that's a different thing entirely than arranged marriage.

Ah you're a cultural relativist? No point. It's not bad, it's just different!

You are, I take it, aware that it's very often the case that women in these families don't have much choice? You could technically say they're 'not forced to' by physical force, but you'd be missing the point by a very long way.

[SvN]

I'd like to know what you're basing your "very often" claim on. I'm sure you have some statistics to hand to back that claim up.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well I suppose the Qu'ran does only encourage beating them lightly for minor transgressions such as 'disobedience'. Maybe you're right.

[SvN]

You may be surprised to know that arranged marriages aren't constrained to Islam.

Still waiting for those statistics, by the way.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm well aware of that, but then other religions don't tend to encourage beating women or dishonouring them for having their own opinions.

You know very well that statistics for such a thing are virtually impossible to come by. Those women brave enough to have spoken out should be listened to. But then I don't think you're concerned about that - you just want to make everything equal.

[SvN]

So to clarify, it's arranged marriages within Islam that you have a problem with, rather than the concept itself?

I don't think you have any idea what I'm concerned with.

[Boydy]

We do not want women treated as cattle breeding stations who have half the rights of men.

Literally British values of the past.

[QE Harold Flair]

Literally British values of the past.

So was killing witches. What's your point? See, this is the kind of lazy, pointless, pedantry that will lead to a pointless argument that everyone will complain about.

[QE Harold Flair]

So to clarify, it's arranged marriages within Islam that you have a problem with, rather than the concept itself?

I don't think you have any idea what I'm concerned with.

Forced marriages within Islam are by far the most predominant in this country, so yes. I do have a problem with the concept, but it's most dangerous within a framework which treats women as chattel.

[Angelsaint]

That's fine since it changes nothing of what I say. Yes, it does. The fall on fertility goes against your idea that Muslims reproduce like rabbits and will conquer us by the numbers.

[Angelsaint]

On another note, am I a racist when today while shopping for dinner the guy in front of me looked like bin Laden and dressed like him got is hand on the jacket to get his wallet and I got out of the line looking for a place to duck?
True story even though I tried to be discreet by faking lookin at some gum they have near the exit.
Racist or brain washed by the media or just cautious?

[phonics]

It's called Subconcious Bias and it's something that a lot of Cops are now being trained on in the States. You're not a racist but you've been culturally taught to instinctually expect certain things based on appearance hence why Cops are more likely to pull and shoot on Black people. It's not racist unless you acted on it. Well done on noticing it in the first place.

[Magic]

You're a mess, Saint.

[Lewis]

British Asian = Muslim, since it was based on his stay with a Muslim family. It may well be there are aspects I agree with there, but I don't agree with 'Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear' - tough shit. If you're claiming he's just saying we should go back to more Conservative values then he should not couch that within 'British Asian', he should simply say we should go back to British values of the past. We do not want arranged marriages. We do not want women treated as cattle breeding stations who have half the rights of men. We do not want rape gangs targeting white children or acid attacks/honour killings.

And any other intimation that we should adapt more to Islamic/Muzzie beliefs is something that should not be encouraged. We are noty an Islamic country - sorry lads.

I'll wait for your statistics on arranged marriages, but I don't think rape gangs and acid attacks/honour killings are widespread enough to be considered 'values'. His couching the sort of conservatism you would otherwise agree with in the language he does was pure electioneering (as are his more recent speeches on multiculturalism), but lol at the context-less misquote you posted. Which Facebook page did that come from?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, it does. The fall on fertility goes against your idea that Muslims reproduce like rabbits and will conquer us by the numbers.

How? Their fertility rate is still much higher than ours.

Oh, and then there's this:


In 2012, research published in a sociology journal (http://soc.sagepub.com/content/46/1/91.abstract) showed that 77% of actively practicing Muslim families successfully perpetuate their faith to the next generation, in contrast to only 29% in actively practicing Christian families and 65% in other religions.
Summarizing the findings, the Muslim News reported that:

'The study, ‘Intergenerational transmission of Islam in England and Wales: evidence from the Citizenship Survey’ by academics from Cardiff University, also found that 98% of Muslim children surveyed said they had the religion their parents were brought up in, compared with 62% of Christians and 89% of other religions.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'll wait for your statistics on arranged marriages, but I don't think rape gangs and acid attacks/honour killings are widespread enough to be considered 'values'. His couching the sort of conservatism you would otherwise agree with in the language he does was pure electioneering (as are his more recent speeches on multiculturalism), but lol at the context-less misquote you posted. Which Facebook page did that come from?

So remind me again why you think Muslim migration here is a bad thing?

[QE Harold Flair]

It's called Subconcious Bias and it's something that a lot of Cops are now being trained on in the States. You're not a racist but you've been culturally taught to instinctually expect certain things based on appearance hence why Cops are more likely to pull and shoot on Black people. It's not racist unless you acted on it. Well done on noticing it in the first place.

I'd think the main reason for that is because black people are more likely to shoot them. That may be because they've been culturally taught to instinctually expect certain things based on appearance.

[Lewis]

So remind me again why you think Muslim migration here is a bad thing?

Integration. David Cameron proposed to solve that dilemma by upholding social conservatism as 'values which we should all hold dear'. Seeing as you're always bemoaning the decline of social conservatism (or at least parroting those that do) I figured you would agree with the quote in its proper and accurate form.

On the other hand I don't talk about 'our society and our values', so I can tell the Third World to do one if it doesn't like drug-addled gayness.

[QE Harold Flair]

Integration. David Cameron proposed to solve that dilemma by upholding social conservatism as 'values which we should all hold dear'. Seeing as you're always bemoaning the decline of social conservatism (or at least parroting those that do) I figured you would agree with the quote in its proper and accurate form.

On the other hand I don't talk about 'our society and our values', so I can tell the Third World to do one if it doesn't like drug-addled gayness.

There's a difference between Islamic conservatism and British conservatism. Do you really think the problem regarding integration is that we just don't hate gays enough? Or that we don't hide enough women from public view? You seem to be awfully close to appeasement here. Appeasement is never the answer.

[Lewis]

You see where I've put 'On the other hand', and then put some other words after it? I did that to show that I disagree with what David Cameron was proposing (not that your characterisation of his proposal is accurate).

[QE Harold Flair]

So what's your point, then? We both disagree with Cameron, now what?

[John Arne]

We close the thread?

[Lewis]

So what's your point, then? We both disagree with Cameron, now what?

I'm just surprised that you do. What made you bump the thread in the middle of the night to post an inaccurate quote anyway?

[QE Harold Flair]

I maintain it's perfectly accurate given that the context in which he made the comments was a stay he had with a Muslim family. When I posted it is irrelevant.

[Lewis]

He said 'British Asian way of life'. I disagree with his point, but by changing his quote to say 'Muslim way of life' and adding the subtitle 'Transforming Europe into Eurabia', the implication is that he wants us to be like Saudi Arabia. You seem to have bought that with your reference to 'Islamic conservatism', but he never said that or anything like that.

[QE Harold Flair]

I didn't add that, it was a random quote that came with the picture. The sentiment is true, however.

Regardless, shut the fuck up.

[Boydy]

Is that another e-victory for Lewis then?

[QE Harold Flair]

It's me preventing what you claim to hate.

[Boydy]

What do I claim to hate?

[QE Harold Flair]

Pointless arguments about little things. His argument is that British Asian (Muslim is what is really meant here) values are the same as British ones. I disagree. I am not going to change my mind. Simple as that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

There is no such thing as fucking values.

[QE Harold Flair]

Culture, then. It all adds up to the same thing in the end.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQhu1A-Ats

I shall place this in here. Two qe people in many ways. I rather like the Maajid Nawaz turn of phrase - 'the regressive left'. I might use that myself.

[Lewis]

Pointless arguments about little things. His argument is that British Asian (Muslim is what is really meant here) values are the same as British ones. I disagree. I am not going to change my mind. Simple as that.

If that is what you think I said then you are stupid.

[QE Harold Flair]

To put it more precisely, you think British Asian values are what I should consider good values considering what I have said before. You are wrong.

Well I look forward to the next time you try to find some historical inconsistency. It's so much fun.

[Lewis]

What David Cameron described as British Asian 'values' (not an acid attack in sight) match what Peter Hitchens dictates are your own.

[QE Harold Flair]

So? Cameron is wrong.

Peter Hitchens also does not dictate what my own are. I disagree with his religious fervor.

[ItalAussie]

I disagree. I am not going to change my mind. Simple as that.
That should probably be your motto. Or possibly an officially mandated disclaimer.

[QE Harold Flair]

That should probably be your motto. Or possibly an officially mandated disclaimer.

Stop derailing the thread.

[ItalAussie]

I'm not sure a team of wild horses could derail you from this topic. :tongue:

[Lewis]

So? Cameron is wrong.

Peter Hitchens also does not dictate what my own are. I disagree with his religious fervor.

Don't you also yearn for a Britain where 'families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility', and without 'family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility'? If they are things more associated with British Asians than the general population (they are twice as likely to be married with kids, so less 'family breakdown') then he must be right in saying we can learn from them.

[Angelsaint]

3Rd Swedish I talk this week, 2ND Dutch and some Hungarians. All of them immigrants and all of them racist enough to make magic look like a jungle fever fan. Europe does have a problem and the only way to fix it in my opinion is actually talk about it.
I see many disagreeing with Harold including me but he is right about the increasing anti-muslim hate. Any ideas how the governments should act? And yes, anything in prejudice of foreigners is out of question.

[Benny]

http://www.humansofnewyork.com/

This is a site I found a while back which is basically a photographer who's spent the last five years taking pictures of random people in New York and asking them about their stories, it's a really nice idea and recently he done a series of 'refugee specials'. To skip to the part involving refugees, go down until you hit this point:

http://i.imgur.com/DwTjBhy.png

Certainly give you a 'human' insight into the tragedies surrounding the whole migrant issue, something I feel gets lost in the endless news reports.

[Toby]

Wow, great find, thanks Benny.

[QE Harold Flair]

The tragedies are the minority. The majority appear to be well off enough to have the newest Iphone's and designer gear.

[Magic]

Scotland despite only having 10% of the population of the UK are getting 1/3rd of the migrants. Good one Humza, you fucking cunt.

[Toby]

Scotland has the greatest capacity to take them on and probably needs them.

[Lewis]

Scotland doesn't, but its 'designer gear' sector stands to benefit.

[Henry]

By the way Haroldscum talks, importing migrants might be a significant economic stimulus.

[Pen]

:D Fuck me.

I'm with Harold. A refugee isn't a real refugee unless the most high tech thing they own is a sharp spear and clothes made from animal skins.

[QE Harold Flair]

Scotland doesn't, but its 'designer gear' sector stands to benefit.

Of course it won't. They will either steal it or already have it.

[QE Harold Flair]

:D Fuck me.

I'm with Harold. A refugee isn't a real refugee unless the most high tech thing they own is a sharp spear and clothes made from animal skins.

The vast majority are not refugees. That's a fact.

[Henry]

Dangerously close to outright racism here, Haroldscum. Watch it.

[Magic]

Scotland has the greatest capacity to take them on and probably needs them.

really? Is that before or after the massive £28 million cuts to dundee city council alone? Our infrastructure can't cope as it is.

[QE Harold Flair]

Dangerously close to outright racism here, Haroldscum. Watch it.

Not saying 'hello' to a brown person is dangerously close to racism in your fucked up mind.

[Toby]

Well, maybe not shitholes like Dundee.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think what Tobes is trying to get across, like most 'refugees welcome' people, is that he won't have to deal with the immediate shit they bring so it's fine.

[Boydy]

Wow, great find, thanks Benny.

:D

Haha.

[Magic]

Well, maybe not shitholes like Dundee.

take them on your island then i bet they'd integrate immediately :)

[QE Harold Flair]

By the way Haroldscum talks, importing migrants might be a significant economic stimulus.

https://semipartisansam.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/conservative-party-conference-protests-cpc15.jpg

[Toby]

I think what Tobes is trying to get across, like most 'refugees welcome' people, is that he won't have to deal with the immediate shit they bring so it's fine.

I'm mostly just mocking Magic because he's using it as yet another SNP BAAAD prompt. But Scotland is an old and underpopulated country, so immigration is a good thing on the whole.


take them on your island then i bet they'd integrate immediately :)

They'd be very welcome, yeah. There's plenty of jobs here and there's vacant accommodation outside of the main town. Dundee and it's 60% employment rate would be far less attractive.

[Benny]

Wow, great find, thanks Benny.


:D

Haha.

He was taking the piss? I don't get it, if so.

[simon]

Humans of New York is pretty widely known already.

[randomlegend]

I assume because it's been everywhere for years. I doubt a day goes by where it doesn't appear on my facebook.

[Benny]

Oh, I had no idea. I remember seeing it on a blog ages ago and bookmarking it. Hilarious gag, meathead.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm mostly just mocking Magic because he's using it as yet another SNP BAAAD prompt. But Scotland is an old and underpopulated country, so immigration is a good thing on the whole.

Lower population is a good thing.

[John]

Why is that tshirt upthread presenting Bob Marley's head as an egg about to be fertilised?

[Toby]

Lower population is a good thing.

Nonsense. There are various parts of Scotland actively trying to repopulate. It's among the most sparsely populated countries in Europe, which has serious implications in the sustainability of public services and private enterprises because of the complete lack of economies of scale.

[QE Harold Flair]

Nonsense. There are various parts of Scotland actively trying to repopulate. It's among the most sparsely populated countries in Europe, which has serious implications in the sustainability of public services and private enterprises because of the complete lack of economies of scale.

Well I know you have small island mentality and it can't be fun when there's no horse and cart driver, but I'm talking about normal places.

[Toby]

Top bantz. I'll take that to mean you have no legitimate argument.

[QE Harold Flair]

It depends on what you savour. I think if you ask most people they'd prefer to live in more space, surrounded by less people. I also don't think you quite understand the impact of importing a third world culture to populate at a vastly higher rate than the natives. It doesn't end well anywhere this happens.

[Toby]

That's nice, dear.

[phonics]

The way Harold goes on about population, we'd all be living in huts like the people he despises.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's nice, dear.

So you can now delete the post about no legitimate argument. I posted this for your benefit, don't forget.

Phonics, oh haha yea mate. That's exactly what I meant, that. I didn't need to say it directly because I knew some exceedingly sharp tack would get it. I also note that you think immigrants 'live in huts'. Something I've never even intimated, let alone said.

[QE Harold Flair]

Hungarian Prime Minister isn't afraid to tell it how it is. Good man.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=beb_1446746763

[Toby]

You still haven't made a legitimate argument though.

Because you have an issue with perceived overpopulation you're apparently unwilling to consider that there is a point where you might go too far at the other end - or that parts of the world, such as a lot of Scotland north of its Central Belt, find themselves at or near that point now.

[QE Harold Flair]

Perhaps there's a reason that Scotland north has much less people? Importing third world, cultural lepers isn't going to help. There is nowhere in the world that helps.

[Toby]

There are various reasons for it having fewer people, yes. Is that supposed to be an argument?

You can keep repeating yourself with added racism all you like, it's pretty clear I disagree.

[Toby]

I didn't realise when Magic posted that the "third" Scotland is taking is only going to be 350 people initially. :D

[Magic]

Or 7.5k over 5 years. That's on top of unfetted immigration.

[Pepe]

I didn't realise when Magic posted that the "third" Scotland is taking is only going to be 350 people initially. :D

Da infrastructurez!

[Magic]

Its true though. We're at breaking point. Then again we're far more humane than your country.

[Toby]

Or 7.5k over 5 years. That's on top of unfetted immigration.

They're still piddling numbers. We get eight times more international students coming here every year, for example.

[Magic]

Great, who will probably offer something to the country.

[Toby]

Some will, some won't, much as with refugees.

[Magic]

Well lol @ that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Refugees :roflol:

[Spoonsky]

It depends on what you savour. I think if you ask most people they'd prefer to live in more space, surrounded by less people.

If that were true we'd see a migration away from the cities and into the country, instead of, you know, the other way around as it actually is.

[QE Harold Flair]

If that were true we'd see a migration away from the cities and into the country, instead of, you know, the other way around as it actually is.

Firstly, I wasn't talking about what migrants want, I was talking about first world citizens. Secondly, migrants come here either for work or handouts, so they will obviously go towards where that is readily available. Which tends to be built up areas.

[Spoonsky]

I wasn't talking about migrants either. Worldwide there has been a large trend toward cities as well and now more than 50% of the world's population lives in cities.

However, looking at this (http://www.citiesalliance.org/node/2195), more than 90% of that growth is occurring in developing countries, so, depending on your definition of "first world citizens", my point may not be a point after all.

[Toby]

If that were true we'd see a migration away from the cities and into the country, instead of, you know, the other way around as it actually is.

I was hoping that might be where things were going when he said, "Perhaps there's a reason that Scotland north has much [fewer] people".

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, there's fewer people there because it can support fewer people. What's the point of shipping in a load of homophobic, sexist, racist, wife-beating Muslims?

[phonics]

What the fuck is that post?

[QE Harold Flair]

A fair reflection of what Muslim immigrants from the third world believe.

[phonics]

http://replygif.net/i/897.gif

[QE Harold Flair]

So you don't agree that third world Muslims are against gays and treat women badly? I know they have brown skin but please try and look past that to actual principles those on the left claim to believe in.

[Lewis]

There was some lol research done a while back that found people in London were far, far less likely to accept their kids being gay than Jocks and Northerners, and the reaction was 'Oh, well, there must be a load of thickos somewhere in London'. Yeah right lads yeah yeah.

[phonics]

So you don't agree that third world Muslims are against gays and treat women badly? I know they have brown skin but please try and look past that to actual principles those on the left claim to believe in.

Harold, in the phrase, 'homophobic, sexist, racist, wife-beating Muslims' you tick 3 out of 5 boxes and only because I can be pretty confident you're not married and you're allowed to live there.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not true of course, but by not ticking the last box I already escape the worst of the lot.

[Angelsaint]

Harold, a report from EU says that "only" 2% of terror in Europe is of Islam motives. Actually a FBI report says that almost 3% of terror in USA or USA related is Islam involved. What your view on this?

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold, a report from EU says that "only" 2% of terror in Europe is of Islam motives. Actually a FBI report says that almost 3% of terror in USA or USA related is Islam involved. What your view on this?

Please point me to this report (from the EU = lol). Even if true, it's the trouble that will arrive from the middle east, where it's nearly 100% Islamic, that's the real danger.

And let's not forget that, I'm sure, these other 'terrorist attacks' probably do not refer of acts of murder we see from Islamic attacks.

[Angelsaint]

You are partially correct. This report is very ambiguous about "acts of terror ". Apparently throwing red paint like ETA did, is considered a act of terror.

[QE Harold Flair]

Note Tobes, Henry, Ital et al ^^^^^

This is what a real man does when confronted with the truth.

[Toby]

Yes, there's fewer people there because it can support fewer people. What's the point of shipping in a load of homophobic, sexist, racist, wife-beating Muslims?

Again you're showing you don't really know what you're talking about. I am talking about parts of the world where populations have decreased in recent decades, where there is spare housing, and where schools and other public services are under-utilised to the point they're hard to sustain. Increasing population definitely improves that sort of community.

[QE Harold Flair]

Increased population might, but as I keep pointing out.... simply dumping a load of illiterate, thrid world twats in there isn't going to make things better.

While we're on this - how many of those fuckwits who promised to take in Syrian families have done so? There were a few politicians among them, wasn't there? It's almost as if they weren't being genuine.

[Toby]

You're being more disingenuous than they were. If there were a system in place whereby people could properly volunteer to take somebody in, I'm sure people would be signing up. But there isn't, and an ad in the local paper isn't going to do much use.

[QE Harold Flair]

You're being more disingenuous than they were. If there were a system in place whereby people could properly volunteer to take somebody in, I'm sure people would be signing up. But there isn't, and an ad in the local paper isn't going to do much use.

I find it impossible to believe that a high ranking politician would be barred from giving her house to a refugee family if that's what they really wanted to do.

[Angelsaint]

Increased population might, but as I keep pointing out.... simply dumping a load of illiterate, thrid world twats in there isn't going to make things better.

While we're on this - how many of those fuckwits who promised to take in Syrian families have done so? There were a few politicians among them, wasn't there? It's almost as if they weren't being genuine.
In Norway, the prime minister already thanked for the amazing number of people officially offering their housed to the Syrians.
Over all expectations.
Wisely the prime minister said it will be used as last resort.

On another news, putin is giving refugees bikes for them to go Norway, politicians are thinking about closing the border to Russia. Doesn't help when the clear majority of them are from Afghanistan and Pakistan...

[Angelsaint]

On another news another refugees shelter burned in Sweden. How stupid can racists be? They are burning because they don't want the government to spend money on refugees, the thing is Sweden without this was spending x on the refugees, now with the increased bill of extra security, new shelters and increased insurance bills it is X+ Y.

[Toby]

I find it impossible to believe that a high ranking politician would be barred from giving her house to a refugee family if that's what they really wanted to do.

"Excuse me sir, do you have a visa to entry the country?"
"Well no but Nicola Sturgeon's offered me her house for a bit"

Somehow I doubt that would cut it at border control.

[QE Harold Flair]

On another news, putin is giving refugees bikes for them to go Norway, politicians are thinking about closing the border to Russia. Doesn't help when the clear majority of them are from Afghanistan and Pakistan...

How are Pakistani's considered refugees?

[QE Harold Flair]

On another news another refugees shelter burned in Sweden. How stupid can racists be? They are burning because they don't want the government to spend money on refugees, the thing is Sweden without this was spending x on the refugees, now with the increased bill of extra security, new shelters and increased insurance bills it is X+ Y.

See, this was my point earlier. Even the most tolerant countries will see this reaction if they take the absolute piss. You don't get much more tolerant than Sweden.

[QE Harold Flair]

"Excuse me sir, do you have a visa to entry the country?"
"Well no but Nicola Sturgeon's offered me her house for a bit"

Somehow I doubt that would cut it at border control.

What? I'm talking about once they are granted asylum.....

And I wasn't even referring to the fishy one.

[Toby]

I know, she was just the first name to come to mind. Once they've been granted asylum there's still no mechanism in place for people to make the offer properly.

[QE Harold Flair]

Private landlording isn't that hard, is it?

[Toby]

Again, an advert in the local paper won't really cut it in this case.

[QE Harold Flair]

An ad in the local paper? They were almost crying - surely politicians can just go right on down to the asylum centre and make the offer right there. I find it just a little more likely that politicians (and celebrities) were not being entirely truthful. Call me cynical.

But if Jolie can go and adopt babies from Africa I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to shack up some refugees in your home if you really wanted to do that.

[Toby]

It's not a fucking dog shelter.

[QE Harold Flair]

I know. We would all like to house dogs I'm sure, who are loyal and make less mess.

Fact is, as a private landlord, you can put anyone in your home. It's not hard at all - you just go and make the offer. If you're genuine, which they aren't.

[Toby]

It isn't that simple, and I'm pretty certain you know it isn't that simple. Asylum seekers can't choose where they live, so it's not a case of somebody rolling up and saying, "come round mine if you like". It's no use making that offer at an asylum centre either if you're speaking to a bunch of G4S staff without any authority.

If there were a system in place for people to actually say, "my home is available for [x amount of time] should you need anywhere to rehouse asylum seekers", I'm sure people would come forward with offers. Yes, there would be those who've said they would in passing who wouldn't follow through, but to call everybody disingenuous when nothing is being done to provide that mechanism, is in itself a disingenuous load of shit.

[QE Harold Flair]

I guarantee hardly anyone would follow through and, if they did, they would change their mind after a while.

I'm sure some are genuine, but forgive me while I scoff at the politicians and celebrities (some of whom don't even live in this country) who make such claims.

[Toby]

That's nice, dear.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'd just like to point out, since you won't see it in the news, that there are an increasing number of Palestinians mowing Israeli civilians down with their cars. Keep informed. Spread the word, lads.

[simon]

How have you found out about that if it's not in the news? :eyemouth:

[QE Harold Flair]

I have the internet.

[simon]

Got a link?

[QE Harold Flair]

Just go to liveleak to watch the videos. Lots of them, in fact. But here's an example of the kind of thing you won't see mentioned in our press:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d5_1447004771

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd3_1446483745 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d5_1447004771)

[simon]

That's probably because Liveleak isn't the most reliable of sources.

[simon]

And also, 'woman stabs man' or 'man runs over other man' are hardly the type of news stories that go international.

[simon]

But nah, it's because the WHOLE OF THE MEDIA hate Israel.

[phonics]

It's been going back and forth for a few weeks now. Proper awful. Just innocents being hit left and right.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's not that they hate Israel so much as they want to side with the Palestinians.

Obviously a proper news outlet would not run 'woman stabs man' in the same way they did not run 'plane crash' in the world trade centre attacks. I get the feeling you haven't paid ayttention but I'll try again - these are daily attacks by Palestinians on Israeli citizens. This is not some random nutter. Just think if it was the other way around and ask yourself if you might not be ignorant about it by now.

Phonics - it is not some tit-for-tat - Israeli's are shooting people who are attacking them with knives and cars.

[phonics]

It's not that they hate Israel so much as they want to side with the Palestinians.

Obviously a proper news outlet would not run woman stabs man. I get the feeling you haven't paid ayttention but I'll try again - these are daily attacks by Palestinians on Israeli citizens. This is not some random nutter. Just think if it was the other way around and ask yourslef if you might not be ignorant about it by now.

I'm not sure what planet you're living on where it's not being covered.

I'm looking at Google News for palestinian stabs israeli and it's under The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, The Mirror.

It's been going on both ways for a few weeks now.

Here's a Jewish guy that was stabbed by another Jewish guy because he thought the guy was an Arab

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stabbed-israeli-mistaken-arab-lashes-out-escalating-violence


In the past month, eight Israelis have been killed in Palestinian attacks and 31 Palestinians killed by Israeli fire, 14 identified by Israel (http://www.theguardian.com/world/israel) as attackers.

Note that that article is from nearly 3 weeks ago now so numbers will be higher.

[Lewis]

I saw a video of a woman trying to stab a security guard earlier. You can get proper terrorist attacks, but this small-scale, improvised stuff just seems overtly counter-productive. Especially when it's pissing old women who can't even do it properly.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not sure what planet you're living on where it's not being covered.

I'm looking at Google News for palestinian stabs israeli and it's under The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, The Mirror.

It's been going on both ways for a few weeks now.

Here's a Jewish guy that was stabbed by another Jewish guy because he thought the guy was an Arab

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stabbed-israeli-mistaken-arab-lashes-out-escalating-violence

As I said, this would be lead story every night if Israeli's were randomly stabbing and running over Pallies.




Note that that article is from nearly 3 weeks ago now so numbers will be higher.

It's not a numbers game. Those being killed are trying to kill and maim Israeli citizens. They should rightly be destroyed.

[Kikó]

Ah a new thing to bore us with.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, once again I force you to read my posts.

[Magic]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=294_1448467758

The Dutch. :cool:

It being reported as an 'environmental crime' is fucking lol too.

[Magic]

So...looks like there's going to be a disaster in Greece. In what form I'm not sure yet.

[Lewis]

Are there any actual reasons why this Calais stuff should have been allowed to get to this stage? How hard is it to just round them up and 1) deport the economic migrants; 2) deport/detain the genuine refugees who refuse to claim asylum in France? I couldn't just roll up outside Hull docks and build a shanty town, so how have they been able to?

As for Europe, everybody should just send them to Germany and refuse to re-settle them. You made your bed, Angela. Now get molested in it.

[Jimmy Floyd]

In fairness, why the fuck would anyone want to claim asylum in France?

[Lewis]

They might be Jacobites.