Lineker Lodge

[LlcoolJ]

Sorry NSC. I’m with Douglas Murray on this one....and Sam Harris...and Christopher Hitchens...RIP.

It is not a net benefit to us to have folks coming in en masse with no restriction.

It is possible to be hugely sympathetic towards them and want to help out but an open door policy is completely nuts.

We don't have an open door policy. The complete opposite in fact. And you said that I'm being factually incorrect?

I'm not sure where you get your "facts" from but it would appear to be from the same place that Donald Trump shops for his.

Could you point out all my factual inaccuracies btw (with links or its just conjecture)? When I've got some time later I'll back up every one. With facts.

Not opinions, reality.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Nope, but the best I'm going to get apparently.

Can't work out how to explain in words of one syllable, sorry.

 

[LlcoolJ]

This limit.

Would you base it upon costs of providing the shelter, or add in the infrastructure needed to provide increased demand? With jobs also at a premium for the next few years at least, can you possibly see more demand than ever placed upon the welfare system?

I think the Covid figures clearly illustrated that we are quite a densely populated island.

Lineker's gesture should be duplicated by every resident, so existing homes can be utilised more fully.

9% of the UK is populated.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Adding this to your original and sarcastically titled post I would suggest that you less want views (which are pretty known for most members) and more to start another immigration thread.

There are and have been plenty.

Might as well just put this in the Pretty Pink Pit now. It will serve no purpose on the main board.

Your words, not mine.

 

[wellquickwoody]

*Cough* Racism *cough*

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the new............(drum roll)...........

PLOOKS!!

Tah Daaaahhhh!

 

[Is it PotG?]

9% of the UK is populated.

https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/

 

[Thunder Bolt]

 

[sydney]

Will mean the anonymous social media trolls will move onto his tax affairs or something else now. Sad ****ers

he should take half a dozen....

 

[LlcoolJ]

View attachment 127957

Er, thanks. Your point being?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Adding this to your original and sarcastically titled post I would suggest that you less want views (which are pretty known for most members) and more to start another immigration thread.

There are and have been plenty.

Might as well just put this in the Pretty Pink Pit now. It will serve no purpose on the main board.

Your words, not mine.

To be fair no one said we can't have immigration threads on the main board. The point of the pit is for threads where the same old people will disagree with each other in an unpleasant manner.

There are currently some users on this thread who are not normally in the pit and the level of discourse is a teeny weeny bit better (because most of the pit posts might as well be in crayon) but I only give it till lunch time till the trolls turn up.

I'd love to know what would change [MENTION=35196]Is it PotG?[/MENTION] 's mind, since he started the thread. Presumably an open minded and healthy discussion of Lineker's decision was intended, at the end of which the OP took a position based on the facts. No?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Er, thanks. Your point being?

Just quoting data, in the same vein as PPE and HS2. See, you've got me at it now.

 

[Is it PotG?]

To be fair no one said we can't have immigration threads on the main board. The point of the pit is for threads where the same old people will disagree with each other in an unpleasant manner.

There are currently some users on this thread who are not normally in the pit and the level of discourse is a teeny weeny bit better (because most of the pit posts might as well be in crayon) but I only give it till lunch time till the trolls turn up.

I'd love to know what would change [MENTION=35196]Is it PotG?[/MENTION] 's mind, since he started the thread. Presumably an open minded and healthy discussion of Linekar's decision was intended, at the end of which the OP took a position based on the facts. No?

I agree it is wonderful gesture by Lineker. My question, and one genuine response would do, is do folks think that there is eventually, and in the future, a limit as to what we can do?

 

[LlcoolJ]

To be fair no one said we can't have immigration threads on the main board. The point of the pit is for threads where the same old people will disagree with each other in an unpleasant manner.

There are currently some users on this thread who are not normally in the pit and the level of discourse is a teeny weeny bit better (because most of the pit posts might as well be in crayon) but I only give it till lunch time till the trolls turn up.

I'd love to know what would change [MENTION=35196]Is it PotG?[/MENTION] 's mind, since he started the thread. Presumably an open minded and healthy discussion of Lineker's decision was intended, at the end of which the OP took a position based on the facts. No?

I don't think that's very likely. Maybe it's just me though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

With this number of arrivals continuing to increase, would you say that here may be a limit at some stage regarding our ability as a nation to provide such refuge, security, opportunity and better life?

Not all higher rate tax payers earn the £4m Lineker salary, and already pay a significant amount via PAYE.

It is already evident that future state pensions for residents having paid a lifetime of contributions might be at risk due to decreasing funding. I have no idea what it may be, but every system has a limit where it cannot cope any further.

The fact that we're boracic now, and will be for many years, won't help either.

Are numbers increasing? Be careful when quoting figures because it includes foreign students who come here to study at university. They stay for three or four years and then leave again.

The latest figures show 715,000 people moved to the UK compared with about 403,000 who left.

The increase in immigration and net migration was fuelled by an increase in Chinese and Indian students coming to study in the UK, analysts said.

Of those arriving in Britain, 257,000 came for formal study, with 458,000 arriving for work, family or other reasons.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/net-migration-uk-surged-above-22586010

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

They don't what mate?

And where do I have the £150m rip off from? Er, every major news agency in the world......

Edit - just seen the bold bit sorry. Yes immigration contributes more to the UK economy than it costs. Widely known fact. Check the stats.

Aah. I see the problem.

The “news” consistently conflate EU migrants...who contribute far more than Brits in just about every way..with non EEA migration
Which impacts negatively in every measurable metric other than the very low skilled employment market.

The issue is fudged over and over again in many ways.

Off the top of my head the main facts are:
Eu migrants are usually skilled and have a marketable edge. When they retire they will typically go home so are a low impact on pensions and the NHS.

Non EEA migrants and refugees will often have low or non traceable skills, lower language skills and will often have more dependants...they also tend to stay so eventually become dependant on healthcare whilst having contributed far less.

The fact that the U.K. has a very large non EEA population means that exploitation, poor housing and pressures on local services have increased...not everywhere obviously, but in high population areas.

Cultural differences between EU and non EU people are wider so cost is incurred in increasing access to places of worship (for example) to meet demand.

The fact the BBC fail to break this down for us and the papers skirt these issues doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

Oh...and non regulated non documented migrants as well as the “regulated” non EEA migration means the U.K. non EEA numbers are 6 times larger than the highly skilled and largely culturally adjusted EU migrant numbers.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Just quoting data, in the same vein as PPE and HS2. See, you've got me at it now.

The problem is though it's a wall of data What in particular are we meant to look at and what relevence does it have to the number you quoted?

 

[wellquickwoody]

9% of the UK is populated.

Could you please explain exactly what that figure means? 9% of counties, 9% of cities, 9% of the land mass (to what density), 9% of houses, 9% of chimney breasts, 9% of fields?,9% seems a pretty meaningless figure until qualified.

 

[Is it PotG?]

The problem is though it's a wall of data What in particular are we meant to look at and what relevence does it have to the number you quoted?

My point was about population density, both now and in the future as it appears to be increasing at a decent rate.

 

[The Wizard]

It's simple. Lump them all together then you can dismiss them. It's how we dealth with 'The Jewish problem' in the 30s and 'The Blacks' in the 70s.

It's called racism.

Well done, [MENTION=14080]The Wizard[/MENTION]. I actually thought you were a bit better than that

How on earth can you construe my post as racism? I’m referring to the refugee issue as a whole, hence why I use the term ‘These people’ the point of my post was to say that, what is the right and wrong? I always see people bleating on about how migrants and refugees should be allowed in, but whats the actual answer? Please enlighten me, because the guy who quoted me named a few success stories, but you can’t base giving someone asylum or U.K. status based on if they are going to be a success, unless you have a crystal ball.

And that in itself is prejudice, what is the answer? Open the borders to everyone? Don’t allow anyone? Allow some? Reject others? Allow people in based on how desperate they are? I don’t know, you tell me, don’t make baseless accusations of racism, it’s becoming unbelievable how quickly people accuse people of such a serious thing. I find people who dehumanise such desperate people despicable, FWIW.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Genuine question - why is it the migrants are so desperate to cross the channel?

I totally understand that they want to leave their country due to a number of reasons, but I dont understand why they would risk their own lives to leave France.

France is a wonderful country and I am sure they look after migrants in a similar way to the UK.

So why risk your life to cross the channel? Why not stay in France as it is a very nice and safe country? Are they promised something wonderful by people traffickers?