Ann Lucas (1 Viewer)

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
They wouldn't allow any any which is why I said the policy is akin to nazi Germany's. There is not one democratic society that would ever operate that system.

It's racist by definition. In Germany of course the full employment status could not be attained. So the population allowed to work was restricted and German born Jews and other undesirables were removed.

Under your "policy" the same would happen.

The irony of course is your idea would be most unpopular with the very people you are trying to benefit.

You said the policy I proposed was the same as Nazi Germany, we have now established that to be false.

Most advanced, non European countries base their immigration policy on what they need. Is that racist by definition? Are Australia and America racist countries?

Why is it wrong for us to try and limit the amount of immigrants to the amount we need?

Also, I am keen to hear how reducing the supply of low skilled workers is bad for indigenous low skilled workers.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You said the policy I proposed was the same as Nazi Germany, we have now established that to be false.

No we haven't. It is a policy of zero migration into the country until full employment is achieved (your words). That was their policy. Of course when the utopia is still not achieved the "british jobs for british workers" mantra kicks in. The nature of the policy you suggest will guarantee repatriation of many people. Doctors, nurses and other highly skilled workers would be fired for being non British. Progressive thinking.

Most advanced, non European countries base their immigration policy on what they need. Is that racist by definition? Are Australia and America racist countries?

This is purely an anti-EU statement. By definition all countries control migration outside freedom of movement treaties. USA has 6% of its workforce (well in excess of 1 million) unemployed and yet still takes in workers from other countries including unskilled ones. Clearly this is far too liberal by your standards. Australia has nearly 30% of its inhabitants born overseas and net migration figures are similar to ours but off a lower population. I wouldn't believe everything Nigel tells you.

Why is it wrong for us to try and limit the amount of immigrants to the amount we need?

We do outside the EU agreement. Of course cancelling the agreement will result in re-patriation of existing workers and those benefit from pensionable benefits in EU countries.

Consider this;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/does-number-of-europeans-here-equal-brits-abroad/2322


Also, I am keen to hear how reducing the supply of low skilled workers is bad for indigenous low skilled workers.

I see little evidence EU migrants take jobs from British workers. The low paid sector has prospered from cross border migration. It would appear these jobs are not desired by the UK population. So either we have full employment already or as full as people want it to be.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
I am not sure what is being suggested here. That the cars washers commit crime? Is there any evidence of this? More than likely it is that they are filling a void in the market where demand has exceeded supply. Much the same for service sector workers who rather than take jobs of "UK workers" are taking jobs from UK people who would rather not work.



Are you sure about that? The last Census does not agree - not that I am sure what the point is anyway

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.or...ation/londons-population-by-country-of-birth/



More what? Doctors and Nurses to fill the void from the lack of interest or capability of the indigenous population to be employed in these areas? The increases longevity of the population and the percentage changes in age of the population is a far greater problem. The NHS has been a political football for many years and its problems are not related to immigration.


Those with a bad criminal record are unknown to the police here. Look at the bad crimes committed in this country and then see how many are committed by illegal immigrants.It is quite a high percentage for the amount in this country/QUOTE]
[
Subjective. There is no percentage available to their illegal status. Clearly illegal means that those individuals have no place here and therefore are irrelevant in a debate on immigration.




You quote illegal immigration as the main crime source so EU is surely legal isn't it? Again it has broadly been successful in filling jobs that the population seem reluctant to take on the one hand and incapable on the other. Do they want to slacken them? Vote no at the referendum if this above economic viability is a primary concern.



We do not all know it is true, a lot of us think it is xenophobic nonsense. Look at a study by the LSE as an example.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/28/immigration-impact-crime

Full of shit twisting of words as usual. Well done.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Strange ass-hole? Who am I to disagree? :whistle:

In other words incapable of arguing a single point I raised. I won't quote off the above post which is the one I am referring to as the multi quote option appears to be proving a challenge.

Do you think saying "twisting my words" is a satisfactory response?

London - your stat was wrong
NHS - not the problem of immigrants
We all know it's a problem - not according to a top university study - unless they also are "twisting your words"

The only nonsense was your post. You've swallowed the ukip pill and are chocking on its factual innacuracies
 

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
You talk a load of rubbish Grendel as usual to suit your argument, your participation is never about reality but intellectual one upmanship..............you still talk twaddle though !
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You talk a load of rubbish Grendel as usual to suit your argument, your participation is never about reality but intellectual one upmanship..............you still talk twaddle though !

I hardly think quoting respected economists and the population census is talking twaddle -- I think you are twisting my words.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
No we haven't. It is a policy of zero migration into the country until full employment is achieved (your words). That was their policy. Of course when the utopia is still not achieved the "british jobs for british workers" mantra kicks in. The nature of the policy you suggest will guarantee repatriation of many people. Doctors, nurses and other highly skilled workers would be fired for being non British. Progressive thinking.

No, their policy zero immigration full stop.

I fail to see the relevance of Nazi Germany anyway. Personally I think its a bit sick to compare peoples legitimate concerns about immigration to a regime that was responsible for 60 million deaths. I'm sure if I tried to compare a supporter of Keynesian economics (which is most centre left people) to Hitler (a big advocate of Keynesian economics) then you would rightly ask what the comparison is?



This is purely an anti-EU statement. By definition all countries control migration outside freedom of movement treaties. USA has 6% of its workforce (well in excess of 1 million) unemployed and yet still takes in workers from other countries including unskilled ones. Clearly this is far too liberal by your standards. Australia has nearly 30% of its inhabitants born overseas and net migration figures are similar to ours but off a lower population. I wouldn't believe everything Nigel tells you.


We both know that it is much more difficult to get into either of those two countries, and if your advocating a points based immigration system then I'm not really proposing anything different.



We do outside the EU agreement. Of course cancelling the agreement will result in re-patriation of existing workers and those benefit from pensionable benefits in EU countries.

Consider this;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/does-number-of-europeans-here-equal-brits-abroad/2322




I see little evidence EU migrants take jobs from British workers. The low paid sector has prospered from cross border migration. It would appear these jobs are not desired by the UK population. So either we have full employment already or as full as people want it to be.


Whether certain jobs are desired by indigenous people or not is irrelevant. Job seekers allowance should be a privilege, not a right. If the idle don't want to do a certain job that is fine, but that should be the end of any benefits. The UK has a real problem with an underclass that can't be arsed to work, and bringing in hard working Eastern Europeans is just masking that problem.

Unlimited immigration is just kicking the problem of a growing underclass who are happy to spend their lives on benefits, letting others keep them. Until they are forced into work, nothing will change, and until unlimited immigration stops, there aren't enough jobs to force the underclass into.
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
No we haven't. It is a policy of zero migration into the country until full employment is achieved (your words). That was their policy. Of course when the utopia is still not achieved the "british jobs for british workers" mantra kicks in. The nature of the policy you suggest will guarantee repatriation of many people. Doctors, nurses and other highly skilled workers would be fired for being non British. Progressive thinking.

No, their policy zero immigration full stop.

I fail to see the relevance of Nazi Germany anyway. Personally I think its a bit sick to compare peoples legitimate concerns about immigration to a regime that was responsible for 60 million deaths. I'm sure if I tried to compare a supporter of Keynesian economics (which is most centre left people) to Hitler (a big advocate of Keynesian economics) then you would rightly ask what the comparison is?



This is purely an anti-EU statement. By definition all countries control migration outside freedom of movement treaties. USA has 6% of its workforce (well in excess of 1 million) unemployed and yet still takes in workers from other countries including unskilled ones. Clearly this is far too liberal by your standards. Australia has nearly 30% of its inhabitants born overseas and net migration figures are similar to ours but off a lower population. I wouldn't believe everything Nigel tells you.


We both know that it is much more difficult to get into either of those two countries, and if your advocating a points based immigration system then I'm not really proposing anything different.



We do outside the EU agreement. Of course cancelling the agreement will result in re-patriation of existing workers and those benefit from pensionable benefits in EU countries.

Consider this;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/does-number-of-europeans-here-equal-brits-abroad/2322




I see little evidence EU migrants take jobs from British workers. The low paid sector has prospered from cross border migration. It would appear these jobs are not desired by the UK population. So either we have full employment already or as full as people want it to be.


Whether certain jobs are desired by indigenous people or not is irrelevant. Job seekers allowance should be a privilege, not a right. If the idle don't want to do a certain job that is fine, but that should be the end of any benefits. The UK has a real problem with an underclass that can't be arsed to work, and bringing in hard working Eastern Europeans is just masking that problem.

Unlimited immigration is just kicking the problem of a growing underclass who are happy to spend their lives on benefits, letting others keep them. Until they are forced into work, nothing will change, and until unlimited immigration stops, there aren't enough jobs to force the underclass into.

I will answer your points but you seemed to accidentally have missed one out;

We do outside the EU agreement. Of course cancelling the agreement will result in re-patriation of existing workers and those benefit from pensionable benefits in EU countries.

Consider this;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ts-abroad/2322
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
I will answer your points but you seemed to accidentally have missed one out;

We do outside the EU agreement. Of course cancelling the agreement will result in re-patriation of existing workers and those benefit from pensionable benefits in EU countries.

Consider this;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ts-abroad/2322

Well I am not advocating leaving the EU. IMO European immigration only become a problem once Eastern European countries joined. The most sensible thing to do would have been to postpone their freedom of movement rights until their economies caught up with Western Europe.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Well I am not advocating leaving the EU. IMO European immigration only become a problem once Eastern European countries joined. The most sensible thing to do would have been to postpone their freedom of movement rights until their economies caught up with Western Europe.

That ship has sailed.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
That ship has sailed.

HaHa where have I heard that line before

Am not going to get into the depths of this debate
We are a tolerant nation on the whole

I have been surprised by the change In attitude of the Intelligent folk closest to me

It Is the effect on Health Education Housing and Salaries/ wages that have promoted the likes of UKIP

These are all sane honest people I respect and look up to yet I started to shake my head In disbelief at their change In mood

The danger would be that they do generally adopt Racist tendencies rather than acknowledge the Issues surrounding the growth In population

In short the Govt Employers and the Media shouldn't neglect these concerns relying on the British attitude of fair play to swallow up all this pressure as It could boil over
There are so many young lads In their early twenties trying to keep a roof over their young families heads who are seeing their wages stalled and going backwards while competing for accommodation
They simply cannot compete or survive adequately against four or five lads sharing a house where Inflated rents are up to 50% of the lowest paid. Salary while it represents 10% of the Individuals who share
For those young folk It would represent a decline of around 70 years worth of progress to copy their counterparts and just take rooms/lodgings as my parents did when starting out
 
Last edited:

Astute

Well-Known Member
The problem with a lot of people is that everything is OK until it affects them. Then suddenly they they want it sorted yesterday. How about the extra 250,000 infant school places needed in the next 5 years? Hospitals that can't cope already. And all this in times of cuts. Some like Grendel say that the UK isn't full. But the infrastructure is stretched to it's limit. They ignore the facts or don't have a clue what is going on as they don't personally see it.

I have seen it for myself. My stepdad is of poor health. He recently had a heart attack. He was taken to Boston hospital. But they had to close their heart department because of the influx of people. They gave him a drug designed to unblock his arteries. They then had to stabilise him so he could go to the nearest hospital that could help him. They are Leicester and Nottingham, both over 2 hours away. It took them over 3 weeks until they could take him and there was a spare bed. But as soon as they got him there they ran tests to find the drugs had worked. So they took him straight back. A total waste of time and money. The reason they closed the heart department was that the hospital was too busy. Not only that but they have many that are homeless that complain of chest pains and similar. So the hospital has to take them in. They get fed and get a bed for the night. Then the next morning they get up and leave.

In Boston the official amount of immigrants is 15% of the population. And just about all of these are from the last 10 years. But the majority of them are not on the official register. And many are homeless on top of those living in caravans or shared houses that average well over 10 in each house. It is said locally that over 50% in the area are immigrants. And the infrastructure just can't cope. Streets are used as open toilets. Different nationalities fight with each other. And there is not enough work locally to go around.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
I'd be interested to know how far back some of the UKIP-esque posters think we should go when repatriating people? If two Eastern Europeans have a child that was born here, will the child then be kicked out of his or her own country? What about those with a foreign grandparent(s)? We can't be too careful with these lot.

Has anyone else noticed how the migrants coming into this country to work are 'immigrants'; yet those British people in Spain who don't work over there, can't speak the language and have imported their own culture are considered ex-pats?
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
In Boston the official amount of immigrants is 15% of the population. And just about all of these are from the last 10 years. But the majority of them are not on the official register. And many are homeless on top of those living in caravans or shared houses that average well over 10 in each house. It is said locally that over 50% in the area are immigrants. And the infrastructure just can't cope. Streets are used as open toilets. Different nationalities fight with each other. And there is not enough work locally to go around.

It sounds as though these people have integrated well with the locals then.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
I'd be interested to know how far back some of the UKIP-esque posters think we should go when repatriating people? If two Eastern Europeans have a child that was born here, will the child then be kicked out of his or her own country? What about those with a foreign grandparent(s)? We can't be too careful with these lot.

Has anyone else noticed how the migrants coming into this country to work are 'immigrants'; yet those British people in Spain who don't work over there, can't speak the language and have imported their own culture are considered ex-pats?

So do you say that we should have open borders and let everyone in that wants to come?

What is wrong with wanting to keep the criminals out?

Should those that commit serious crimes be allowed to stay?

You mention the ex-pats. The vast majority of them take their money with them. They don't need handouts. They don't need work. And if they need hospital treatment they have to pay for it. Yet you call it as the same as someone coming here without checks that has no money and nowhere to live.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
It sounds as though these people have integrated well with the locals then.

Like you say it doesn't matter as everyone should be allowed in. It doesn't matter a thing for the people it affects. I have seen it for myself. It isn't a nice place to be. The majority are there to work hard. But those are very unhappy with others of the same nationalities that cause all the trouble and expect everything for nothing. It is like a timebomb waiting to go off. And it does frequently.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
So do you say that we should have open borders and let everyone in that wants to come?

What is wrong with wanting to keep the criminals out?

Should those that commit serious crimes be allowed to stay?

You mention the ex-pats. The vast majority of them take their money with them. They don't need handouts. They don't need work. And if they need hospital treatment they have to pay for it. Yet you call it as the same as someone coming here without checks that has no money and nowhere to live.

Anyone who wishes to come here to work and better their lives should be free to without fear of racism and hostility.

Why do you seem to have a direct link with immigrants and criminals?

The very vast majority of migrants from the EU come here with money and don't come here for handouts. I have friends from Spain, Italy, France & Germany. All of these people are immigrants, yet surprisingly enough none of them are criminals and didn't get free housing and don't get benefits off the government.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Like you say it doesn't matter as everyone should be allowed in. It doesn't matter a thing for the people it affects. I have seen it for myself. It isn't a nice place to be. The majority are there to work hard. But those are very unhappy with others of the same nationalities that cause all the trouble and expect everything for nothing. It is like a timebomb waiting to go off. And it does frequently.

I have said that migrants who want to work should be very welcome, please point out where I have suggested that we should be welcoming those who commit crime.

I used to live in Verona for several years which is actually a well known as being something of a fascist city- I never experienced any hostility what so ever compared to some of the comments on this thread.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Anyone who wishes to come here to work and better their lives should be free to without fear of racism and hostility.

Why do you seem to have a direct link with immigrants and criminals?

The very vast majority of migrants from the EU come here with money and don't come here for handouts. I have friends from Spain, Italy, France & Germany. All of these people are immigrants, yet surprisingly enough none of them are criminals and didn't get free housing and don't get benefits off the government.

The very vast majority of migrants from the EU come here with money and don't come here for handouts? This shows how little you know. The vast majority come here with nothing. They come here because they had nothing where they come from. What I have said is that more checks need to be done. Keep the criminals out. Or deport those that commit serious crime. Not let them stay here to continually commit crimes and hide behind the human rights because of silly reasons. So you know a few that have come here to work and have money and are not criminals. That does not mean it is the same for all.

How about meeting some from Romania and similar? Try saying the same then.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
I have said that migrants who want to work should be very welcome, please point out where I have suggested that we should be welcoming those who commit crime.

I used to live in Verona for several years which is actually a well known as being something of a fascist city- I never experienced any hostility what so ever compared to some of the comments on this thread.

I said about doing more checks and getting rid of those that commit serious crimes and stop them from staying through human rights. You brought up UKIP and being facist. So you agree we should do more to stop them from coming in or make it easier to send them back if they commit serious crimes? You have argued against it so far. That is the point I have made so far.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
The very vast majority of migrants from the EU come here with money and don't come here for handouts? This shows how little you know. The vast majority come here with nothing.

I am not sure in which country you are living in but there are 100's of thousand of migrants from the EU who come here to work. So, you think the French, the Spanish, the Italians, the Germans & the Dutch etc all come here with nothing and want to get handouts. Are you really suggesting that the vast majority of these people come here with nothing? Are you sure about that?


How about meeting some from Romania and similar? Try saying the same then

As I have already said, I used to live in Italy and Romanians have been going there for many many years more than they have been coming here. I actually knew quite a few Romanians in Italy, and guess what, they were there working.

You seem to be tarring EU migrants and criminals with the same brush. As I have said, my missus is from Verona and I can assure you that we have many friends in England & Italy from Northern, Southern & Eastern Europe (including Albanians & Romanians) and none of these people have entered a country with nothing and gone to claim benefits. Luckily I choose to live in reality and not the dystopian hell hole that some sections of the media are trying to portray.
 
Last edited:

Astute

Well-Known Member
I am not sure in which country you are living in but there are 100's of thousand of migrants from the EU who come here to work. So, you think the French, the Spanish, the Italians, the Germans & the Dutch etc all come here with nothing and want to get handouts. Are you really suggesting that the vast majority of these people come here with nothing? Are you sure about that?




As I have already said, I used to live in Italy and Romanians have been going there for many many years more than they have been coming here. I actually knew quite a few Romanians in Italy, and guess what, they were there working.

You seem to be tarring EU migrants and criminals with the same brush. As I have said, my missus is from Verona and I can assure you that we have many friends in England & Italy from Northern, Southern & Eastern Europe (including Albanians & Romanians) and none of these people have entered a country with nothing and gone to claim benefits. Luckily I choose to live in reality and not the dystopian hell hole that some sections of the media are trying to portray.

No. You are ignoring what I am saying and twisting my words. You are also in la la land if you say that they never claim benefits. But I am not saying about benefits. I have said a few times about the criminals allowed to come here to commit crime. But you keep ignoring this and try to say I am after all of them. This country needs people to come here. We have an ageing population. But I am against letting anyone who wants to come here whatever their past.

So how about answering the same question for once. Should we allow those that commit serious crimes to remain here? Should something be put in place to stop those that have committed serious crimes in the past from coming here to start with?
 

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/angry-scenes-coventry-council-says-9475649

Angry words were exchanged between councillors and members of the public as Coventry City Council ruled out a referendum on Coventry joining a combined authority with Birmingham.
The Labour controlled council’s cabinet voted unanimously to rule out a public vote on the issue of whether Coventry should join Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country in a combined authority.
One member of the public accused the council of “replacing democracy with dictatorship”, while another called on council leader Ann Lucas to resign as the decision was passed claiming she had “lost the confidence of the people of Coventry” and was “the most hated woman in the city”.
The discussion over the issue lasted almost 90 minutes as it was continually interrupted by angry members of the public demanding a vote on Coventry’s future in any West Midlands Combined Authority.
But a vote was ruled out as councillors pointed to an officers’ reported which suggested that there is not enough time to give residents a vote on the issue, that it would be too costly and that questions on the voting form would be too complex.
Officers estimate a poll on the issue could cost £150,000 via a postal vote system, with online and telephone responses possible, or up to £500,000 for a full referendum.

Insistence that a vote would be too expensive to organise comes despite the council recently signing off a budget of up to £250,000 to “engage” with residents over the issue of a combined authority.
Chris West, the council’s finance officer, was asked why some of that funding couldn’t be used to host a vote.
He said: “We needed to make some budgetary provision for costs which could be incurred while investigating opportunities.
“It was a finger in the air figure, we didn’t have any information to go by. We need to keep the figure under review as more information emerges.”
The news comes in the wake of strong public opposition to Coventry joining forces with Birmingham, the Black Country and Solihull in a combined authority in a bid to secure more spending powers from central government.
Many fear such a set up would see Birmingham overshadow other areas and more than 3,500 people had already signed a petition calling on the council to offer residents in Coventry a vote on the issue.
Glyn Davies, the organiser of another petition on the True Coventarians Facebook page, was invited to speak at the meeting.
He said: “We have had a petition and a vote online and it’s quite unanimous. People are against this in its entirety. We are not being given a chance to have a vote on this.


“There seems to be a lot of misinformation about it. If it was a planning thing you would have notices everywhere and letters through everybody’s door.
“We feel we are not being consulted about this. What input will we have on this decision? Any at all?”
The Labour group prefers a partnership with Hinckley and Bosworth and the Greater Birmingham and Solihull and the Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership areas along with Warwickshire.
But two Warwickshire council leaders have already publicly stated they prefer a combined authority set up away from Birmingham.
The opposition Conservative group in Coventry prefers an alliance with Warwickshire and had also called for a referendum on the issue.
Coventry City Council now insists it will still engage with residents on the issue through a series of drop-in sessions, website material and an “independent” citizen’s panel.
Coun John Blundell, leader of the Conservative opposition, said the council avoided a referendum because the leadership knew what the result would be against joining a West Midlands combined authority.
He said: “I believe this council is fundamentally wrong. Is it because they know what the result will be?
“I believe a referendum can and should be done.”
[h=4][/h] Coun Lucas hit back and said: “I wish you would spend more of your energy trying to convince Warwickshire to join with Coventry rather than Coventry not joining others.”
She added that she remained hopeful “all or at least some” of Warwickshire would still join a combined authority including Coventry and other West Midlands councils.
Labour Coun George Duggins, head of scrutiny, waived the right to “call in” the decision pointing towards the need to “get on with consultation”.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Coun John Blundell, leader of the Conservative opposition, said the council avoided a referendum because the leadership knew what the result would be against joining a West Midlands combined authority.

Never thought the day would come I'd be agreeing with the Conservatives but he's spot on here. Same reason they never mentioned it during the election campaign.

How is Chris West still in a job? "It was a finger in the air figure, we didn’t have any information to go by". He's the same chap Lucas implied gave her false information about the performance of ACL.
 

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
This woman will completely shaft the City of Coventry very soon after shafting Coventry City, Coventry needs to ditch the bitch ASAP !
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
This woman will completely shaft the City of Coventry very soon after shafting Coventry City, Coventry needs to ditch the bitch ASAP !


Ahh, I haven't heard that since the days of Thatch.

At least Lucas isn't as bad as her. Maybe call her bitch lite.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
So she has already managed to begin to dismantle the sporting heritage of Coventry and now the old bag is going to turn the city into a suburb of Birmingham?

Where are all of her anndroids now? Maybe this is even a bit too much for them to defend?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top