It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative: Immigration and Asylum

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Conservative Party Team

Link to Conservative News Story



Following the launch of the Conservatives immigration policy Conservative Party Leader Michael Howard, told conservatives.com: "At the next election people will face a clear choice: unlimited immigration under Mr Blair or limited, controlled immigration with the Conservatives."

He went on: "The day I was elected leader of the Conservative Party in 2003 I promised not to duck the problems that Britain faces - that if something was true but tough, I wouldn't shrink from saying it. I come from an immigrant family. I understand that firm but fair immigration controls are essential for good community relations - as do the hundreds of thousands of other British families from immigrant backgrounds.


Immigration and Asylum is a tough issue that many fear getting involved in due to the threat of racism and the potential to upset many international organisations.
The Conservative Party has outlined their proposals for Immigration and Asylum which are as follows:



"We will set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers. We will put in place 24-hour security at ports to prevent illegal immigration. We will introduce an Australian-style points system for work permits - giving priority to people with the skills Britain needs. And we will tighten the immigration rules to stop bogus marriages. Taken together our proposals will lead to a substantial reduction in the number of people settling in the UK. They will ensure that Britain moves forward as a confident, diverse yet united society. And they will create a fairer, more humane asylum system."


These proposals are far from racist as some people claim, they would create a fair immigration system where those who will contribute to this country are allowed in and those who won’t are refused entry, depending on the point they achieve through the points system.
The proposals will also create a fair asylum system where those who are real asylum seekers are allowed in and those who aren’t are refused entry.
The quotations are there to stop asylum seekers skipping through countries simply to aim for Britain. There is nothing racist about this; it is simply making sure asylum seekers are fairly distributed through those countries who can take them.

Quoting from Michael Howards Speech:


To quote Labour's policy there "is no obvious upper legal limit to immigration".


It’s your choice, controlled immigration under a Conservative Government or unlimited Immigration under a Labour Government.




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
It’s your choice, controlled immigration under a Conservative Government or unlimited Immigration under a Labour Government.


- A fine example of the tory rhetoric of today utterly detached from the reality of today.

Every UK gov of whatever colour has since 1968 passed at least one Act of Parliament bill exerting a further tightening up on the 'issue' of immigration.

Mori did a poll recently asking people what they though the current % of the British public were immigrants, men said 18% and women 28%.
The actual figure is 4.8%.

Similarly when people were asked about those seeking asylum they thought the UK took approx 25% of total coming to Europe.
The actual figure is apporx 2%.

www.mori.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.mori.com...

Not only do I find the making of immigration a big deal at election time distasteful (because tories must by now know how this is picked up by racists and petty xenophobes) but the well of ignorance, base prejudice and our worst instincts this seeks to exploit is nothing short of disgusting IMO.

It seems even some tories are already back-peddling and 'softening' this latest 'policy' too -

But the precise nature of those limits is now open to question, following Soames's admission that they would have to be 'entirely flexible given the situation'.
He added: 'It must be understood that, were there to be a great disaster and Britain had to do her bit, we would take in people.'

politics.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Every UK gov of whatever colour has since 1968 passed at least one Act of Parliament bill exerting a further tightening up on the 'issue' of immigration.


Doesn't mean anything if they still aren't working well enough.


Not only do I find the making of immigration a big deal at election time distasteful (because tories must by now know how this is picked up by racists and petty xenophobes) but the well of ignorance, base prejudice and our worst instincts this seeks to exploit is nothing short of disgusting IMO.


True or False it is a major issue, true, immigration and asylum have a great effect on the UK.


It seems even some tories are already back-peddling and 'softening' this latest 'policy' too -


and it also seems a Labour MP is fed up of Labours immigration policy:

news.scotsman.com...



A backbench Labour MP tonight broke with his party’s line on immigration by suggesting that economic migration to the UK should be halted.




[edit on 31-1-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Doesn't mean anything if they still aren't working well enough.


- One can debate the effectiveness of the measures, that is perfectly reasonable.

But it does mean it is an outright dumb lie (not to mention dangerous given the way the ultra-right in the UK look to these tory pronouncements as 'justification') to claim and pretend, as the tories are currently doing, that there is no system of control at all.


True or False it is a major issue, true, immigration and asylum have a great effect on the UK.


- It's just a pity so much of this is based on ignorance and myth, right?


and it also seems a Labour MP is fed up of Labours immigration policy:

news.scotsman.com...


- Labour has it's ding-bats on this issue too, but in the Labour party it is a small number of individual members and not an issue of party policy.
That is the major difference.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
But it does mean it is an outright dumb lie (not to mention dangerous given the way the ultra-right in the UK look to these tory pronouncements as 'justification') to claim and pretend, as the tories are currently doing, that there is no system of control at all.


So the Tory's shouldn't use it becasue they'll get the far-right all worked up, its policy plain and simple, Labour believe in one type of immigration and the Tories believe in another.



- It's just a pity so much of this is based on ignorance and myth, right?


So the people who have asylum or immigration centres built next to there homes don't matter do they



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
So the Tory's shouldn't use it becasue they'll get the far-right all worked up, its policy plain and simple, Labour believe in one type of immigration and the Tories believe in another.


- I have no objection to a sensible debate on the issue. My problem is when they start trying to pretend that there are currently no controls and that it is simply a case of 'open house' when that is a plain lie and when they use these lies and half-truths ina general election.

I see no reason why this issue should always be dragged up by the tories at every election; it's not like it ever does them any good and yet we can see it does harm out in the wider community.

....and yes, I think that kind of lie obviously 'feeds' the extreme right in a manner that means they do share a responsibility for the consequences when they make such idiotic pronouncements.


So the people who have asylum or immigration centres built next to there homes don't matter do they



- Well if you are going to use that kind of 'standard' who would ever do anything?
Afterall who wants to live next to (or to be more accurate -
- 'near'....nicely vague term hmm, do we mean within 1ml, 5mls or maybe 10mls counts as 'near', eh?) a prison or a military base or a research centre or a chemical works etc etc.

That's a recipe for NIMBY-ism (not in my back yard) gone mad.
Where do you stop it?

(and what about the UK holding centres the tories once proposed?
They weren't all to be built on those mythical disused military bases.....

....most of which they'd sold off to private developers etc etc. ie another set of manipulative half-truths superficially plausible yet not really standing much examination.

A bit like the current mythical 'foreign holding centres')


[edit on 1-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Get a grip lads, Immigration isn't "out of control" in the UK.
All the conservatives are doing is exploting the fear dreamt up in rags such as the Daily Mail.
Recent research shows that their is triple the amount of jobs to that of the unemployed.
The idea that these asylum seekers will come in to the UK and get £500 per week and a luxury house is based on one of scandals by the likes of "The Sun", most come in and are put up in bog standard housing and fall vicitim to racisim and general discrimination.
Just a few weeks ago was the Halocaust memorial day, take pride in the fact that Britian accepts aslyum seekers in to its country and gives a hand to those suffering from cruel dictatorships rather than sending them back to be perscuted in the same way America did with the St.Louis ship packed with immigrants in early 1940 (All of the ships passengers were Jews, all were sent backt o mainland Europe and lost in the mist of the Halocaust).
Don't EVER let the conservatives back in power.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by daveydavey
All the conservatives are doing is exploting the fear dreamt up in rags such as the Daily Mail.


So what 'rag' do you read?



Just a few weeks ago was the Halocaust memorial day, take pride in the fact that Britian accepts aslyum seekers in to its country and gives a hand to those suffering from cruel dictatorships


But under Conservative plans more real asylum seekers would get in because the bogus ones would be turned away.


Don't EVER let the conservatives back in power.


Nice to see we discuss politics in a calm and sensible way



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Ok, as far I understand the whole immigration issue, it is not the legal immigrants who are a problem in EU, it is illegal ones, who are entering the countries regardless of their immigration policies.
If you cut down the number of legal immigrants, the problem of illegal ones will still be there.

The problem is actually more a security matter, like tighter controls on borders, tougher laws regarding people who run these immigration "rings" and so on. Illegal immigration is organized crime, spread throughout EU and it requires a EU-wide policy to stop it.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by daveydavey
All the conservatives are doing is exploting the fear dreamt up in rags such as the Daily Mail.


So what 'rag' do you read?



Just a few weeks ago was the Halocaust memorial day, take pride in the fact that Britian accepts aslyum seekers in to its country and gives a hand to those suffering from cruel dictatorships


But under Conservative plans more real asylum seekers would get in because the bogus ones would be turned away.


Don't EVER let the conservatives back in power.


Nice to see we discuss politics in a calm and sensible way
I read "The Times"

By saying that under a Conservative government more real asylum seekers will get in than under Labour? Given the "swamping" were under at the minute from aslyum seekers,surely, cutting out the bogus claims and letting in the real ones is an easier ,more efficient method of bringing in the real seekers and getting shunt of the bogus claimers, without having to turn away genuine claims once a quota is reached. (Can I also ask how the hell Howard plans to get this one past Europe?)

Im sorry if my views regarding the Conservatives arn't calm and sensible, but (as you might have guessed
) Im from the North East, and there is not a chance in hell of me ever voting for them after the damage theyve done up here, turning the countries biggest shipping port into a nothing, destroying coal mines and industry, putting millions out of work, there is no way they should be allowed to control a country.
The immigration plans are nothing short of opportunist, its a politcal nightmare trying to get such legislation through Europe, what makes Howard think he will be able to do it? or is he going to somehow pull us out of Europe???
Oh and then theirs the hundreds of thousands of civil cervants jobs going out of the window, more unemployment under the torys?
, To much red tape in Government, I'd like to see Mr.Howard tell everyone of them civil cervants their out of a job because of a sick vote winning ploy.
Tax less, spend more, yeah, right...

Were a tiny, tiny nation, in perspective were the size of a postage stamp, yet ,because of the torys ,we havent got a working rail network, go figure...
Poll Tax anyone?, Supporting gassing of the kurds in build up to WW2, anyone?
Words can't describe how elated I was back on that fateful 1997 early morning...



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I disagree that when they bring up immigration they play into the hands of the far right, it's when issues such as these are ignored that the far right sees a foothold and exploits it to the max.

How long ago was it that so called educated liberals were telling us all that our fear of crime far outweighed the reality, well the fear turned out to be justified because neither party felt the need to tackle it's causes. It may well turn out to be the same with immigration.

It's unreasonable to inhibit open discussion by accusing people of xenophobia and hysteria.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by daveydavey
Im sorry if my views regarding the Conservatives arn't calm and sensible, but (as you might have guessed
) Im from the North East, and there is not a chance in hell of me ever voting for them after the damage theyve done up here, turning the countries biggest shipping port into a nothing, destroying coal mines and industry, putting millions out of work, there is no way they should be allowed to control a country.


All i can say is sorry, yes it was part the Conservatives fault but don't heap 100% of the blame on them.


The immigration plans are nothing short of opportunist,


So current issues are opportunist are they?


its a politcal nightmare trying to get such legislation through Europe, what makes Howard think he will be able to do it?


Though argueing and upsetting people



or is he going to somehow pull us out of Europe???


I wish




Oh and then theirs the hundreds of thousands of civil cervants jobs going out of the window, more unemployment under the torys?


I'd like to point out Labour is also cutting large numbers of civil servants


we havent got a working rail network, go figure...


Partly Tory fault part Labour fault


Poll Tax anyone?,


An unpopular idea that will never come into practice.


Supporting gassing of the kurds in build up to WW2, anyone?


What a disguesting statement, how many years ago was that, and the people who supported it are proberly dead now.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
I disagree that when they bring up immigration they play into the hands of the far right, it's when issues such as these are ignored that the far right sees a foothold and exploits it to the max.


- Fair enough, it's your right to disagree.

However given that an immigration 'act' has gone through Parliament every gov 'term' since 1968 when are you saying the issue has been "ignored"?


How long ago was it that so called educated liberals were telling us all that our fear of crime far outweighed the reality, well the fear turned out to be justified because neither party felt the need to tackle it's causes.


- Excuse me? "Educated liberals"!?
Jayzuss we're not going to start that totally childish perversion of the term 'liberal' here in the UK are we?


The fact is that as far as crime was concerned the tory party (and mates in the press) had worked themselves into the tragically sad position of having wound the public up into a great fear over the levels of crime that doubled during their tenure when the crime figures fell no-one believed them!

Sadly a consequence that still reverberates and holds true to this day, despite what surveys say about overall crime levels in the UK.


It may well turn out to be the same with immigration.

It's unreasonable to inhibit open discussion by accusing people of xenophobia and hysteria.


- It is perfectly reasonable to question how come this issue only ever comes out when the tories get desparate enough to feel the need every election time if it is supposed to be such a 'burning issue' with the public.

It also seems perfectly reasonable to me to point out the reality of the situation and when the people expressing such 'worry' and 'concern' are (usually) actually exaggerating the matter (and often, though it is true not always, for very obvious purposes).

4.8% of the UK population is immigrant, most of it is around London and the SE.

It amazes me just how 'worried' and 'concerned' some people get despite not actually having much of an immigrant community near them.....

....unless, of course, what they are really 'worried' and 'concerned' about are the 'brown Britons' they imagine, wrongly, to be 'immigrants' too?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I'd like to point out Labour is also cutting large numbers of civil servants


- Labour plan to reduce the civil service by substantially less than the tory party plans.

They are absolutely not the same on the issue.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

However given that an immigration 'act' has gone through Parliament every gov 'term' since 1968 when are you saying the issue has been "ignored"?


The problems being encountered with immigration today are a world away from those of 1968. Totally inadequate border controls, immigrants coming through and dissapearing into the population unchecked. Criminal gangs targeting the UK and an army of human rights lawyers making a mint from bogus asylum claims. This in no way denies the fact that there are genuine economic and political refugees who are willing to integrate and contribute, it just means that people are concerned about a proportion who don't. In this instance the issue has been ignored or at least rebuffed by a govt that doesn't want to talk about it.




- Excuse me? "Educated liberals"!?
Jayzuss we're not going to start that totally childish perversion of the term 'liberal' here in the UK are we?

The fact is that as far as crime was concerned the tory party (and mates in the press) had worked themselves into the tragically sad position of having wound the public up into a great fear over the levels of crime that doubled during their tenure when the crime figures fell no-one believed them!

Sadly a consequence that still reverberates and holds true to this day, despite what surveys say about overall crime levels in the UK.


Yes the educated type who took it upon themselves to smack us on the wrist and told us not to be so hysterical and paranoid as we gazed through our windows and saw it all happening outside. Funny how when the Rolexes and four by fours started getting nicked that it was universally agreed we had a rising crime problem.



- It is perfectly reasonable to question how come this issue only ever comes out when the tories get desparate enough to feel the need every election time if it is supposed to be such a 'burning issue' with the public.


Sorry it might become an issue for politicians only around election time, but for normal people it's been pretty much a talking point for a good couple of years.


It also seems perfectly reasonable to me to point out the reality of the situation and when the people expressing such 'worry' and 'concern' are (usually) actually exaggerating the matter (and often, though it is true not always, for very obvious purposes).


What would these not very obvious purposes be then?


4.8% of the UK population is immigrant, most of it is around London and the SE.


It amazes me just how 'worried' and 'concerned' some people get despite not actually having much of an immigrant community near them.....

....unless, of course, what they are really 'worried' and 'concerned' about are the 'brown Britons' they imagine, wrongly, to be 'immigrants' too?


And I live in the South East so I guess it's OK for me to talk about it and ask questions. I live next door to some of those 'brown Britons' you mention as well as a fair proportion of eastern Europeans, Indian, Pakistani Chinese etc and have never had any trouble from them all this time so I could care less about their ethnicity in fact most crime and anti social behaviour around here is down to the indigenous white population. it's actually about how many we can sensibly accomodate and who qualifies and why they do, not skin colour.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
The problems being encountered with immigration today are a world away from those of 1968.


- No. Maybe you misread, this isn't about the world changing since 1968.

What has actually happened is that there has been a new immigration Act passed through Parliament in every 4 - 5yr 'term' of every UK gov since 1968.

To say the issue has been "ignored" is simply not true and so far removed from reality as to be utterly absurd.



Totally inadequate border controls, immigrants coming through and dissapearing into the population unchecked. Criminal gangs targeting the UK and an army of human rights lawyers making a mint from bogus asylum claims. This in no way denies the fact that there are genuine economic and political refugees who are willing to integrate and contribute, it just means that people are concerned about a proportion who don't. In this instance the issue has been ignored or at least rebuffed by a govt that doesn't want to talk about it.


- Well I'm sorry but I could not disagree more.

Like I have said every UK gov since 1968 has 'tightened up' immigration policy.

What the gov has to do is look at the facts and trying to claim there are vast hoards of foreigners who "disappear into the population" (but who, somewhat contradictatorily, are supposed to be milking the nation dry via the benefits system or the health service or local authority housing - implying registering for benefit etc) is simply not an accurate reflection of what is really going on.

The fact is, as all countries experience, there is an element of illiegal immigration to the UK.
Nevertheless our immigration levels are not excessive and only relatively recently have shown a net inward 'flow' for decades it was outward.


Yes the educated type who took it upon themselves to smack us on the wrist and told us not to be so hysterical and paranoid as we gazed through our windows and saw it all happening outside. Funny how when the Rolexes and four by fours started getting nicked that it was universally agreed we had a rising crime problem.


- I defy anyone to look at the UK press over the last 30yrs and not see the endless 'rising tide' crime story being run pretty much day in day out.

How on earth can you claim this has been down-played?

In fact whilst there are areas and catagories of rising crime the overall situation is one where crime is falling as the population ages, actually.


Sorry it might become an issue for politicians only around election time, but for normal people it's been pretty much a talking point for a good couple of years.


- Maybe (but it's hardly something quantified, even the survey(s) that show this subject a 'cvoncern' amongst a large section of the public do not actually attempt to quantify that level of concern) , but it is still deeply suspicious that the tory party only wheel this one out at election time.


What would these not very obvious purposes be then?


- What would you call a 'tory debate' that steers as far away from the actual facts and figures as much as possible?
Why do you think they do it?

It's obvious, it's their usual dreary attempt to appeal to the rump 'Alf Garnet' element.


And I live in the South East so I guess it's OK for me to talk about it and ask questions.


- It makes a change from folks who live nowhere near an large number of immigrants.


I live next door to some of those 'brown Britons' you mention as well as a fair proportion of eastern Europeans, Indian, Pakistani Chinese etc and have never had any trouble from them all this time so I could care less about their ethnicity in fact most crime and anti social behaviour around here is down to the indigenous white population.


- Funnily enough when I lived in London that was exactly my experience.

.....and how about them, their kids and the young men and women and their elderly?
How many of them do you personally know who have suffered actual physical and verbal abuse for being different?
How many do you know get told how they don't belong here (despite being born here) by the very 'Alf Garnet' types the tories target, hmmm?


it's actually about how many we can sensibly accomodate and who qualifies and why they do, not skin colour.


- Well that's why you'll see a sensible approach in the Labour policies. Sadly they felt the need to respond to the new tory proposals but there we are.

Labour proposes a new type of immigration on the basis of skills - kind of like the European idea of the 'guest workers'.

You won't find the British people having the micky talken out of them with fantasies about 'foreign holding centres no foreign gov has - or ever will - agree to nor the plain nasty arbitary cap on asylum.

(Cos it's noteable that in the debate the 2 separate issues of asylum and immigration are invariably confused and treated as one)

But I'd love it if this matter was properly discussed on the basis of facts alone, sadly it rarely is.

If we stick to the facts we would all be heartened to know that the UK's immigrant population is only 4.8% of the total or that the UK takes only 2% of the world asylum seekers, hmm?

Did you know the current rate of asylum claims are approx 700 per month (this figure includes the family members too)? Hardly 'swamping', huh?

If we stick ony to facts we'd recognise that the highest concentration of immigrants is in London and the London area (by far) and the London area is the richest and only part of the UK matching US levels of productivity (which gives lie to the claim or implication that 'they' don't contribute)?

The idea that 'the UK is full' is simply untrue and generally put about by people hoping that 'we' will treat these people as if because of them something is being taken away from us, which is plainly garbage playing on our worst instincts.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Maybe (but it's hardly something quantified, even the survey(s) that show this subject a 'cvoncern' amongst a large section of the public do not actually attempt to quantify that level of concern) , but it is still deeply suspicious that the tory party only wheel this one out at election time.


It's not suspicious at all....they have to have policies at election time, and up lately they havent had any! So what's suspicious about them finally having a policy about something?!

The big problem I have with the torys is that they are so desperate to appeal to the masses that they do seem to jump on the bandwagon somewhat. Take this asylum/immigration policy for example. I just think that they have announced a policy they think the public wanted to hear, rather than because they actually believe it.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
If I may suggest a look at this excellent article by David Aaronovitch
from The Guardian Tuesday January 25, 2005.

I think it adds some interesting perspective to this debate.

society.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Re:the above mentioned article:

Firstly I would be interested to know where he gets his figures from. it's all very well to spout off figures like that (and they may well be right) but he has to back it up with evidence. If the figures are true it would certainly surprise me, and it gives a different perspective of the general impression we get from the media in general.

but i do feel this article paints a far too rosy picture of immigration, and accuses some of those in the right-wing media of being racist - very thin ice me thinks (and again unsubstantiated).

I want to speak a little from personal experiences (after all, all of our political viewpoints are moulded from personal experiences). In Cardiff, where I live (and i don't have facts or figures to back these comments up, although if i looked i could probably find some!), there has been a steady increase in immigrants, whether asylum seekers or otherwise. and they do seem to be concentrated in certain areas of the city. these areas are slowly becoming no go areas especially after dark due to increasing fears of crime.

i myself was the victim of a crime about a year ago, from a young girl of eastern european decent - i think romanian. whether she was in the country legally or not i dont know. but the police seem to think she was part of a chain of thieves operating in cardiff from eastern europe. now i know you can never prevent this sort of thing happening all the time, and this is only a small example, but i just wanted to emphasise the types of problems that immigration can bring.

i feel this article is not tackling the real issues and is squabbling about petty details in the hope of discrediting the conservatives. so sorry sminkey, i dont agree with your assessment of this being "an excellent article".



[edit on 12/2/05 by gareth_24]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gareth_24
Firstly I would be interested to know where he gets his figures from.


- As he says in the article, the same place as Howard, the Home Office.

Here you go, plough through these at your leasure -

Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2003 HOSB 11/04
www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

Persons Granted British Citizenship, United Kingdom, 2003 HOSB 7/04
www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom, 2003 HOSB 12/04
www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

Control of Immigration: Statistics - United Kingdom 2003 Command Paper 6363. (more detailed information than HOSB 12/04) (please note, this is a link to the Stationery Office website. We accept no responsibility for the contents of this site)
www.official-documents.co.uk...

Control of Immigration: Statistics - United Kingdom 2002 Command Paper 6053. (more detailed information than HOSB 10/03) (please note, this is a link to the Stationery Office website. We accept no responsibility for the contents of this site)
www.official-documents.co.uk...



it's all very well to spout off figures like that (and they may well be right) but he has to back it up with evidence.


- Well in fairness Gareth he does say he is using the same source as Howard, doesn't he?


If the figures are true it would certainly surprise me, and it gives a different perspective of the general impression we get from the media in general.


- It would hardly be the first time that a sizeable section of the UK media persues it's own political agenda rather than state the bald figures now would it?


i myself was the victim of a crime about a year ago, from a young girl of eastern european decent - i think romanian.


- But come on Gareth, you're surely not going to write off all Romanians as criminal types now are you? Michael Howard would hardly like that!


i feel this article is not tackling the real issues and is squabbling about petty details in the hope of discrediting the conservatives. so sorry sminkey, i dont agree with your assessment of this being "an excellent article".


- You are free to hold your opinions but how do those opinions stand in the light of a slightly different side to the tale (officially sourced now for you too)?

Surely if the stats show Howard & Co are manipulating this part of the immigration story it does bring to light something beyond mere spabbling and the petty?
Is it not justifiable to discredit the tories for such a superficial alarmist reading of the stats?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join