Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)

[Freakbro]

You can talk stats until you're blue in the face, the fact is an extra 700 crimes are committed everyday because we choose to let these people in. 700 victims that shouldn't have been made victims.

What are you saying, that it's so small we might as well let them in and the crime committed is a small increase? Come on freakyboy

Wow, you've just managed to increase the amount of crimes 7 fold in one easy post.....also, what are the crimes? I imagine you frothing swivel eyed loons thinks its all murder, rape and child molestation, whereas I would assume the vast majority is low level social disorder, eg drunk and disorderly, domestic issues - especially if it's the polish

It doesn't matter how small you want to make the numbers. Even just one crime(what ever it is) is bad for the victim.

But we know you're an apologist

And we all know you struggle with reading and comprehension

One crime done by a EU immigrant is to many. So your another apologist.

Except the rest of us don't live in lala land where we think no-one will commit any crimes at all, and don't worry, due to the higher criminal nature of the native brits, the ex-pats living abroad will more than balance out the crimes of the Europeans living here

I would love you to say all that to the parents of Alice Gross.

What a crap appeal to emotion fallacy

 

[datalol-jack]

Uhm - because one set of criminals are British criminals, and the other set are foreign criminals.

Yes, okay, let's ignore there are information sharing arrangements between security agencies and police in the EU to track known criminals for the moment, how can you detect a person coming in is going to end up committing a crime?

Should we stop tourism on the same grounds? Ban working-class people or tradesmen? But then how's your social class makes you immune to human follies? Stop foreigners going out and consuming alcohol? Segregation by visa? Special economic 'outsider' only zones like Japan used to have during the last Shogunate? What's your utopian vision?

Stopping free movement will neither guarantee that criminals never end up here nor that the native crime rates continue to drop. In fact, UK's withdrawal from Europe and break with its legal and security frameworks would make managing international crime that much more difficult.

Really, guys, think what you are saying: There's a non-zero chance I'll get stabbed in London -- should I never go to London? Should we demolish cities just because crime happens in them, and start again? Comical.

On your logic, we should watch everyone, every day in case they may slip up. Big brother much? Even the current Home Secretary isn't that obsessed with what people do in their private lives.

Innocent until proven guilty -- words to live by. If you start tampering with the principle of equality before the law, you end up on a very slippery path indeed.

If we leave the EU then we don't need new laws

We prosecute criminals under our laws. EU laws supplement them in areas where we need to extract people from abroad to face justice, and deal with organised networks such as you find in arms trade, drug dealing, money laundering, human trafficking, etc. In short, international law doesn't destroy your sovereignty it enhances and protects it, allowing countries to cooperate productively and effectively on matters that concern everyone and cross borders.

If you present a twisted 'fact', you invite others to untwist it for you.

 

[scorza]

Yes, okay, let's ignore there are information sharing arrangements between security agencies and police in the EU to track known criminals for the moment, how can you detect a person coming in is going to end up committing a crime?

There are information sharing agreements between police forces around the world. You stop them coming in by not having stupid, stupid open borders and having a robust border force that has the capacity to ensure people of bad character don't get in.

 

[D.P.]

Uhm - because one set of criminals are British criminals, and the other set are foreign criminals.

Why does that matter in the slightest? Both sets are humans.

 

[Tunney]

1% is still too much, don't you agree?

I think it shows that EU migrants aren't causing a crime epidemic. Brietbart is trying to paint a significant portion of EU migrants as criminals and that's not what the numbers are showing.

More people = more crimes. It's a natural part of population growth.

 

[Freakbro]

I think it shows that EU migrants aren't causing a crime epidemic. Brietbart is trying to paint a significant portion of EU migrants as criminals and that's not what the numbers are showing.

More people = more crimes. It's a natural part of population growth.

Absolutely, which is what I was trying to point out in my (crap statistical analysis) post, that a rise in absolute numbers is of course going to happen, because the population has increased.

What is important is the % increase due to the % of Europeans, and that doesn't back up the scaremongering Breitbart and others try to foster

 

[datalol-jack]

There are information sharing agreements between police forces around the world. You stop them coming in by not having stupid, stupid open borders and having a robust border force that has the capacity to ensure people of bad character don't get in.

As I said -- let's ignore current information arrangements for known criminals, they are the known knowns -- how do you deal with the unknown unknowns?

Do give me a list of criteria of 'bad character' an immigration official in your version of Britain would use. A similar approach demonized large strata of society in the Victorian era, after its many moral panics and shoddy social science bore fruit, and the results were shocking well into the post-WWII years. Justice and intense social discrimination aren't one and the same.

Everyone has potential to commit a crime, if you have 100% sure-fire way of pre-emptively detecting it, do let the police know, you'll get an OBE, and will get rid of all crime in the world for ever! Be a champ!

As for 'stupid, stupid open borders' -- common markets with free movement of goods and people in Europe make a whole lot of economic sense, and more than pay in increased opportunity and revenue for the cost of policing the arrangement. And not to forget that when we had everyone with a drawn-up-bridge mentality, both the crime rates were higher (esp violent crime) and the economy was more volatile.

Why does that matter in the slightest? Both sets are humans.

It depends on how far they've fallen off the bandwagon: some consider everyone but themselves below human, or just don't treat foreigners as individuals. Some would choose to identify as English before Human -- tells you the level of their grasp of reality and empathy, really.

 

[datalol-jack]

More people = more crimes. It's a natural part of population growth.

Exactly. The incidence rate per demographic hasn't jumped to anything alarming, and overall recorded crime for the entire population of E&W has fallen.

It's also worth pointing out the obvious that even if the person is deported because of their crime(s) -- the number will still go down on record, contributing to the most recent reporting period; in sloppy hands this can often lead to people taking crimes attributed to individuals who've left the system and the country to selectively smear the rest of the population that had nothing to do with it.

 

[datalol-jack]

Absolutely, which is what I was trying to point out in my (crap statistical analysis) post, that a rise in absolute numbers is of course going to happen, because the population has increased.

What is important is the % increase due to the % of Europeans, and that doesn't back up the scaremongering Breitbart and others try to foster

But numbers with more zeroes are good right? Right?! Reading sensationalist media is like watching whales spin on LSD in the gooey oceans of their own bile -- a gargantuan circus of bone-breaking errors.

I'm surprised one can get paid for doing that, personally.

 

[C64]

The problem is half the places in the eu are not desirable places people want to live.

It means it's inevitable that people will move from these places to better climes.

 

[scorza]

More people = more crimes. It's a natural part of population growth.

So if we cut net migration to around ~50,000 a year, which is historically the level it has been at, then we'd have fewer instances of crime. What's the problem with that?

 

[datalol-jack]

The problem is half the places in the eu are not desirable places people want to live.

It means it's inevitable that people will move from these places to better climes.

Doesn't make them criminals, though?

And last time I checked the majority of each nation's population was exactly where it is -- local. So hardly an exodus of the poverty-stricken hoards swarming the mana-laden fields of the promised land from their 'undesirable' point of origin.

Besides, as their economies grow and the standards of living rise, the economic migrant flow will also stabilise. An example close to home would be ROI: Celtic Tiger roars, people return; when it stumbles the young, able and skilled depart to improve their lot. Hardly hit and run raiding.

As pointed out many times before, economic migrants from the countries you class as poor: are younger on average, commit less crime, contribute their share of tax, are better educated, cost us nothing for the early part of their lives, and depend less on both our welfare and public services. Don't look like crooks and 'undesirables' to me!

 

[Burnsy2023]

So if we cut net migration to around ~50,000 a year, which is historically the level it has been at, then we'd have fewer instances of crime. What's the problem with that?

The problem is when skilled immigrants can't fill specialist jobs which then affect UK companies because of an arbitrary cap.

 

[scorza]

The problem is when skilled immigrants can't fill specialist jobs which then affect UK companies because of an arbitrary cap.

Which is why I favour an Australian points style immigration system. Another advantage of such a system is that skilled workers, professional or managerial people are less likely to commit crimes.

 

[deuse]

As I said -- let's ignore current information arrangements for known criminals, they are the known knowns -- how do you deal with the unknown unknowns?.

As I already said. The old visa system we used(same as the USA) we knew who they are and what they've done.

If a person didn't fill in a visa form they wouldn't get in. It was a easy system that worked.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Another advantage of such a system is that skilled workers, professional or managerial people are less likely to commit crimes.

Source please.

 

[deuse]

The problem is when skilled immigrants can't fill specialist jobs which then affect UK companies because of an arbitrary cap.

Then get the companies to train people. This was done from the 1600s or before. But now they can get cheap\illegal\Black market labour.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Then get the companies to train people. This was done from the 1600s or before. But now they can get cheap\illegal labour.

They do. Getting good candidates isn't easy and does not solve the short term issue.

 

[deuse]

They do. Getting good candidates isn't easy and does not solve the short term issue.

Get off with that poor excuse. There should be a rule that you need to interview 20 UK citizens before going else where.

The companies know what they're doing by importing labour. Less wages more profits.

There was only 1 mil unemployed when I started work.

 

[Basher]

Get off with that poor excuse. There should be a rule that you need to interview 20 UK citizens before going else where.

The companies know what they're doing by importing labour. Less wages more profits.

Why? Getting the job should be based on your skills not where you were born.

If a French guy is more suitable for the role then give him the job. If you can't differentiate from an illegal polish worker then skill-up.