1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who should we let in - Ian Hislop BBC2

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Faustus, Jun 22, 2017.

  1. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,326

    This documentary presented by Ian Hislop BBC2 tonight was real thought provoking stuff. He looked back to the 19th Century then fast forwarded to today's debates on immigration.

    To be perfectly honest, if you had shut your eyes and just listened he could well have been discussing immigration issues in 2017, but was in fact talking about 1892. Absolutely nothing has changed, even back then there were loads of 'fake news' stories with the press only to happy to whip up anti-immigration sentiment. One of the things that was different being they used to call immigrants 'aliens'.

    For those interested in the subject it makes for a fascinating watch. Definitely something brexiteers should put on their 'to do' list.
     
  2. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 23,097

    On the less serious end of the spectrum, Stewart Lee's piece on this topic pretty much says everything that can be said. Yes it's hyperbole but it uses it incredibly well, and there's a serious point being made.
     
  3. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,167

    Location: London

    It's all circular. The same themes recur - fake news, scaremongering, racism, intolerance, toxic journalism and monstrous public figures who spread hate.

    As Hislop summarises: "fear of foreigners sold a lot of newspapers". And still does.

    It's very popular currently to kick back at political correctness. But the culture of hate speech dressed up as free speech, and fake news dressed up as facts, has long been a problem and continues to corrode tolerance. And ultimately it's tolerance which is the counterbalance, as people learn that they have more in common than which divides.

    I found it interesting that it took two elderly gentlemen of immigrant background to highlight what British values are all about. They had differing views on many things, including Brexit. But when asked why they were still friends, they replied that part of being British was "developing the art of tolerating each other". Well said.
     
  4. Roland Butter

    Perma Banned

    Joined: Apr 13, 2017

    Posts: 971

    Location: scotland

    A bit wobbly in historical accuracy, was it trailed as a factual programme or a " personal " view ?

    We should really be given a warning, "this programme contains idealogical cliches that some viewers might find upsetting "

    Not all immigration has been of benefit to the UK, a bit of balance Ian ?
     
  5. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,167

    Location: London

    It's listed under "History" on iPlayer, so essentially factual with some personal opinion mixed in (since it's Hislop). Which part of the historical accuracy do you believe to be "wobbly" then?
     
  6. Evangelion

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 29, 2007

    Posts: 21,901

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    No. We should definitely not let in Ian Hislop.
     
  7. Faustus

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,326

    Is that your only contribution to what should be a serious topic for debate?
     
  8. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,645

    Anybody with any intelligence knew all the immigration facts anyway. The East End was well known as the Jewish quarter at the turn of the last century. It is also known that first arrivals tend to congregate together with fellow immigrants then second generation tend to move out of the area and third generation have no physical connection with the area their grandparents lived in. The Brits do the same in Spain. What do you think Chinatowns were originally. Papers telling porkies to sell newspapers? Nothing has changed and a lot of the Mule readers should realise it.
     
  9. Quartz

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 7,298

    Location: Aberdeen

    There's one big difference: in 1892 the UK could feed itself. That's not the case now.
     
  10. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,645

    If they cou
    If they could and I am doubtful about that as we have always been an importer of goods(where does tea for example come from), the point is that the diet was very, very bland for most people and there is no way that people would go back to 1950's style diet, apart from a diet from 1892.
     
  11. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,116

    Location: On the hoods

    Most western nations can't feed themselves nowadays.
     
  12. Quartz

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 7,298

    Location: Aberdeen

    I don't think you're correct there. Indeed, I think that - excluding microstates - the UK is one of the few western nations that cannot feed itself.

    Don't confuse choosing to import food with needing to import food. We don't need tea.
     
  13. Semple

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 5, 2010

    Posts: 5,189

    I suspect that's mostly a result of overeating and food wastage.

    If we could combat both, i think the UK could easily feed itself.

    Not saying the diet wouldn't be bland etc, and i do enjoy eating foreign cuisine.
     
  14. amigafan2003

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 18, 2008

    Posts: 14,134

    Location: Fylde Coast, Lancashire

    Britain could easily feed itself if the population changed it's diet and eating habits. Yes, food would be more expensive and more restricted in variety, but we could certainly grow everything we need (note the use of the word need, not want).
     
  15. Terminal_Boy

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 13, 2013

    Posts: 6,385

    Location: La France

    No-one until we've cleared out everyone who's already here illegally.
     
  16. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 4, 2012

    Posts: 16,152

    What's with the fixation on illegals?
     
  17. Quartz

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 7,298

    Location: Aberdeen

    The evidence is to the contrary: we couldn't feed ourselves in WW2 and the population has grown by 15 million or more since then.
     
  18. Semple

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 5, 2010

    Posts: 5,189

    From what i've read, Britain imports about 40% of its food, but no-one knows how much that would drop by if we completely curbed food waste, and effectively rationed food.

    There's also the matter of what UK land is allowed to be used for, didn't the EU impose some restrictions on farmers which resulted in a lot of fields being left empty - or now turned into growing rapeseed.

    There's little motivation for the UK to try and feed itself when it's much cheaper to just import.

    I'm not disputing any of the facts, i just believe if push came to shove, and we could workaround the above factors, i think the UK could be self-sufficient.

    Edit: Another thing, how many people of these days actually grow fruit/veg at home, i suspect very little. If food prices shot up, then more people would resort to growing at home.
     
  19. mid_gen

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 20, 2004

    Posts: 8,279

    Location: Düsseldorf

    Somebody was triggered by the title and didn't actually read the thread.
     
  20. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,167

    Location: London

    Even during WW2 and Dig For Victory (when many of the population did indeed resort to growing their own), Britain was only 75% self sufficient in the foods we were able to grow and everything else was essentially off the menu.

    So, whilst we can certainly improve on that current 60% figure, especially if we re-jig the sorts of crops we grow and pay more attention to food waste, we're never getting close to true self sufficiency.

    Whilst improved food security is a good thing, an all-out push for self sufficiency would have a negative impact on many things. It would mean resorting to intensive agriculture, non-organic, GM and intensive livestock farming, which all have implications for the environment, wildlife, animal welfare and even our own health. All so we can have the illusion of being 'sovereign'. Not worth the price.

    Those "empty" fields are not empty as such, they are just not growing crops. In some cases this is to allow the land to be fallow and recover, in other cases it's to protect wildlife and endangered habitats. But hey, let's leave the EU and all their terrible restrictions and plough it all up for spuds eh?