Vigilance Necessary

[spooky3]

when did terrorist attacks start in the UK?

 

Always !

[Bassman62]

Generally speaking, there has been a shortage of workers in this country since at least the second world war and probably since the first one. The way to resolve this shortage was though immigration. The only other alternative would have been a mass breeding program but that wouldn't have done anything to solve the problem for 16 years and I doubt the population of the time would have accepted such a solution.

 

What do you offer instead of multiculturism? What is multiculturalism anyway?

Very nice fairy tale for the multi culturalists.

There was mass unemployment between the WWI & WWII Fact!

The British workers were having to compete using outdated antiquated plant and machinery against a Eurpoe that was re equipped after WWII under the Marshall Aid Plan.

In the 50s, 60s and 70s most of the Sheffield factories resembled industrial museums.

The quick easy asnwer by the owners and the Tory governments was to bring in cheap immigrant labour which produced a short quick fix but a long term problem.

I worked in same of these factories how many of you did.

[Kaimani]

from Cromwell, to IRA to present day there have always been attacks. but that's besides the point. my point was that people came in the late forties/early fifties, many among them Muslims and there were no attacks then. the first attacks came as a direct response to global policy and perceived threats. this is not to say they're right, it's just to say there mere presence of Muslims wasn't, is not, and will not be the reason for bombings.

[Bassman62]

How's that work with the minimum wage in place?

The minimum wage wasn't always there, the gangers in the fruit and veg fields don't worry about minimum wages.

Illegal immigrants and EU migrants are regularly shown to be working for as little as £1.50 per hour.

The Morcambe Bay Chinese cockle pickers were all illegal immigrants working for a pittance.

[Bassman62]

from Cromwell, to IRA to present day there have always been attacks. but that's besides the point. my point was that people came in the late forties/early fifties, many among them Muslims and there were no attacks then. the first attacks came as a direct response to global policy and perceived threats. this is not to say they're right, it's just to say there mere presence of Muslims wasn't, is not, and will not be the reason for bombings.

Immigrants only came in noticable number in the late 50s and into the 60s, the first were mainly Affro Carribeans followed by Pakistanis.

They weren't brought by any social conscience the were brought to be used as cheap labour.

[azazel666]

from Cromwell, to IRA to present day there have always been attacks. but that's besides the point. my point was that people came in the late forties/early fifties, many among them Muslims and there were no attacks then. the first attacks came as a direct response to global policy and perceived threats. this is not to say they're right, it's just to say there mere presence of Muslims wasn't, is not, and will not be the reason for bombings.

 

Not wrong....not wrong at all....but this does not change my view.

 

As an example...

 

The UK has a lot of people from Country X. Country X turns into a bit of a rogue state and invades an innocent neighbouring country for say....religious reasons.....

 

The UK needs to help the invaded country......as do other European countries, but if the do Country X's ex pat community are going to get very angry.............

 

It's simply a risk of tension for a country to have communities with conflicting interests in mass numbers.

 

I guess that is why we have country borders in the first place? No?

[Kaimani]

Immigrants only came in noticable number in the late 50s and into the 60s, the first were mainly Affro Carribeans followed by Pakistanis.

They weren't brought by any social conscience the were brought to be used as cheap labour.

 

agreed, to a point. all of them came from the commonwealth. so you could say that was the social conscience at work, on the part of the UK. but there were no terrorist bombing even though they were coming from a Muslim country. that why i made that comment.

[Cavegirl]

Eh, so are you saying nothing is real! Your mad!

 

I don't hate, but I know certain things do happen!

 

I'm saying that your 'reality' or what you believe to be truth, is subjective. It is particular only to you and it has been fed to you through the stories of others. It is the sum of all your understanding, opinion and guess-work. It is not actual reality.

 

It's not madness, it's called philosophy.

[Kaimani]

Not wrong....not wrong at all....but this does not change my view.

 

As an example...

 

The UK has a lot of people from Country X. Country X turns into a bit of a rogue state and invades an innocent neighbouring country for say....religious reasons.....

 

The UK needs to help the invaded country......as do other European countries, but if the do Country X's ex pat community are going to get very angry.............

 

It's simply a risk of tension for a country to have communities with conflicting interests in mass numbers.

 

I guess that is why we have country borders in the first place? No?

 

country had borders coz it was necessary then. the situation is fast changing. our great grand children will wonder what the big deal was. anyway, the UK has never went to the aid of a country invaded on religious reasons. no country ever has. but in your hypothetical situation, i see your point. that's if the communities had conflicting interests. is this the case in this country? assuming by 'community' we mean the vast majority of whatever group we're talking about, not a loud minority.

[andygardener]

Not wrong....not wrong at all....but this does not change my view.

 

As an example...

 

The UK has a lot of people from Country X. Country X turns into a bit of a rogue state and invades an innocent neighbouring country for say....religious reasons.....

 

The UK needs to help the invaded country......as do other European countries, but if the do Country X's ex pat community are going to get very angry.............

 

It's simply a risk of tension for a country to have communities with conflicting interests in mass numbers.

 

I guess that is why we have country borders in the first place? No?

 

So you suggest we only allow a handfull of expats from any givern country to live here at a time? Not terribly practical is it?

 

What about other decisions that might make people kick off here - like tuition fees? Should we expel all the students in the interests of reducing the risk tensions. While we're at it labour voters aren't very happy at the moment, should they join the students and the immigrants on the container ship to antarctica? Then there's all the tory and lib dem voters who don't like how the coalitions going, should they get packed off too in case they get arsey?