Britain - The Official Thread

[baldgye]

Which is categorically wrong except for the tuition fee grant (which makes no difference at the time of studying). You might have thought they got something because they were doing more 'nurse stuff', but that was seperate paid hours on top of their studies and placement hours.

Well, no they got bursaries... I was the only one in my building who didn’t, it was great.

But not having to pay tuition fees, is a big deal. It’s a benefit and an incentive...

 

[Touring Mars]

One of Glasgow's most famous and iconic buildings, the Mackintosh building (aka Glasgow School of Art) has been gutted by a massive fire.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44504659

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/firefighters-tackle-blaze-at-glasgow-school-of-art



I could see and even smell the fire as I stumbled home from the pub last night, but didn't know it was the GSA at the time. It was still under repair after another fire in 2014 that wrecked the famous library within the building, and it sounds like all of that painstaking work to recreate the library has literally gone up in smoke.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27556659

Last time, the fire didn't affect the entire building, but this time it appears that the whole building has been affected...

 

[Scaff]

One of Glasgow's most famous and iconic buildings, the Mackintosh building (aka Glasgow School of Art) has been gutted by a massive fire.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44504659

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/firefighters-tackle-blaze-at-glasgow-school-of-art



I could see and even smell the fire as I stumbled home from the pub last night, but didn't know it was the GSA at the time. It was still under repair after another fire in 2014 that wrecked the famous library within the building, and it sounds like all of that painstaking work to recreate the library has literally gone up in smoke.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27556659

Last time, the fire didn't affect the entire building, but this time it appears that the whole building has been affected...

Terrible news, I'd visited once just to see the building, while in Glasgow for work and it's stunning. Really hope they can at least save some of of it.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Well, no they got bursaries... I was the only one in my building who didn’t, it was great.

But not having to pay tuition fees, is a big deal. It’s a benefit and an incentive...

Maintenance bursaries reduce how much maintenance loan you reverece. They didn't make a net gain.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Maintenance bursaries reduce how much maintenance loan you reverece. They didn't make a net gain.

Surely that's a net gain - £1 you don't have to pay back versus £1 that you have to pay back is a net gain.

 

[ExigeEvan]

*Double Post*

 

[baldgye]

Long term I concede yes it is. But in the immediate financial support during your studies it means nothing (which was part of the topic at hand).

Well, no I said nurses get financial incentives and we agree that they get free tuition. Which for me, who had to pay for tuition is a pretty big deal and a decent amount of money.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Net positive, as in economic net positive, as in they are a positive for our country.

This seems to be some sort of mantra between you and Scaff. I'm trying to ask a question about when it's too much.

What does this mean, what community?
I grew up in Stoke, you mean a community like that? A working class city who go out Friday night for a fight?
Or what about the small village my family moved too where the elderly residents of the village called the police when I went skating?
Or the community of Birmingham City where I now live that isn’t majority white?

Any community.

1) Just look at the Italian elections and what the victorious parties stood for
2) The phenomenon of "white flight"
3) If you remember there was a program on C4 a couple of years back about one of the most diverse streets in the UK. The recording had to be cancelled due to violence against the crew and the Labour counseller holding a meeting effectively saying they weren't welcome.
4) Look up the area that voted most heavily for "Leave" in Brexit. Here are 2 articles on it:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...um-boston-least-integrated-town-a7150541.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

Some do, some don't, some stay forever, some don't.

It's not the nice binary thing you keep attempting to present.


And? You do realise that you just showed the difference to be a whole 0.3, and that both are decreasing!

So you say that they come as childless adults, I show you that as well as actually having kids, they have more than the native population and you say "And?" It completely rubbishes your point good sir! Are these children not going to need school places?

If as a whole they are still a net contributor to the system and those who are native born are not then they are supporting the entire system and helping it grow, infrastructure included.

But you can't keep falling back on that and then say infrastructure is included.

Your base is made even more shakey by the fact that:

1) Different results have been found by different researchers - it is notoriously hard to measure
2) The net positive is more for those just arriving - it doesn't mean they are net contributors all their life
3) Those outside the EU from a certain time are actually net takers (0.85 for every pound)

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

For a specific group, that fun generalisation of yours again.

And yet it's an immigrant group

Actually I was talking about immigrants themselves, an d the groups you have mentioned are as a result of socioeconomic factors, unless you wish to suggest that non-whites are more predisposed to crime (which would of course be absurdly racist - given that white communities with a similar socio-economic background have just as high a crime rate and many share the exact same communities.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say there is no difference in racial groups with regards to criminality then say it's a benefit to have those people migrate to the country only to become part of the lower social-economic bracket and.....commit more crime.

That's having your liberal cake and eating it

No it still doesn't at all.

On the second point, so how would you base immigration.

I'd base it on a balance. If you held a referendum on whether Britain should have immigration levels in the tens of thousands or the hundreds which do you think it would be?

People are being acutely affected by immigration at the current levels so I would hold back on that while fixing the problems we have right now. This would mean investment in key areas - something I'm not confident any party wants to do.

Sorry, but no its not even remotely close to being that simple at all.

Usage of public services varies massively by income, family size, location health, age and a whole host of other factors.

You are also still failing to take into account that some people will give more to the system than they take out of the system, that pesky net benefit thing again!

If someone is a net contributor then not only have they paid for what they will use (so its costs zero to the public) they have paid for other peoples use of things as well. Therefore these things have cost the and others nothing. are you under the impression that's a bad thing?

But as the UK stands currently this will pressure services - a quarter of a million people per year is madness for a country that is struggling to house its population and look after its health needs.

How much more could the UK take? Well actually in reality a hell of a lot more, given that only a very small percentage of the UK is actually used for housing and related infrastructure.

So you're happy with at least 250k....how would you solve the problem of infrastructure?

Its quite simple you want to balance immigration in this area, so what balance do you strike between the level of immigration and people dying?

This was from a point about creating more university places for nursing/medicine so I'm still not sure I follow

 

[baldgye]

Any community.

Oh ok so it’s a meaningless statement.

This seems to be some sort of mantra between you and Scaff. I'm trying to ask a question about when it's too much.

It’s too much when it stops being a net positive. Which isn’t now or the foreseeable future.
So it’s not worth bringing up, kinda like worrying about the expansion of our Sun when it dies and envolopes the planet.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oh ok so it’s a meaningless statement.

....What?

Something that applies to communities across the world, and whose effect is being seen around the world is meaningless?

That....like....makes no sense at all

It’s too much when it stops being a net positive. Which isn’t now or the foreseeable future.
So it’s not worth bringing up, kinda like worrying about the expansion of our Sun when it dies and envolopes the planet.

It is with non-EU immigrants from 1995-2012.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

QUICK! HALT THE IMMIGRATION COMPLETELY!

 

[Scaff]

This seems to be some sort of mantra between you and Scaff. I'm trying to ask a question about when it's too much.

Because you repeating the same inane point don't make it go away. Net benefit includes infrastructure, as such repeating 'what about infrastructure' makes no sense at all.

So you say that they come as childless adults, I show you that as well as actually having kids, they have more than the native population and you say "And?" It completely rubbishes your point good sir! Are these children not going to need school places?

Stop 'begging the question', logical fallacies are really not needed.

So just for the cheap seat, by a tiny amount and both are falling, and no it does "completely rubbishes your point" and until I refuse a knighthood you can lay off the 'good sir' bollocks as well.

But you can't keep falling back on that and then say infrastructure is included.

Why not, after all it is.

Your base is made even more shakey by the fact that:

1) Different results have been found by different researchers - it is notoriously hard to measure
2) The net positive is more for those just arriving - it doesn't mean they are net contributors all their life
3) Those outside the EU from a certain time are actually net takers (0.85 for every pound)

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

So now you don't want to lump all migrants into a single group!

Oh and the 'other' group of researchers was migration watch, and if you consider them to be an independent source we may as well start using UKIP and the BDP.

Now f someone comes here as an adult, even if they have kids in later life and stay until they die they are still a better overall contributor than the average native born person.

And yet it's an immigrant group

Representative of a very small part, are you relay going to try and suggest they are the norm?

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say there is no difference in racial groups with regards to criminality then say it's a benefit to have those people migrate to the country only to become part of the lower social-economic bracket and.....commit more crime.

That's having your liberal cake and eating it

Liberal is a pejorative, but nice try.

And yes I can, because we are not talking about the same driving factors, unless that is you want to try some absurd far, right reductionism.

I'd base it on a balance. If you held a referendum on whether Britain should have immigration levels in the tens of thousands or the hundreds which do you think it would be?

People are being acutely affected by immigration at the current levels so I would hold back on that while fixing the problems we have right now. This would mean investment in key areas - something I'm not confident any party wants to do.

Given how well Brexit is going doing so would be just as stupid. However I'm not sure what that actually does to prove the benefit of either value to the UK as a whole, funnily enough one of my sources on the post you quoted did show that. Guess what, higher is better in terms of long term public debt vs GDP.

Immigration is good for the UK economy and higher levels are required to bring the money in to balance out a population that is aging and living long (resulting in a significant additional cost - one that far outstrips the cost of immigrant from outside the EU or the longer term cost of them). The only other options are to force people to have more kids or to start culling the elderly, well or to all start getting used to a significantly lower standers of living.

But as the UK stands currently this will pressure services - a quarter of a million people per year is madness for a country that is struggling to house its population and look after its health needs.

The housing issue has its roots in the sell off of council housing stock in the '80s and has very little to do with immigration levels, nor does the current NHS issues, as your own source illustartes.

So you're happy with at least 250k....how would you solve the problem of infrastructure?

You assume the issue with infrastructure is caused by that, prove that first (you've already disproved the NHS one with your own source)

This was from a point about creating more university places for nursing/medicine so I'm still not sure I follow

If we limit immigration while that's happening (and with a falling birth rate and growing ageing population is not certain that relying on native births would cope long term) who choses at what level it is and how many will die if its set to low?

After all if your hypothetical referendum was carried out and went for 10,000 it would be quite a few deaths, if the more far right had its way and it was zero the result would be horrific (not to mention in either of these the massive damage to the economy of a 10K ish limit - farmers would go under, the income from further education would plummet, construction would slow massively, research would suffer in a wide range of sectors, etc).

 

[baldgye]

....What?

Something that applies to communities across the world, and whose effect is being seen around the world is meaningless?

That....like....makes no sense at all


It is with non-EU immigrants from 1995-2012.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

QUICK! HALT THE IMMIGRATION COMPLETELY!

Q. What ‘communities’
A. All of them.

Yeah, meaningless.
All of them in the world? All of them in the U.K.? What are you taking about? Oh and then you link random stories about immigration?? Please explain what your chatting about.


Non-eu migrants are controlled, so why did you then link something about EU migration and their contribution?
Just to say again, non-Eu migration has been and has always been pretty aggressivly controlled by the government. So what are you saying?

*insert hilarious meme*

 

[Scaff]

*insert hilarious meme*

You forgot, shout in UPPER CASE.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm starting to see the points aren't really being refuted....

You ask "What communities", are given a list of no less than three communities and say "huh? What communities?"

You talk about "childless migrants", are then shown that these individuals actually have a higher fertility rate and whose children make up more than 1 in 10 newborns (that's just EU migrant, not counting non-EU which have higher fertility rates) and say "What's your point?"

I think from recent posts alone we are starting to see why populist politicians find it so easy to convince voters to vote for them.

 

[baldgye]

I'm starting to see the points aren't really being refuted....

You ask "What communities", are given a list of no less than three communities and say "huh? What communities?"

You talk about "childless migrants", are then shown that these individuals actually have a higher fertility rate and whose children make up more than 1 in 10 newborns (that's just EU migrant, not counting non-EU which have higher fertility rates) and say "What's your point?"

I think from recent posts alone we are starting to see why populist politicians find it so easy to convince voters to vote for them.

Your inability to argue your points doesn't reflect on anyone else but you.

Three communities you say?
Well “all of them” probably consists of more than three?
Oh then you talk about Italy... white flight (from America?) and then a channel 4 program from a few years ago, where they couldn’t film because it was an unsafe are? Oh and then the big one! Two communities who voted to leave...
London voted almost entirely to stay, the city with the highest levels of immigration across the U.K.... what does that mean?


What’s your issue?
Immigration isn’t a problem. You are saying it is, but have failed, categorically to not only explain why, but then to show it. You seem to think that you have a better grasp of the economy than the Bank of England and successive governments? We have and have always had complete control over immigration, we use it to help grow and support our country (see the NHS).

And this wonderful in-site shows you why the populists vote won/wins?
They find it so easy, because they pray on prejudices, fears and lie...

 

[UKMikey]

You talk about "childless migrants", are then shown that these individuals actually have a higher fertility rate and whose children make up more than 1 in 10 newborns (that's just EU migrant, not counting non-EU which have higher fertility rates) and say "What's your point?"

As I understand it a higher fertility rate amongst a minority (and one which is decreasing year on year) doesn't mean the UK is being swamped in a brown tide of little immigrant children. It seems to me that the country will stay majority white for some time longer if that's your concern.

I'm not sure how immigrants who have been educated and brought up in other nations and come to work and pay taxes end up being seen as a net drain on this country's resources compared with people who have lived here all their lives.

If they then have children here, then don't you think those kids have as much right to education, welfare and health care as anyone else born in this country? If not, then why not?

 

[baldgye]

I missed the 1 in 10 figure, could you link us back in again?

As I understand it a higher fertility rate amongst a minority (and one which is decreasing year on year) doesn't mean the UK is being swamped in a brown tide of little immigrant children. It seems to me that the country will stay majority white for some time longer if that's your concern.

I'm not sure how immigrants who have been educated and brought up in other nations and come to work and pay taxes end up being seen as a net drain on this country's resources compared with people who have lived here all their lives.

If their kids are born here don't you think they have equal rights to education, welfare and health care as anyone else born in this country? If not, then why not?

If you are an immigrant (and thus legally entitled to live in the U.K.) and have children in the U.K. and raise them in U.K. schools... aren’t your children British?

I can’t see any issue with people coming here legally and having children...

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure how immigrants who have been educated and brought up in other nations and come to work and pay taxes end up being seen as a net drain on this country's resources compared with people who have lived here all their lives.

They don't, quite the opposite, but rather than attempt to refute the evidence on that (from both his own source and the OBR) it's easier to just throw in half arsed digs.

You see once you know that immigrants are not the cause of all woes, the only thing left is that people who still oppose immigration just don't like foreign people living here (oddly they also tend to be quite pro us living abroad - then they get called ex-pats).

 

[baldgye]

They don't, quite the opposite, but rather than attempt to refute the evidence on that (from both his own source and the OBR) it's easier to just throw in half arsed digs.

You see once you know that immigrants are not the cause of all woes, the only thing left is that people who still oppose immigration just don't like foreign people living here (oddly they also tend to be quite pro us living abroad - then they get called ex-pats).

God, can you imagine the hypocrisy of British people moving to another country, not integrating and setting up shop like a it’s a mini-U.K. province!? In other news I’m retiring to the south of Spain, the chippies there are to die for!

 

[Scaff]

God, can you imagine the hypocrisy of British people moving to another country, not integrating and setting up shop like a it’s a mini-U.K. province!? In other news I’m retiring to the south of Spain, the chippies there are to die for!

From my own experience you can add in quite a few working in the Middle East as well.

 

[baldgye]

And the NHS is saved!!

 

[Dotini]

If you're looking to make a living, crime may be the way to go. Here's a map of the best places to apply!

Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire had the lowest rate of solved crime in 2017, while the most crimes were solved in Uttlesford in Essex

 

[Scaff]

If you're looking to make a living, crime may be the way to go. Here's a map of the best places to apply!

Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire had the lowest rate of solved crime in 2017, while the most crimes were solved in Uttlesford in Essex

And a reverse image search shows that the source is the Daily Mail, a source so bad that Wiki doesn't even allow it.

So without bothering to follow the link (as far right rags more interested in creating inter-community hostility, click bait and overall scaremongering that reporting news don;t get my support either) I'm going to hazard a guess that this is not actually all crime as it makes out, but rather a specific crime or group of crimes and they have cherry picked on a rather extreme scale.

 

[Famine]

And Darlington is in County Durham...

 

[polysmut]

And Darlington is in County Durham...

Geographically, yes. Different police constabulary and local government though.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It seems the figures are robberies, some papers are reporting them more specifically as 'street robberies'. The 4%-ish headline figure being quoted by some is at odds with the government's own 13%-ish figure but I can't find the raw data that they used as the Times article is behind a pay-wall and the Daily Mail's largest dataset seems to be 36-24-36.

 

[Liquid]

And it should be fewest solved.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sir Cristopher Chope is having a pants day. BBC.

 

[UKMikey]

Sir Cristopher Chope is having a pants day. BBC.

He's being briefed against.

 

[baldgye]

He's being briefed against.

That was below the belt