And here is a classic example of using emotive language to deflect from statistics, straight out of the Brexit-101 playbook.
Legal aid should not fund asylum legal action.
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
And here is a classic example of using emotive language to deflect from statistics, straight out of the Brexit-101 playbook.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Its not deflecting, its rationalising.
What you seem to forget is that behind every crime statistic is a real life perpetrator and a victim.
Let's not forget the victims.
Goal-posts moved, tick, anyone nearing a bingo?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
You can deny it but the stats around violence , sexual assaults etc reflect very poorly on our immigrant population.
Is it really worth debating this with The Daily Mail The Running Man?
He's made his mind up, any 'research' he does is just confirmation bias in action.
If you don't want refugees then vote for a government that doesn't send weapons to help create these crises in the first place. It's classic deflection tactics and people are falling for it hook and line. Boris' mates get to make billions selling arms to the Saudis who use it to help blow up Yemen, they come here on boats and you're mad at the people on the boats. It's the perfect (war) crime.
He's made his mind up, any 'research' he does is just confirmation bias in action.
If you don't want refugees then vote for a government that doesn't send weapons to help create these crises in the first place. It's classic deflection tactics and people are falling for it hook and line. Boris' mates get to make billions selling arms to the Saudis who use it to help blow up Yemen, they come here on boats and you're mad at the people on the boats. It's the perfect (war) crime.
Futile I know, I just get irked when people who don't understand data and statistics try to use them, just the analyst in me I guess.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Nobody in this thread has been able to present any data that suggests that immigration does not bring crime.
Therefore the question is, how much crime and what types of crime are we willing to tolerate?
Of course it brings crime, you're arguing we shouldn't allow immigrants in because some of them might be criminals. This is a consequence of our meddling in international affairs and people are fooled into believing illegal immigrants are the problem when they are a symptom.
Should stop people being born as well, some of those babies might grow up to be rapists.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
If I fire bombed your house would you go out of your way to come and live with me unless there were exceptional financial incentive to do so, or you wished to wreak revenge upon me from within? Both seem plausible reasons for migrants from countries you say we destabilised to come half way across the world to enter the UK illegally.
The simple point is many of us do not trust their motives, do not want their financial burden, do not want their potential criminality and will remain stoically dogmatic about it despite being called bigots, racists, little Englanders or Brexiteers
The simple point is many of us do not trust their motives, do not want their financial burden, do not want their potential criminality and will remain stoically dogmatic about it despite being called bigots, racists, little Englanders or Brexiteers
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,677
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Population reduction is an entirely different can of worms, we have a virus that's making small inroads into that, and calling it a bigot or a racist is no concern to it, and has no effect on its efficacy
By reducing immigration we do have a control over the excess population of the UK.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Well what we are saying is that immigrants tend to bring wholly unwanted crimes, like sexual assault.
They also cost the country huge amounts of money in benefits, housing, healthcare.
Therefore given a choice of admitting more than we have to from areas particularly renown for violence/sexual assault, then what is the case to do so?
Its the moral dilemma. How many cases of rape or murder are an acceptable trade off for your moral compass of helping those already in safe countries?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,677
As opposed to the crime we do want?
No they don't: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba
You've still not provided any evidence that migrants "rape and murder" more than native brits.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
They do,
"Studies consistently find that the net fiscal contribution of the current population of EU-15 migrants (those from the older EU member states) is positive, while that of non-EEA migrants is negative. In contrast, the fiscal contribution of EU10 migrants (from post-2004 EU accession states) is contested, with some assumptions giving positive results and others negative results"
We have already discussed EEA, so we are looking at non EEA migration
You can more thoroughly educate yourself here
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
Only the whitest white-collar crime for these shores old chap.
Yeah because the migrants we’re talking about here, in a thread about ‘asylum seekers’ (you know the ones from that horrific war happening in Europe
) are clearly legal migrants from the EU.We’re definitely not talking about undocumented/illegal migrants illicitly crossing the channel in dinghies who have come from the Middle East or North Africa. And whose first action upon entering the country is committing a crime. No obviously not...
Are you deliberately being disingenuous?
Last edited:
What the right can't get their head around is statistics.
Even though, at a total level, sexual offences are committed reasonably proportionately across all the ethnic/racial splits, Muslims are over represented in one particular method, i.e. the grooming gang issue.
This obviously implies that in other ways of offending, non-Muslims must be over represented to get to the point the overall rate is roughly equal.
Even though, at a total level, sexual offences are committed reasonably proportionately across all the ethnic/racial splits, Muslims are over represented in one particular method, i.e. the grooming gang issue.
This obviously implies that in other ways of offending, non-Muslims must be over represented to get to the point the overall rate is roughly equal.
@VincentHanna why do you keep talking about EEA migrants when the topic is those from the likes of Syria and Iraq?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,374
- Location
- London
The Running Man's link suggests that even non-EEA migrants have a net positive in the long term vs a negative in the short term.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,677
Yeah because the migrants we’re talking about here, in a thread about ‘asylum seekers’ (you know the ones from that horrific war happening in Europe
We’re definitely not talking about undocumented/illegal migrants illicitly crossing the channel in dinghies who have come from the Middle East or North Africa. And whose first action upon entering the country is committing a crime. No obviously not...
Are you deliberately being disingenuous?
Maybe because it's hard to keep up with the goalposts that @The Running Man keeps moving.
For instance earlier when asked about his claims that migrants commit more crime, he (eventually) pointed us to a 13 year old article which showed eastern European migrants from Poland and Romania were responsible for a disproportionate (compared with native Brits) amount of crime in London.
Last time I checked those places were part of the EEA.
It's almost as if we're desperately looking for any "facts" that will support the claims...