Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ShotgunGold

BBC article - Utter utter RUBBISH

274 posts in this topic

EU officials and those holding diplomatic status don't pay tax to Belgian authorities.

I see, thank you. Very interesting, I did not know that. Does that have an effect on the local amenities, or are they paid for from the Belgium equivalent of council tax? Is this something that annoys your average Brusseler (sic), as the number of non tax payers per capita must be massive? If the European parliament was somewhere in Britain there would be DM articles about the gravy train on a weekly basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many immigrants hardly make any effort to learn the language, integrate with the local culture and many of them contribute nothing in taxes.

But that's enough about the British and Irish expat community...

They've thus managed to simultaneously sponge off the British and Belgian governments. Expect a deluge of letters postmarked Bradford and London, asking exactly how this can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I'm sure that, unlike some on this board, she's willing to accept the inferences and validity of other peoples more-direct experiences and accept that, in some instances the other person may be right.

i.e. "She agrees with me and therefore I will go against everything I said earlier."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i.e. "She agrees with me and therefore I will go against everything I said earlier."

Not at all. It's just that whatever I say on this issue, both your and Shadow's immediate reaction is to tell me I'm wrong.

If you did so, just tell us,exactly why you moved to the suburbs from the centre of London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. It's just that whatever I say on this issue, both your and Shadow's immediate reaction is to tell me I'm wrong.

If you did so, just tell us,exactly why you moved to the suburbs from the centre of London.

The area I live now is far more ethnically diverse than when I lived in London. And it's comfortably less white British than St Helen's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I'm sure that, unlike some on this board, she's willing to accept the inferences and validity of other peoples more-direct experiences and accept that, in some instances the other person may be right.

if this is the case, which i don't think it is...

does this limit the value of what you have to say on topics that you don't have direct day to day involvement with? I look forward to you expressing your opinions on such topics.

What if saintslass didn't agree with you? Woul that mean that she isn't willng to accept the validity of other peoples' more direct experiences, or she just happens to diagree with you? Do you ever accept that the 'other might be right'? Maybe I have a poor memory.

You know knack all about the experiences, lifestyles, and backgrounds of the people on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument always baffles me because it makes little sense. Historic immigration in this country largely (but not exclusively) took place as an outcome of conquest and the conquerers would then mix with the natives. But that process generally took decades, or in the case of the Romans centuries. And there were fairly disgintuishable gaps in time between each wave of conquering. Of course trade brought immigration, but that was primarily focused around port areas at least until the industrial revolution got underway and immigrants were brought in to supplement employment gaps. To a lesser extent religion brought immigration as a result of persecution elsewhere - for example the Jews - or in earlier times through missionary work to the British Isles by Christians from other areas of Europe. Historically, though, the process of immigration has been gradual and periodic and the outcome has been integration and assimilation.

However, since the start of the industrial revolution - but particularly over the last 20 years - the rate of immigration and the sheer numbers and ethnic diversity of immigrants has simply taken off, and we will experience another wave when the next batch of countries join the EU. Over the last couple of decades we have hardly had time to adjust to one group of people joining us when in come another. And yet there are areas of the country, like where I live at present, where immigration has hardly had an impact at all. Here in St Helens our biggest ethnic minority group is the Poles, and they number a whopping 600 (out of a total population of 180,000). However, that 600 are virtually all newly arrived Poles, as opposed to Poles who settled in the UK following the Second World War, and so the suddenness of their arrival caused temporary difficulties for local services (nobody in St Helens spoke Polish, for one thing!). Other than the Poles, St Helens has a smattering of Chinese (and always has had), Asian and African-Carribean peoples. But I think St Helens is still something like 98% white British. Contrast that with, say, Peterborough which has known massive immigration over the last 20 years - to the point where one of its primary schools now has no child speaking English as their first language - and really how people can morph the last 20 years of immigration in particular into the rest of history as if it has always been thus is beyond me. There must be some deliberate denial going on.

Well the Romans conquered the place, althoug many of the people who did that, formed th garrisons, te administrations and settlers weren't actually from Rome.

The Normans did, but they already had strong connections with England.

The Vikings didn't. They did a bit of raiding, banditry and pillage and that, and then they settled here.

The huguenots came here to escape persecution

so did the jews-but copped for it in any case. The only way they could get a foothold was in banking and finance-tis was because the Roman catholic church forbade 'usury' thus establishing tradition and sadly a stereotype of jews and their relationship with money. It was forced on them. They still live in conclaves of their own to a great extent.

and so on: far and away te vast majority of people and peoples who have settled here have not done so through conquest. far and away the majority of peope who have settled here have enriched the country and contributed to its prosperity.

edit: you appear to forget the UK's history of conquest and settlement in many countries of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does this limit the value of what you have to say on topics that you don't have direct day to day involvement with? I look forward to you expressing your opinions on such topics.

If you notice, you will see that, in such instances, I generally introduce my comments with "I think ... " or " I reckon ... " or "It seems to me that ...."

I don't pretend to know more about any subject than someone who has direct experience of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know knack all about the experiences, lifestyles, and backgrounds of the people on here.

True

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
c

And why is there never a box marked "Pure Bred Celt"

NB:This is a joke (the emoticon box isn't working).

Because there probably isn't such a thing.

And, no, it isn't because of the likelihood of cross-breeding with some Blackface or Badgerface somewhere along the line. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Romans conquered the place, althoug many of the people who did that, formed th garrisons, te administrations and settlers weren't actually from Rome.

The Normans did, but they already had strong connections with England.

The Vikings didn't. They did a bit of raiding, banditry and pillage and that, and then they settled here.

and so on: far and away the vast majority of people and peoples who have settled here have not done so through conquest. far and away the majority of people who have settled here have enriched the country and contributed to its prosperity.

edit: you appear to forget the UK's history of conquest and settlement in many countries of the world.

Well I saw a programme the other day that said that, after the Romans left in about 500AD, the British people never reached the same standard of living and welfare again until the 1700's. So the Normans and Vikings hardly contributed to any enrichment and prosperity.

edit: you appear to forget that in all three periods, natural Britons were kept in slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I saw a programme the other day that said that, after the Romans left in about 500AD, the British people never reached the same standard of living and welfare again until the 1700's. So the Normans and Vikings hardly contributed to any enrichment and prosperity.

edit: you appear to forget that in all three periods, natural Britons were kept in slavery.

te romans didn't actually leave, many stayed here, and again the were far from all Romans.

I think you'll find the Normans and the ikings and their descendants did just that.

twas common practice aand yet again the Vikings didn't conquer the British isles. They robbedparts of the place and ten settled here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I'm sure that, unlike some on this board, she's willing to accept the inferences and validity of other peoples more-direct experiences and accept that, in some instances the other person may be right.

I'm very much directly experienced with an immigrant and her offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I saw a programme the other day that said that, after the Romans left in about 500AD, the British people never reached the same standard of living and welfare again until the 1700's. So the Normans and Vikings hardly contributed to any enrichment and prosperity.

Not sure about the Vikings, but the Normans were genocidal bastards. Given their antics, it's hardly surprising that England didn't recover lost prosperity for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a quick poll? How many on this thread come from immigrant families(ie parents not several generations back)?

Me...anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Vikings didn't conquer the British isles. They robbed parts of the place and then settled here.

They took the Danegeld in exchange for not invading the South. That's extortion.

You can't write off slavery as "just standard practice"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me I don't think, at least 4 generations up are all English. Not that I can help it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a quick poll? How many on this thread come from immigrant families(ie parents not several generations back)?

Me...anyone else?

Irish. Father born in Dublin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I saw a programme the other day that said that, after the Romans left in about 500AD, the British people never reached the same standard of living and welfare again until the 1700's. So the Normans and Vikings hardly contributed to any enrichment and prosperity.

You have religion to thank for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have religion to thank for that.

Not sure I agree with that. What technological advance in, for instance, farming would religion have held back in the 500 years between 500AD and the arrival of the Normans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with that. What technological advance in, for instance, farming would religion have held back in the 500 years between 500AD and the arrival of the Normans?

Agree. Many human advances were made by religious scholars or Monks etc. ie books, calligraphy etc.

Religion was more used in a 'pay your taxes else you'll burn in hell' style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have religion to thank for that.

Funnily enough the Christian church help reintroduce a lot of Roman culture. The church became the enemy of science from Copernicus onwards but before that they were anything but.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the dark ages? Religion did much to suppress technological, political and intellectual advances. It isn't in their interest to have their followers question the teachings of their holy leaders and they also can't have advances in the understanding of the universe that goes against their doctrine. It is no coincidence that the period Wolford mentioned as being one that saw a decrease in the standard of living coincides with the rise of Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the dark ages? Religion did much to suppress technological, political and intellectual advances. It isn't in their interest to have their followers question the teachings of their holy leaders and they also can't have advances in the understanding of the universe that goes against their doctrine. It is no coincidence that the period Wolford mentioned as being one that saw a decrease in the standard of living coincides with the rise of Christianity.

Ever heard of the dark ages twentyfirst century? Religion did is doing much to suppress technological, political and intellectual advances. It isn't in their interest to have their followers question the teachings of their holy leaders and they also can't have advances in the understanding of the universe that goes against their doctrine. It is no coincidence that the period Wolford mentioned as being one that saw a decrease in the standard of living coincides with the rise of Christianity Fundamental Islam.

Deja Vu.

:dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017