Hi Abaddon,
I don't understand your seeming support of the attitude that if people 'choose' to come here, as they are very poor, it's okay to exploit that if you can because of their skin colour... and equally do not understand you ignoring the knock-on effect of growing up as an exploited minority. Also, obviously, it's really easy to save up for the return fair when you're being economically exploited...
Humm. . . You seem to be using some rather circular reasoning here and a little straw man argument. I don’t remember using the word “exploit” at all, or ever implying it. To massively assume they were all “exploited because of their skin colour” is not only unfounded, but also presumptuous. You then follow on the theme as if I somehow approve of exploitation, or agree that they were exploited—I don’t. Most were very, very grateful to get some work. You forget there were millions of native workers who got crappy pay back in the 50s, not just a tiny minority of Jamaican immigrants. I do agree with you that they certainly had it harder than now, but that is life. New culture, new country, of course it’s not going to be a sudden middle class white lifestyle, they got far more help than their own country gives, and had opportunities they hadn’t earned and that they would never get in Jamaica. I most definitely do not think they were “exploited” at all.
In fact I would LOVE to see you prove that certain immigrant groups are here because they want a free life, as it would be the first time it had been proved that people would exist on state subsidy in preference to higher incomes that would be achievable if they were more integrated.
Your reasoning is a conditional classification, “free life/integration”, rather than as they are regardless of ‘what ifs’. There are tens of thousands of bogus asylum seekers who travel half way around the globe just to get here and get the benefits—many have admitted it—many each day try to get here via the channel tunnel for purely economic reasons, and not due to real asylum claims. Others come via organised smuggling gangs. They are not stupid, they know a hotel awaits them when they get here, not a puke covered pavement that the destitute natives have to put up with! They know they will be fed, treated like VIP victims, given money, clothes, handouts galore, and queue jump the housing registered and get the flats/houses that were built and paid for by the natives, for the natives, thus pushing more destitute natives to the back of the queue. The fake asylum seekers/Africans/Jamaicans/Bangladeshis etc. cost the native taxpayer billions of pounds yearly, and they have no legal or moral right to be here. Simply saying, “well if we spend hundreds of millions on educating them, housing them, teaching them, they might one day get a job in The City” is not a reasonable perspective. We are under no obligation to pay one single penny to someone who feels they may have a better life by screwing the system, and making false bogus claims. If they wish to come here and work, there are legal routes to do this, many do, they are qualified, they can speak English, and they come here to work and contribute, not scrounge off the state costing us immense amounts of money. No one is entitled to just come here and “integrate” if they expect the native British to pay for them, educate them, house them, and give them an easy ride to the top.
However, they are not representative of ethnic English educational and economic achievment, whereas many similarly disadvantaged immigrant groups are far closer to the educational and economic norm for that group, as most of that group is 'below average' in the educational and economic factors, whereas only half (obviously, statistically) of the ethnically English are 'below average'. Thus I find no disparity in extra aid being given to immigrant groups;' they need it more, and surely we shouldn't not give needed help to certain groups just because they are immigrants?
I don’t see the comparison at all; we are back to the new canteen worker and the 50 years managing director illustration. Yes we may be better off, and it’s taken us hundred of years of hard work to get there. Country X may not be there, but that is not our responsibility or problem. You seem to be advocating a totally false concept of “equality”, as if the new canteen worker who stated the job two days before should also be on £200,000 per annum, just the same as the MD is, and lets call it “equality”—No, It’s more akin to communism! They have no right to expect us to dole out billions of pounds in bringing them up to our county’s level; it’s their responsibility to do it before they come here not after. It’s just going backwards to the racist “positive discrimination” stance. What will they gain in the end when all the natives know they don’t deserve the job, and resent the hell out of them, and know they only got where they are due to the massive undeserved help they got from the natives. All their so-called ‘achievements’ would be in vain, as they would only be due to massive bias in help, and not due to any skill, or merit on the immigrant’s part. Why on earth should natives hard earned money go on some new uneducated immigrant who has merited zero help, and contributed zero tax, when we can’t even make sure our own native population is properly housed, fed, and educated to empower their own lives?
If you're talking about refugees, it's called 'humanitarianism'
No Adaddon, its called stupidity when the vast majority are not refuges at all, but bogus. They are not the only ones, Africans, West-Indians, Bangladeshis, etc. are all coming here and expecting a red carpet and a free home, money and undeserved help—and all at the natives’ expense.
rather than the former Yugoslavia (poor governments, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, 'white' people), or Colombia (poor government, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, 'white' people).
As for Yugoslavia, that’s hardy a reasonable comparison to Jamaica, with a war torn situation that was Yugoslavia over the past decade or so. Wartime is not exactly “normal” cultural behaviour, but poverty is. As for white, so what! Are they English? No. As for Colombia, the same goes, they have had civil war for decades pushing up their crime and death rates. And where on earth did you get the white bit from? Most Columbians are Hispanic mix of Spanish and Portuguese [about 60% mestizo], the rest are Portuguese or Spanish [20%], the rest are mulatto, then black, and mixes. Not exactly Anglo-Saxon white.
9/11 and it's causes and the feelings of some people of Muslim origin are a bit of a separate issue. However, as you raise it, why is it NOT okay for them to rejoice when they genuinely think a blow has been struck against an oppressor, when it IS okay for Maggie to say 'Rejoyce!', and The Sun to run a headline saying "GOTCHA" when 400 Argentinians die? I don't think either is behaviour for civilised people.
Come on Abaddon, that is hardly a fair comparison. Yes, I agree the celebration of death is terrible, but your examples are worlds apart. The Falkland islands are a British dependency; they are part of Great Britain. They were illegally invaded by Argentineans, are we not supposed to stop foreign invaders? We would all be speaking German now if we hadn’t in the last war! We had no choice to go to war, they caused that not us. Those who died were Argentinean soldiers, not civilians. They knew what they were doing when they invaded, and made the choice to fight with us, and knew the possible consequences of invading our land. How is that the same as a bunch of fanatical Muslims flying planes full of innocent civilians in to buildings full of more civilians and killing many thousands? There is no comparison. The twin towers were not full of American soldiers who had bombed Iraq, they were full of innocent civilians—there is no comparison. And what makes it worse when the Muslims here were dancing the streets and celebrating the deaths with fireworks outside their mosques; we got called “racist” for just wanting to report it! The London Evening Standard paper was pressured into not reporting the events, as it was deemed racist, by whom? Right-wing Muslims! How ironic is that!
Have you actually been to the Carnival? Have you wondered why crime was pretty well controlled for many years, and then after a change in policing, it suddenly went through the roof?
Yes I have been many times, and watched how it has changed over the years. You can’t be serious when you blame the police! They are not the ones mugging, robbing, sexually assaulting, and stabbing people! You make black people sound like grenades, ‘pull the pin and stand well back’. They are totally responsible for their
chosen actions. Yardy problems have help escalate the crime problems, and in comparison to other festivals the carnival had much higher crime levels than any white festivals, even if you extrapolate the numbers to the same levels as the carnival.
many 'people of colour' don't bother, as the police have very succesfully made themselves appear extremely partial to the way they investigate things, as determined by the victim's colour.
The figures are not based on prosecutions, those figures are call ‘clean up figures’, all they have to do is report it, and it gets logged. Clean up is irrelevant, they still get their figures logged, and they go on the stats.
I also think your suggestion that if Damilola had been white there would have been a significant difference in the effort applied to finding the killers (if indeed it was a murder) is erroneous; the Met may have gone overboard slightly, but after Stephen Lawrence this is understandable, as they have no credibility with minority communities in London and saw the incident as a possible way of restoring their reputation. The assumption was he was killed, and would have been the same if he'd been green. Whether that assumption was correct, or whether the verdict was right, are different issues.
“Overboard slightly”, must be the biggest understatements I have seen. I have to admit, I need to make a correction on the cost of the case, it was not £2,500,000, as I said in a previous post, that figure was
just for the primary police investigation, the cost including the court case is estimated to be well over £10,000,000 of our taxes! (That’s $14,573,792 for those in the U.S.) No white person has ever got even 10% of that on his or her case! There were 190 murders in London over the past year, and not one of the white victims had got anywhere near even 1 million (10%) spent on their case! As for restoring their reputation, well that is down the pan as the two low lifes they let off had been arrested umpteen times, for sexual assault, burglary, robbery, smashing up peoples houses and then jeering “we’re untouchables”. And now the little shits are going to probably sue the police for wrongful arrest, and get more bucket loads of taxpayer’s money! If you’re white you don’t get squat in publicity or funding to find who the killer is, but if you’re a Nigerian who possibly falls and cuts himself you get a £10,000,000 investigation, and 200 record police officers, and £50,000 reward, and mass excessive TV and media coverage all paid for by the natives, who by the way suffer the most in all crime areas, and get the least help and publicity.
I also don’t feel there is true freedom of speech, just look at the endless rhetoric, insults, ad-hominem attacks, that have erupted since Le Pen got so many votes. Regardless of what you think about him, it just demonstrates how left-wing hypocrites behave if they don’t like the results democracy brings—they create riots, petrol bombs, threats, and a deluge of hypocritical propaganda, just the same shit we saw in Bradford from the Pakistani Muslims when the British National Party went there to offer more help for whites in poverty, and to give some publicly to the whites who were getting robbed, and attacked on a daily basis by Pakistanis. Don’t you find it strange when left-wing fanatics go rioting it’s “ok” by the media and politicians, but if it had been the reverse and they were right-wing rioters, all you would hear from the left-wing is “look at these criminal thugs! This is why we cannot have right-wing Nazis in power”. The hypocrisy sickens me; they are just like the bloody Watch Tower. So good at calling for balance, democracy, free speech and PC discussions, and then doing the exact opposite when they don't get what they want, their animal hypocrisy comes to the fore and they go out on a propaganda spree with riots! Even you were sucked in and blamed the sick Pakistanis rioters on the British National Party for just supporting white natives! I would not be surprised at all if the BNP get voted into Bradford, or Oldham, and the Pakistanis have only themselves to blame if that happens.
The crime figures are out now for 2001/2002 but the race figures that go with them are not out for a few months yet (They are collated by a different section) And I will post them up when they are released with Section 95. Here is a quick summary of some of the latest crime figures for London, year 2001/2002.
Murder 190
GBH 5,406
ABH 36,891
Common Assault 77,083
Offensive Weapon 7,989
Harassment 25,582
Sexual Offences 9,944
Other Violence 8,218
Rape 2,498
Robbery of Personal Property 49,446
Robbery of Business Property 4,101
Snatches 20,541
Burglary in a Dwelling 73,931
Burglary in Other Buildings 42,096
Motor Vehicle Crime 177,188
Theft/Taking of M/V 62,114
Theft from a Vehicle 112,146
M/V Interference & Tampering 2,928
Theft from Person 48,510
Picking Pockets etc 27,969
Theft from Shops 42,522
Theft/Taking of Pedal Cycles 14,340
Other Theft 158,075
Handling Stolen Goods 2,937
Fraud or Forgery 87,873
Criminal Damage 147,804
Drug Trafficking 4,386
Possession of Drugs 21,543
Other Drug Offences 279
Other Notifiable Offences 11,026
(Welcome to London, and have a nice day!)
