Sun Censored Pro-Lib Dem Poll

[DougieG]

'Sun' censored poll that showed support for Lib Dems - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Yet more examples of the right being terrified. Note further down - the Lib Dems would carry almost ALL of the seats in Parliament if people woke up and decided that they can actually win. Let the Tories no longer say that they are the party of change, or that they represent the wishes of the people. The people of the UK clearly want REAL change.

[DTE]

The Right Wing press are scoring massive own goals at the moment. If its not Murdick Jnr and his skank of choice blasting into the Independent's offices, its the Daily Fail's pathetic smear attempts. Faced with the fact their discrediting campaign hasn't worked, they've reverted to the fail-safe of conservative thinking...control. Lets just control the information thats out there, distort polls, misrepresent findings, ANYTHING, to keep the current order in place and give Cameron, Osborne and all their back-slapping plum-faced tosspots a free walk into number 10.

We won't stand for it.

[JacquesMagique]

'Sun' censored poll that showed support for Lib Dems - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Yet more examples of the right being terrified. Note further down - the Lib Dems would carry almost ALL of the seats in Parliament if people woke up and decided that they can actually win. Let the Tories no longer say that they are the party of change, or that they represent the wishes of the people. The people of the UK clearly want REAL change.

"On a uniform swing across Britain, that would give the Liberal Democrats 548 MPs, Labour 41 and the Tories 25"

As if! that's crazy.

[Balthazar]

"The numbers show that half the country cannot stand Gordon Brown and that the other half can't stand David Cameron. I wonder why The Sun wouldn't share this news with its readers."

I knew that! But nice to have the wonkery to back it up.

[DC]

As much as the censorship is bad, it isn't uncommon. Newspapers are private entities, and as such do have the ability, and right, to both publish and exclude what they want, provided it's true (although even that's a bit of an if). We have a show called Presswatch I think, which checks the major newspapers for in-corrections or outright fabrications, and makes them change them, or print apologies. But in this case, excluding isn't exactly lying.

[JacquesMagique]

As much as the censorship is bad, it isn't uncommon. Newspapers are private entities, and as such do have the ability, and right, to both publish and exclude what they want, provided it's true (although even that's a bit of an if). We have a show called Presswatch I think, which checks the major newspapers for in-corrections or outright fabrications, and makes them change them, or print apologies. But in this case, excluding isn't exactly lying.

Noones saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, the point is to expose what they are doing so that people are more aware and can make an informed choice.

[DougieG]

Hell, I think it should be banned. Telling lies in national media, that is. At the moment, it's only illegal if it's slanderous but I think it would be a good thing for all if lies were simply banned, with enormous fines meted out. Opinion pages would of course be exempt, I'm talking about knowingly printing factual inaccuracies. It would put an end to the retard media like the Daily Fail.

[JacquesMagique]

Hell, I think it should be banned. Telling lies in national media, that is. At the moment, it's only illegal if it's slanderous but I think it would be a good thing for all if lies were simply banned, with enormous fines meted out. Opinion pages would of course be exempt, I'm talking about knowingly printing factual inaccuracies. It would put an end to the retard media like the Daily Fail.

Oh I certainly think that blatant factual inaccuracies should be punished but unfortuantely it can be quite difficult to define these things I guess.

[Barry]

Oh I certainly think that blatant factual inaccuracies should be punished but unfortuantely it can be quite difficult to define these things I guess.

As evidenced on this forum, of course.
Many people think the truth is negotiable.

[Opinionated]

Many people think the truth is negotiable.

It may not be negotiable Barry, but it's certainly open to interpretation is it not?

[Jim Franklin]

I like Nick Clegg, I think he is being the most honest of the three, but lets be real here, whilst they have some sane policies the majority of people can relate too...an amnesty of all the illegal immigrants here...Get real, that is beyond daft stupid and an insult to the British people, in my opinion that is tantamount to treason.

[DC]

I like Nick Clegg, I think he is being the most honest of the three, but lets be real here, whilst they have some sane policies the majority of people can relate too...an amnesty of all the illegal immigrants here...Get real, that is beyond daft stupid and an insult to the British people, in my opinion that is tantamount to treason.

Wait what!? I like him as well, you're right he's the most honest, but the LibDems have got some retarded policies. The Trident one for a start, amnesty for illegal immigrants is simply retarded.

[DougieG]

Wait what!? I like him as well, you're right he's the most honest, but the LibDems have got some retarded policies. The Trident one for a start, amnesty for illegal immigrants is simply retarded.

OK, Trident wouldn't be an issue if it didn't cost so damn much. Let's face it, if we're hit by a nuke it really doesn't matter whether we strike back or not, we'll still be ****ed. What's more, many in the army have said they don't want it, it's outdated technology and it would divert a huge amount of money away from things that matter a hell of a lot more. We're not living in the Cold War any more.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not retarded. In fact, I think it's the best part of their immigration policy. Stop any more illegal immigrants coming in, but bring the ones that are here above board. Drags them out of the criminal underworld, gets them paying taxes from legitimate jobs and doesn't incentivise any more illegals because they wouldn't get the same benefits. Labour have tried being hardline about illegals but the fact is that the government simply doesn't know where they are. At all. There's no use being hardline and saying you will deport them all because you don't know where they live. At least an amnesty would make them contributing members of society.

[Barry]

Other Euro countries have been down the amnesty line.
The problem being that they have needed another amnesty a few years later.
It is not a proper policy, it is admitting defeat, admitting that, as a government you have lost control of immigration.

Therefore, I would say, do not ever consider a blanket amnesty.

[DougieG]

Other Euro countries have been down the amnesty line.
The problem being that they have needed another amnesty a few years later.
It is not a proper policy, it is admitting defeat, admitting that, as a government you have lost control of immigration.

Therefore, I would say, do not ever consider a blanket amnesty.

Who?

It is not the admission of failure by the government. It is the admission of failure of a previous government, and that it is now impossible to fix. The 90,000+ illegal immigrants are never going to be found and deported, get real. Why not have them working and paying tax instead?

[DC]

OK, Trident wouldn't be an issue if it didn't cost so damn much. Let's face it, if we're hit by a nuke it really doesn't matter whether we strike back or not, we'll still be ****ed. What's more, many in the army have said they don't want it, it's outdated technology and it would divert a huge amount of money away from things that matter a hell of a lot more. We're not living in the Cold War any more.

Long Range nuclear deterrent is still a vital political and security tool.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not retarded. In fact, I think it's the best part of their immigration policy. Stop any more illegal immigrants coming in, but bring the ones that are here above board. Drags them out of the criminal underworld, gets them paying taxes from legitimate jobs and doesn't incentivise any more illegals because they wouldn't get the same benefits. Labour have tried being hardline about illegals but the fact is that the government simply doesn't know where they are. At all. There's no use being hardline and saying you will deport them all because you don't know where they live. At least an amnesty would make them contributing members of society.

It's giving up on the problem. It says that when things get so bad we just give up.

[Midas]

Long Range nuclear deterrent is still a vital political and security tool.

Why? Even our top generals are now questioning why the Trident programme was excluded from the defence review and are saying it's outdated and just too expensive. Exactly who is it who's likely to attack Britain in such a way that we'd respond using nuclear weapons?

It's giving up on the problem. It says that when things get so bad we just give up.

I do agree with you here. It might well be problematic to track down every illegal immigrant, however I think that as each and every one of them is found, they and their families should be deported within days without any option. We're already thought of as being far too liberal with immigrants - that's why they're pouring in - and tough action would send a signal that was about to stop.

[DougieG]

Long Range nuclear deterrent is still a vital political and security tool.

Only if you're living in the past. This isn't actually an answer, it's just a statement not really justified in any way. I know you are of a militaristic leaning - all fascists are - but in the real world, nukes just aren't the most effective way to spend money any more.

It's giving up on the problem. It says that when things get so bad we just give up.

No, it's pragmatic. The problem is NOT going to be solved by any other means. This is the problem with right-wingers - so caught up in ideological fanaticism and dislike of foreigners that the very idea of simply accepting them and making a pragmatic, sensible decision doesn't even occur. What's worse? Losing a bit of pride, or never solving the problem?

[DTE]

Only if you're living in the past. This isn't actually an answer, it's just a statement not really justified in any way. I know you are of a militaristic leaning - all fascists are - but in the real world, nukes just aren't the most effective way to spend money any more.

Exactamundo D to the Gizzle. Trident's purpose was destroying Moscow. Its an outdated aim, an outdated system and the product of a crazy time. Russia and the US are agreeing terms to vastly decrease their numbers of nuclear weapons, and during the worst financial situation since the great depression, we aren't even including Trident in our defense review.! Brown and co-horts can talk about Iran all day, blah blah they're seeking nuclear blah, they're not going to attack us. And really, who are we going to attack? There has to be another option. Britain's superpower days are over, its time to cosy up to the EU and use them for protection.

No, it's pragmatic. The problem is NOT going to be solved by any other means. This is the problem with right-wingers - so caught up in ideological fanaticism and dislike of foreigners that the very idea of simply accepting them and making a pragmatic, sensible decision doesn't even occur. What's worse? Losing a bit of pride, or never solving the problem?

Lib Dem immigration policy is a bit odd. The restricted visas idea is rubbish. Check out my blog for an example. On the amnesty, I am undecided. If it is handled properly, then it COULD work, although as Brown said in the debate, declaring an amnesty on illegals may well encourage more to try to get in. Of course if we adopted another Lib Dem policy in the border police, we would have a better chance of stopping that happening.

[DougieG]

Exactamundo D to the Gizzle. Trident's purpose was destroying Moscow. Its an outdated aim, an outdated system and the product of a crazy time. Russia and the US are agreeing terms to vastly decrease their numbers of nuclear weapons, and during the worst financial situation since the great depression, we aren't even including Trident in our defense review.! Brown and co-horts can talk about Iran all day, blah blah they're seeking nuclear blah, they're not going to attack us. And really, who are we going to attack? There has to be another option. Britain's superpower days are over, its time to cosy up to the EU and use them for protection.

At least someone else has some sense! Just watching Clegg on Andrew Marr - pointing out that, as Obama says, the biggest threat is a dirty bomb from terrorists. A nuke ain't going to help against that.

Lib Dem immigration policy is a bit odd. The restricted visas idea is rubbish. Check out my blog for an example. On the amnesty, I am undecided. If it is handled properly, then it COULD work, although as Brown said in the debate, declaring an amnesty on illegals may well encourage more to try to get in. Of course if we adopted another Lib Dem policy in the border police, we would have a better chance of stopping that happening.

Mmmmmmm, true. I've been won over by this regional business, I think it could be quite good if implemented properly. Not convinced by the whole OMG FLOOD OF ILLEGALS argument, especially since none of those 'new' illegals would be granted the amnesty. At least they don't think that an arbitrary points system is the best way.

[DTE]

Mmmmmmm, true. I've been won over by this regional business, I think it could be quite good if implemented properly. Not convinced by the whole OMG FLOOD OF ILLEGALS argument, especially since none of those 'new' illegals would be granted the amnesty.

Yeah. Implemented properly being the term of choice. We are a pretty small country, I think restricting travel to different areas will cause more problems than it solves. You can get pretty much anywhere in Britain in a day on the train. I just don't see it working. Then again, it does represent an improvement over the current system.

At least they don't think that an arbitrary points system is the best way.

Or as Cameron proposes, a cap. A non-defined cap. We will stop people entering this country once X number of people are in. We will decide what X indicates at a later date. Honestly, what a load of wank. People actually vote for this ****?

[DC]

Only if you're living in the past. This isn't actually an answer, it's just a statement not really justified in any way. I know you are of a militaristic leaning - all fascists are - but in the real world, nukes just aren't the most effective way to spend money any more.

Not today, no, but tomorrow, maybe. Giving up Britain's nuclear deterrent is wrong. Right now our enemies are men in caves, tomorrow it may be China, Russia or someone else. Simply because Nukes are not useful in today's combat situations does not mean that they won't be in the future.

No, it's pragmatic. The problem is NOT going to be solved by any other means. This is the problem with right-wingers - so caught up in ideological fanaticism and dislike of foreigners that the very idea of simply accepting them and making a pragmatic, sensible decision doesn't even occur. What's worse? Losing a bit of pride, or never solving the problem?

Or instead of trying integrate and burden an already abused welfare system with illegal immigrants, maybe we could spend that money on improving the police force to catch these people. What this message says is that the problem is too hard to deal with so we'll just give up.

[DTE]

Not today, no, but tomorrow, maybe. Giving up Britain's nuclear deterrent is wrong. Right now our enemies are men in caves, tomorrow it may be China, Russia or someone else. Simply because Nukes are not useful in today's combat situations does not mean that they won't be in the future.

If we started a nuclear war with China or Russia Trident won't help squat. They'd obliterate us in a matter of minutes.

Or instead of trying integrate and burden an already abused welfare system with illegal immigrants, maybe we could spend that money on improving the police force to catch these people. What this message says is that the problem is too hard to deal with so we'll just give up.

Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare.

Actually it says we are FINALLY TAKING SOME ACTION on this issue. Which is more than Labour have done in the last 5 years

[DC]

If we started a nuclear war with China or Russia Trident won't help squat. They'd obliterate us in a matter of minutes.

However Trident would then respond, obliterating them, ergo, they would not launch a Nuclear attack.

Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare.

They won't be illegal though if they're given amnesty will they? This just puts more poor, socially isolated people into the welfare system, ergo, more people who will turn to crime and extremism. Getting them out of the country, not welcoming them in, should be the priority.

[DougieG]

However Trident would then respond, obliterating them, ergo, they would not launch a Nuclear attack.

Because they will launch a nuclear attack anyway? Can you imagine the state of the world if China obliterated Europe? Firstly, France and the USA would retaliate (NATO, remember?). The entire Western world would go to war with them. Russia would probably remain neutral. I love how hypocritical rightists are. They claim to want to eliminate unnecessary spending and waste, advocating small government, but still want to pay billions of pounds so that their government can have the most powerful weapons known to humanity that will never, ever be used. MAD is an obsolete concept in this day and age. It's backward looking and wasteful to carry on Trident. Obviously most of the UK agree - look at the polls at the top.

They won't be illegal though if they're given amnesty will they? This just puts more poor, socially isolated people into the welfare system, ergo, more people who will turn to crime and extremism. Getting them out of the country, not welcoming them in, should be the priority.

Except they would be working and paying taxes. Look, I know you don't experience the country first-hand, so you will have to trust us that the NHS is actually excellent. It struggles with money, sure, but it does a damn good job and shockingly is not ridiculously overburdened. It might surprise you to learn that the tabloids LIE. This is because they then sell more papers. There are not 4,000,000,000 immigrants on every street. They mostly integrate quite well. There are some areas where they don't. There are also some illegal immigrants. But they are NOT the country's biggest problem. You're letting certain newspapers and certain people feed you untrue stories about the state of Britain - don't be fooled. An amnesty would not cause Britain to collapse.

[Citizen Smith]

get rid of all nuclear weapons and missiles of any kind, all military submarines, and bring the defence budget down by 95%. Wait for a few more years, then get rid of the army altogether.
Other countries will, eventually, follow.

[DC]

Because they will launch a nuclear attack anyway? Can you imagine the state of the world if China obliterated Europe? Firstly, France and the USA would retaliate (NATO, remember?). The entire Western world would go to war with them. Russia would probably remain neutral. I love how hypocritical rightists are. They claim to want to eliminate unnecessary spending and waste, advocating small government, but still want to pay billions of pounds so that their government can have the most powerful weapons known to humanity that will never, ever be used. MAD is an obsolete concept in this day and age. It's backward looking and wasteful to carry on Trident. Obviously most of the UK agree - look at the polls at the top.

Of course they wouldn't. Why? Because of a nuclear retaliation. If not from Britain then from the US or France. But seriously, do you want to rely on France and the US for your nuclear defence?

Except they would be working and paying taxes. Look, I know you don't experience the country first-hand, so you will have to trust us that the NHS is actually excellent. It struggles with money, sure, but it does a damn good job and shockingly is not ridiculously overburdened. It might surprise you to learn that the tabloids LIE. This is because they then sell more papers. There are not 4,000,000,000 immigrants on every street. They mostly integrate quite well. There are some areas where they don't. There are also some illegal immigrants. But they are NOT the country's biggest problem. You're letting certain newspapers and certain people feed you untrue stories about the state of Britain - don't be fooled. An amnesty would not cause Britain to collapse.

I know there isn't millions of immigrants, and I don't read the tabloids (mostly because the Daily Mail isn't syndicated here). I go by the BBC. My point is that it sets precedent. "The immigrant problem is simply too difficult to handle so we'll give up". That's what that message sends. So in ten years time when there are more illegal immigrants, they'll just do the same thing again. And I don't doubt a large number will be working, but at what jobs? Probably the same they are now. Lower than the working class, menial jobs. These people fit into a nice little niche where they barely pay any tax and half their life is subsidised by Labour's welfare policy. And there are always those who turn to crime and extremism. Each time we 'legalise' in a new wave of immigrants the same thing will happen. Each wave adds to the next and the problems grow.

[DC]

get rid of all nuclear weapons and missiles of any kind, all military submarines, and bring the defence budget down by 95%. Wait for a few more years, then get rid of the army altogether.
Other countries will, eventually, follow.

Why? Because they're so nice? Because they, like you, believe in a paradise of equality, of green fields and unicorns? Let me know how you like North Korea rolling into your backyard. Actually you'll probably love starving to death on the fruits of Communism.

[DougieG]

Of course they wouldn't. Why? Because of a nuclear retaliation. If not from Britain then from the US or France. But seriously, do you want to rely on France and the US for your nuclear defence?

Germany seems to manage. As does every single civilised country in Europe minus France. Why is Germany not lying smashed to pieces yet? The USA would instantly destroy any country that fired on us because they would assume that the next target would be America. Not all of us are bloody-minded nationalists who believe that our random 70 million people must stand alone and apart from all other countries.

I know there isn't millions of immigrants, and I don't read the tabloids (mostly because the Daily Mail isn't syndicated here). I go by the BBC. My point is that it sets precedent. "The immigrant problem is simply too difficult to handle so we'll give up". That's what that message sends. So in ten years time when there are more illegal immigrants, they'll just do the same thing again. And I don't doubt a large number will be working, but at what jobs? Probably the same they are now. Lower than the working class, menial jobs. These people fit into a nice little niche where they barely pay any tax and half their life is subsidised by Labour's welfare policy. And there are always those who turn to crime and extremism. Each time we 'legalise' in a new wave of immigrants the same thing will happen. Each wave adds to the next and the problems grow.

Rubbish. You have an amnesty, then tighten border controls massively so that no more (or far less) illegal immigrants get in. Simples.

[DC]

Germany seems to manage. As does every single civilised country in Europe minus France. Why is Germany not lying smashed to pieces yet? The USA would instantly destroy any country that fired on us because they would assume that the next target would be America. Not all of us are bloody-minded nationalists who believe that our random 70 million people must stand alone and apart from all other countries.

You don't have to, no. Working together is important. Everybody praying that America will defend them isn't really working together.

Rubbish. You have an amnesty, then tighten border controls massively so that no more (or far less) illegal immigrants get in. Simples.

Oh because Labour's control of immigration has been just awesome during their time in power, and if they have a nice little coalition with the LibDems, then we're sure to see more of 'Operation make Britain More Multicultural'. How bout we don't give them amnesty because they don't deserve it, kick them out, and then tighten boarder controls so they don't come back in.

[DougieG]

You don't have to, no. Working together is important. Everybody praying that America will defend them isn't really working together.

Haha, I think we've established that we won't be blown to smithereens as soon as we don't have nukes.

Oh because Labour's control of immigration has been just awesome during their time in power, and if they have a nice little coalition with the LibDems, then we're sure to see more of 'Operation make Britain More Multicultural'. How bout we don't give them amnesty because they don't deserve it, kick them out, and then tighten boarder controls so they don't come back in.

No need to be sarcastic. Labour's immigration policy hasn't been an unmitigated disaster, no matter what the right would have you think. It's not really been the best, but on the other hand we benefit from having a wide variety of people here, many of whom are better trained than most of our own population. On illegals, Gordon Brown said the same thing that you are saying now in the last debate. It went something like this:

GB: Nick, you can't do an amnesty, you will have loads of people coming here. I will kick all of the illegal immigrants out.
Cameron: Me too.
Cleggmeister: You can't kick them out. You don't know where any of them live.
(Silence as everyone appreciates how owned the other two just got.)

There's no option. Either they stay, because they will never be caught, or we make money out of them. One is idiotic and ideological, pandering to the hysteria of Mail readers, and the other is pragmatic and accepts a proper solution to the problem.

[Balthazar]

One is idiotic and ideological, pandering to the hysteria of Mail readers, and the other is pragmatic and accepts a proper solution to the problem.

Well, we all know which option the lunatic right will choose.

[Jim Franklin]

People talk such drivel at times..and some here seem to be experts in it...

Lets deal with a few issues being touched on here..which I seem to be responsible for starting.

TRIDENT

Trident is not required. The "old enemy" behind the Iron curtain is long gone, and the arguments for having Nukes was misguided even then. Do I believe possession of Nukes deters conflict...well history has shown this is far from the case...all the major Nuclear powers have been involved in almost constant military action since the end of WWII, so the premise that Nuclear weapons alone stop conflict is spurious. They may have forced the main powers to step back from the brink and certainly served a purpose then, but such weapons are now an anachronism of a by gone era. Trident should be scrapped, it is too costly and diverts urgently needed funds from more conventional defence routes. We would still be a Nuclear Power without Trident as we have tactical and other strategic Nukes, so scrapping Trident would not alter our ability to use them as a deterrent.

Immigrant Amnesty

Ridiculous idea for many reasons. It is estimated that around 1 million people are in this country illegally, and that each one of these IS a criminal. Every £1 they earn is stolen from the nation, every Job they fill is stolen from the legitimate people living in these Islands and every child they have steals educational and health resources intended for our children. A few years back the Government estimated that illegal Immigrants costs to the nation was in the region of £30 Billion per year when all costs are accounted for. That is £30 billion of our money, or around £480 for every person legally in the UK, or £1200 for every working person in the UK.

To give these people an amnesty is an admission of a failed immigration policy and system of control and Policing. Each Illegal, as I have said, is a criminal, and who here thinks it is a good idea to have an amnesty of crime. Many illegals here do not work in kitchens or other such mundane almost slave jobs, many are involved in very serious crimes, such as people trafficking, drugs, terrorism, organised crime, street robberies and even murder, do we simply excuse these crimes, pardon these people as this is effectively what would be happening.

Then of course there is the massive insult to all those who have done the hard thing and came here legally, jumping through all the hoops and overcoming difficulties, paying huge sums of money and satisfying the authorities they are worthy of becoming a British Citizen.

I could go on, but I think I don't need too, all sane and sensible people can recognise what a daft policy such and amnesty is, it would not be a single event, it would need to occur over and over again as has been mentioned.

Accepting this as a good idea is ludicrous and insulting to the British People and the immigrants who came here legally.

[JacquesMagique]

TRIDENT

Trident is not required. The "old enemy" behind the Iron curtain is long gone, and the arguments for having Nukes was misguided even then. Do I believe possession of Nukes deters conflict...well history has shown this is far from the case...all the major Nuclear powers have been involved in almost constant military action since the end of WWII, so the premise that Nuclear weapons alone stop conflict is spurious. They may have forced the main powers to step back from the brink and certainly served a purpose then, but such weapons are now an anachronism of a by gone era. Trident should be scrapped, it is too costly and diverts urgently needed funds from more conventional defence routes. We would still be a Nuclear Power without Trident as we have tactical and other strategic Nukes, so scrapping Trident would not alter our ability to use them as a deterrent.

I agree.

Immigrant Amnesty

Ridiculous idea for many reasons. It is estimated that around 1 million people are in this country illegally, and that each one of these IS a criminal.

A crime against who?

Every £1 they earn is stolen from the nation, every Job they fill is stolen from the legitimate people living in these Islands and every child they have steals educational and health resources intended for our children.

Jobs and wages are the property of employers, not of the nation.
Fair point about the infrastructure, but don't you have to be a taxpayer to get state education?

To give these people an amnesty is an admission of a failed immigration policy and system of control and Policing.

But the immigration policy HAS failed..

many are involved in very serious crimes, such as people trafficking, drugs, terrorism, organised crime, street robberies and even murder, do we simply excuse these crimes, pardon these people as this is effectively what would be happening.

Clegg made it clear that those with a criminal record would not be granted amnesty.

Then of course there is the massive insult to all those who have done the hard thing and came here legally, jumping through all the hoops and overcoming difficulties, paying huge sums of money and satisfying the authorities they are worthy of becoming a British Citizen.

True.

[DC]

Haha, I think we've established that we won't be blown to smithereens as soon as we don't have nukes.

I didn't say you would. My point is would you like to rely on other countries for your defence? Not just now, but in an uncertain future. Are you willing to rely on France and the US for Britain's defence from now on?

No need to be sarcastic. Labour's immigration policy hasn't been an unmitigated disaster, no matter what the right would have you think. It's not really been the best, but on the other hand we benefit from having a wide variety of people here, many of whom are better trained than most of our own population. On illegals, Gordon Brown said the same thing that you are saying now in the last debate. It went something like this:

GB: Nick, you can't do an amnesty, you will have loads of people coming here. I will kick all of the illegal immigrants out.
Cameron: Me too.
Cleggmeister: You can't kick them out. You don't know where any of them live.
(Silence as everyone appreciates how owned the other two just got.)

There's no option. Either they stay, because they will never be caught, or we make money out of them. One is idiotic and ideological, pandering to the hysteria of Mail readers, and the other is pragmatic and accepts a proper solution to the problem.

By giving up. That's the solution to the problem? Give up? So in ten years time when the same problem is occurring you just do the same thing?

[DougieG]

I didn't say you would. My point is would you like to rely on other countries for your defence? Not just now, but in an uncertain future. Are you willing to rely on France and the US for Britain's defence from now on?

Yes. Besides, we will still have nuclear capability.

By giving up. That's the solution to the problem? Give up?

Yes. Stop getting on your high horse about it. If we split the UK into two countries - one with amnesty and one without - the one with it would be better in five years. 'Giving up' and all this other dumb ideological emotive language has nothing to do with it. The Lib Dems won't even be 'giving up', they will simply be solving Labour's problems.

So in ten years time when the same problem is occurring you just do the same thing?

No. You make sure that the problem doesn't happen again. Do you really think that illegals come to countries based on their immigration policy? Of course they don't, they won't even have any means of knowing what it is. They will get here and be faced with tough border controls. We have the capability to scan passports and detect people's faces now, they do it at Heathrow, so we may as well do it at all points of entry. It's quick and easy.

[DougieG]

Immigrant Amnesty

Ridiculous idea for many reasons. It is estimated that around 1 million people are in this country illegally, and that each one of these IS a criminal. Every £1 they earn is stolen from the nation, every Job they fill is stolen from the legitimate people living in these Islands and every child they have steals educational and health resources intended for our children. A few years back the Government estimated that illegal Immigrants costs to the nation was in the region of £30 Billion per year when all costs are accounted for. That is £30 billion of our money, or around £480 for every person legally in the UK, or £1200 for every working person in the UK.

Instead, with an amnesty they will be contributing to the nation rather than taking from it.

To give these people an amnesty is an admission of a failed immigration policy and system of control and Policing.

Jim, every time you open your mouth you complain about the 'failed immigration policy'. Isn't it about time that we accepted that yes, it has failed and the only way we are going to solve it is to hit the 'reset' button.

Each Illegal, as I have said, is a criminal, and who here thinks it is a good idea to have an amnesty of crime. Many illegals here do not work in kitchens or other such mundane almost slave jobs, many are involved in very serious crimes, such as people trafficking, drugs, terrorism, organised crime, street robberies and even murder, do we simply excuse these crimes, pardon these people as this is effectively what would be happening.

As Jacques pointed out, criminals won't be given amnesty.

Then of course there is the massive insult to all those who have done the hard thing and came here legally, jumping through all the hoops and overcoming difficulties, paying huge sums of money and satisfying the authorities they are worthy of becoming a British Citizen.

They still benefit(ted). They were legal for the entire time that they were here.

I could go on, but I think I don't need too, all sane and sensible people can recognise what a daft policy such and amnesty is, it would not be a single event, it would need to occur over and over again as has been mentioned.

Well I'm glad that I'm insane and unreasonable. I would say that only unbalanced hateful ideology-driven moronic old conservatives cannot accept the idea of letting a load of frightful Indians to reside here.

Accepting this as a good idea is ludicrous and insulting to the British People and the immigrants who came here legally.

Your problem is that you think there are more options than there are:
A) Amnesty
B) Do nothing
C) Deport them all

when in fact option C does not exist. Noone knows where these people are. You can either try (and utterly fail) to find them, continuing the current state of affairs, or you can offer an amnesty, and put much better border controls on. Honestly, and you lot claim to be pragmatic.

[Opinionated]

...Many illegals here do not work in kitchens or other such mundane almost slave jobs, many are involved in very serious crimes, such as people trafficking, drugs, terrorism, organised crime, street robberies and even murder, do we simply excuse these crimes, pardon these people as this is effectively what would be happening.

This of course is true, but not one of those people is going to apply for amnesty and all it entails, what with the authorities now knowing where you are, operating as they do in the shadows. It should in theory make the job of the police easier and go some way to help with the overcrowding in our prisons, smuggling ring discovered and no immigration card - out you go!
I believe it was Barry who pointed out the policy had been a failure in other EU countries, but I believe when Reagan introduced it in the 80s in the US it was quite successful, it all hinges on going hand in hand with stricter boarder controls.
I also think the idea of restricted and regional visas is a good one, if certain skills are needed in specific areas then wouldn't it make it easier for integration into a community if an immigrant had a specific useful role to fulfil (aren't so-called ghettos one of things people dislike). Of course once they have been here a while and gained British citizenship (subjection? - the Monarchy thing) they should be free to enjoy any work migration around the country along with everybody else.

[Balthazar]

Many illegals here do not work in kitchens or other such mundane almost slave jobs, many are involved in very serious crimes, such as people trafficking, drugs, terrorism, organised crime, street robberies and even murder

Have you evidence to back that up? I've worked with illegals and the last thing they want is to draw attention to themselves by committing crime. If they see a copper coming towards them when walking down the street they'll tend to duck into a back alley! So I suspect they're more law-abiding than the average British passport holder, e.g. you.

I'll wait for your evidence but believe you just want to be nasty to foreigners, and extremely vulnerable foreigners at that. What does that make you? I'd say it makes you morally inferior to the lowest illegal immigrant.

Come on, evidence please. Or are you making up lies about some very vulnerable people to feed a hatred of foreigners?

[DC]

Yes. Besides, we will still have nuclear capability.

Then that is extremely shortsighted. Also people are complaining about the cost, Trident only costs 4% of the overall defence budget, and according to an American expert, doesn't need to be replaced for 15 years.

Yes. Stop getting on your high horse about it. If we split the UK into two countries - one with amnesty and one without - the one with it would be better in five years. 'Giving up' and all this other dumb ideological emotive language has nothing to do with it. The Lib Dems won't even be 'giving up', they will simply be solving Labour's problems.

By giving up. Because that's really what they're doing isn't it? The problem is too difficult to solve so we'll give up. I don't see how this is going to benefit the nation either. If you legalise the 1 million illegal immigrants in Britain, they don't magically become hardworking productive citizens. They remain what they are, the extreme of the lower class, socially isolated with some turning to crime. Any productivity they would create would be offset by the need to support these new additions to the lowest class with welfare.

No. You make sure that the problem doesn't happen again. Do you really think that illegals come to countries based on their immigration policy? Of course they don't, they won't even have any means of knowing what it is. They will get here and be faced with tough border controls. We have the capability to scan passports and detect people's faces now, they do it at Heathrow, so we may as well do it at all points of entry. It's quick and easy.

So they'll still come, they'll still get through and then still disappear into the the underworld of Britain. What's more unwanted immigration will increase, thanks to family ties.

[DC]

Have you evidence to back that up? I've worked with illegals and the last thing they want is to draw attention to themselves by committing crime. If they see a copper coming towards then when walking down the street they'll tend to duck into a back alley! So I suspect they're more law-abiding than the average British passport holder, e.g. you.

I'll wait for your evidence but suspect you just want to be nasty to foreigners, and extremely vulnerable foreigners at that. What does that make you? I'd say it makes you morally inferior to the lowest illegal immigrant.

Come on, evidence please. Or are you making up lies about some very vulnerable people to feed a hatred of foreigners?

Well technically every illegal immigrant is a criminal for entering the country illegally. And the links to crime are quite obvious. What you have are a low paid, usually socially isolated group of people who may already have contact with criminal elements (as they may have used people smuggling groups to enter the UK). Every low paid, socially isolated group, whether legal or illegal in residency, has serious criminal problems.

[Balthazar]

Well technically every illegal immigrant is a criminal for entering the country illegally.

Of course. But so what if people in desperate circumstances "technically" break the law? What are they supposed to do? Sit in a shack in some Third World hell-hole, often with the marks of torture on their bodies, and say: "Oh, I'd better keep sitting here in case I "technically" break British law and annoy some racist buffoon?"

And the links to crime are quite obvious.

If the links are obvious then Jim Franklin will have no problem producing the evidence to back his claim. I suspect he hasn't got any evidence but is, rather, regurgitating Daily Mail propaganda because he hates foreigners. Oh, and he'll:

(a) ignore my request for evidence;
(b) lay down a smokescreen like the Battleship Potemkin; and
(c) whine about poor discriminated against whitey defending his worthless culture from dangerous brown and black people.

[DC]

Of course. But so what if people in desperate circumstances "technically" break the law? What are they supposed to do? Sit in a shack in some Third World hell-hole, often with the marks of torture on their bodies, and say: "Oh, I'd better keep sitting here in case I "technically" break British law and annoy some racist buffoon?"

No, they should run, become refugees. But when they reach safety, they're not running from violence are they? When they go through Spain, Greece and the rest of Europe, they're not running from torture and violence are they? They just coming because they're poor. While the hell should Britain, or any developed country, take the Third world's rejects?

If the links are obvious then Jim Franklin will have no problem producing the evidence to back his claim.

The links are self evident, I just explained them. Virtually any poor and socially isolated group has criminal problems more serious than the social norm. Illegal immigrants are one of the poorest and most isolated groups.

[Balthazar]

While the hell should Britain, or any developed country, take the Third world's rejects?

(a) Because they're in trouble at home and decent people don't reject fellow human beings who are in trouble.
(b) Because it's usually Western imperialism and latter-day Western corporations who've wrecked their countries.

The links are self evident

You produce hyperbole and Daily Mail propaganda. I asked for evidence. There's a difference.

[DC]

(a) Because they're in trouble at home and decent people don't reject fellow human beings who are in trouble.

So why don't we fix their homes so they can stay where they are? Send soldiers in to defend the refugee camps and villages and disarm the bandits. Establish care-taker Governments to build up the public service and root out corruption, and send real aid to help these people, instead of just moving the problem from one location to the next.

(b) Because it's usually Western imperialism and latter-day Western corporations who've wrecked their countries.

Really? Because Australia's main refugee groups come from Afghanistan (war started by Islamic militants) and Sri Lanka (War began by Tamil splinter groups). African conflicts furthermore these days are not because of Western imperialism, simply internal tribal conflicts, often exacerbated by corruption. So no, the traditional "blame white imperialism' copout simply doesn't fly anymore.

You produce hyperbole and Daily Mail propaganda. I asked for evidence. There's a difference.

So you deny that poor and socially isolated groups have a more serious crime problem than wealthier, socially integrated groups?

[Jim Franklin]

Of course. But so what if people in desperate circumstances "technically" break the law? What are they supposed to do? Sit in a shack in some Third World hell-hole, often with the marks of torture on their bodies, and say: "Oh, I'd better keep sitting here in case I "technically" break British law and annoy some racist buffoon?"



If the links are obvious then Jim Franklin will have no problem producing the evidence to back his claim. I suspect he hasn't got any evidence but is, rather, regurgitating Daily Mail propaganda because he hates foreigners. Oh, and he'll:

(a) ignore my request for evidence;
(b) lay down a smokescreen like the Battleship Potemkin; and
(c) whine about poor discriminated against whitey defending his worthless culture from dangerous brown and black people.

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla..thats all you state you whiny little ************. I know more about foreigners than you ever will you insulting little brat. Every one that enters this country without permission commits a criminal offence under British Law, therefore they are a criminal. Every one who works here, is a criminal as they have no legal right to that employment and they assist in tax evasion as the employer is not only robbing them blind, but also the nation by not paying the mandatory NI and Tax liability for that employee. I think you should check the definition of criminal in the dictionary before you go off half cocked in future..

If they are not working, then how do they get money..simple..CRIME...if you doubt that then your even more misguided than I thought, but then you post clearly shows you know very little about the real world beyond the end of you nose.

Regarding foreigners and my supposed hatred of them...hardly, since I was 15 I have slept with a number of British females..but all of my long term partners have been Foreign..my ex wife was a Russian-Lithuanian and the mother of my children is a Moldovan. My ex's include French, German, Indian, South African, Danish, Swedish, Polish, Czech and even two Romanians...Then of course there have been a few from South America too...but I hate foreigners right?

You stupid little man, grow up and open your eyes, I really am not in the mood for your drivel so if you don't like my reply, don't attack me because you can be assured I will respond with vigour. Your politics are myopic and ill thought and you bandy comments as if your an expert...none of us here are experts, we only have opinions. My opinion I have stated quite clearly.

We should have a mandatory ID card system in place and for 5 years everyone must carry it. Heavy fines for all those who fail to do so after a 6 month moratorium to get used to the notion. That way finding the illegals becomes simpler, not easy, but simpler, then none of this understanding rubbish, they came here illegally, they are criminals, so we simply remove them. If they have enough money they pay for the ticket, if not we pay for it. It is still cheaper than having them in the country.

I am sure you will slag off that idea, but it is the ONLY way to really deal with the immigration issue, anything else is a half measure doomed to failure.

Now stick that up your hooter!

[JacquesMagique]

Regarding foreigners and my supposed hatred of them...hardly, since I was 15 I have slept with a number of British females..but all of my long term partners have been Foreign..my ex wife was a Russian-Lithuanian and the mother of my children is a Moldovan. My ex's include French, German, Indian, South African, Danish, Swedish, Polish, Czech and even two Romanians...Then of course there have been a few from South America too...but I hate foreigners right?

Do you want a badge?

[Balthazar]

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla..thats all you state you whiny little ************. I know more about foreigners than you ever will you insulting little brat. Every one that enters this country without permission commits a criminal offence under British Law, therefore they are a criminal. Every one who works here, is a criminal as they have no legal right to that employment and they assist in tax evasion as the employer is not only robbing them blind, but also the nation by not paying the mandatory NI and Tax liability for that employee. I think you should check the definition of criminal in the dictionary before you go off half cocked in future..

If they are not working, then how do they get money..simple..CRIME...if you doubt that then your even more misguided than I thought, but then you post clearly shows you know very little about the real world beyond the end of you nose.

Regarding foreigners and my supposed hatred of them...hardly, since I was 15 I have slept with a number of British females..but all of my long term partners have been Foreign..my ex wife was a Russian-Lithuanian and the mother of my children is a Moldovan. My ex's include French, German, Indian, South African, Danish, Swedish, Polish, Czech and even two Romanians...Then of course there have been a few from South America too...but I hate foreigners right?

You stupid little man, grow up and open your eyes, I really am not in the mood for your drivel so if you don't like my reply, don't attack me because you can be assured I will respond with vigour. Your politics are myopic and ill thought and you bandy comments as if your an expert...none of us here are experts, we only have opinions. My opinion I have stated quite clearly.

We should have a mandatory ID card system in place and for 5 years everyone must carry it. Heavy fines for all those who fail to do so after a 6 month moratorium to get used to the notion. That way finding the illegals becomes simpler, not easy, but simpler, then none of this understanding rubbish, they came here illegally, they are criminals, so we simply remove them. If they have enough money they pay for the ticket, if not we pay for it. It is still cheaper than having them in the country.

I am sure you will slag off that idea, but it is the ONLY way to really deal with the immigration issue, anything else is a half measure doomed to failure.

Now stick that up your hooter!

So no evidence then?

Oh, and he'll:

(a) ignore my request for evidence;

SCORE!

(b) lay down a smokescreen like the Battleship Potemkin; and

SCORE!

(c) whine about poor discriminated against whitey defending his worthless culture from dangerous brown and black people.

You've not done that yet Jimmy. But there's still time. Go on. Have a rant about how your 'culture' is such a delicate flower it risks being 'diluted' by a refugee.

[DC]

So no evidence then?
SCORE!
SCORE!

There is, as I have explained. Poor and Socially isolated groups suffer serious crime problems, most notably gang issues. Illegal refugees are among the poorest and most isolated, as well as not having access to the usual support services offered to such vulnerable communities, and may have been exposed to criminal elements already in being smuggled in.

You've not done that yet Jimmy. But there's still time. Go on. Have a rant about how your 'culture' is such a delicate flower it risks being 'diluted' by a refugee.

It is and there is risks. If you think culture is such a non-issue then we should just go ahead and ban the Burqa and stop minarets from being built.

[Midas]

There is, as I have explained. Poor and Socially isolated groups suffer serious crime problems, most notably gang issues. Illegal refugees are among the poorest and most isolated, as well as not having access to the usual support services offered to such vulnerable communities, and may have been exposed to criminal elements already in being smuggled in.

It is and there is risks. If you think culture is such a non-issue then we should just go ahead and ban the Burqa and stop minarets from being built.

DC, there's little point wasting time and effort trying to discuss either political or social matters with people like Balthazar. All you get in reply are the usual whinges and whines as to how hard done by they / the poor / the underclasses / the ethnic minorities / the workers (delete as necessary) are, accompanied by the usual patronising and snide remarks about everyone else who doesn't have the same beliefs that they do. In other words it's the eternal cry of those who've failed in some aspect of their life complaining that it's everyone else's fault but their own. What you don't get is a sensible and balanced discussion.