|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: lies on immigration
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I mean they haven't kept going up.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is also rather silly to insist in the political context that such a lead culture is itself a construct from many cultural influences. Sure it is, and that is of historical interest, but it does not change that here and now this lead culture exists in a particular fashion. For example, the national dish of Germany is probably the Currywurst - which, as the name indicates, cannot possibly be of ancient Teutonic origin and rather crucially relies on ingredients not found in Allemanic lands. Still, Germans love to eat Currywurst now, and if you want to blend right in then maybe you should have some, too.
Ironically, these discussions are often conducted without asking the migrants themselves, who will generally laugh at the suggestion that their host country is simply a "multicultural blend". And those migrants also experience the shift in their own attitudes due to adapting to their host culture, as do others. Turkish migrants in Germany when returning to Turkey for a visit are apparently called Germans by the locals. And I remember well when our secretary in the Netherlands pointed out to me one day that I had lost my previous Australian "no worries" attitude within a year of dealing with Dutch worries.
I rather think you've missed the thrust of what a number of us have been saying. It's not about saying that there is no local "lead culture". It's about saying that the "lead culture" is not some pure thing that has remained fixed and immutable over the centuries.
Which is exactly in keeping with your comment about Currywurst.
The fact is, if Poles stick around in the UK, then over time Polish elements will become transfused into 'British' culture, and will be seen as part of 'British' culture, and in 80 or 100 years time some of our descendants will be lamenting how immigrants to the UK from Kazakhstan fail to take an interest in "traditional British culture" when referring to something that traces it origins back to Krakow.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact is, if Poles stick around in the UK, then over time Polish elements will become transfused into 'British' culture, and will be seen as part of 'British' culture, and in 80 or 100 years time some of our descendants will be lamenting how immigrants to the UK from Kazakhstan fail to take an interest in "traditional British culture" when referring to something that traces it origins back to Krakow.
And my point is that they then will be right to do so. That culture is a transient construct does not make it any less binding in its current state.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean they haven't kept going up.
Sure, there does seem to be a recent levelling off, but that wasn't my point.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Le Roc quote:
Still, compared to other countries and to some historical time periods, the population increase in the UK is quite low. A 22% increase of not much is not much.
The increase is actually a lot: in faact the UK's population is growing faster than any other in Europe - all of it, not just the EU.
In any case, better figures are arrived at by looking at population density, both as an absolute and, perhaps more importantly, by arable land (in other words, how dense compared to the capacity of the country to grow food). Taking 4 European countries to compare the UK to, the rankings are as follows for density and food growing land:
The Netherlands: 30th and 47th
Belgium: 35th and 71st
[B]UK: 51st and 74th[B]
Germany: 58th and 114th
France: 94th and 171st
But that takes the UK as a whole and, far more than most European countries, our areas of dense population tend to be squeezed into small areas. If you break down the figures for the UK's constituent countries, the number of people per square kilometre are as follows:
England 413
The Netherlands 406
Belgium 367
Germany 226
Wales 149
Northern Ireland 135
France 118
Scotland 68
And since our cities are in the same areas as our arable land, providing the extra housing and infrastructure for our burgeoning population is bound to decrease our capacity to provide for it.
It's disingenuous (at best) to give figures for England separately, and Britain has been a net food importer since at least the beginning of the last century, hence the food rationing in both World Wars and well into the 1950's.
quote:
Whether we like it or not, population, particularly population density, is an issue that needs to be addressed and the UK can't keep on ignoring it: by ignoring immigration rates and patterns we have already ended up without the infrastructure to cope with the people we say we want to welcome - how crazy is that?
Can you quote examples of where an advanced democratic society has broken down because of high population density? It only needs addressing to point out how much more serious other issues are.
It's also interesting that you (again) mention infrastructure, because many immigrants work in those very sectors that they are alleged to put under stress. Matters could just as easily be worse if they were not here! Alternatively they do low-paid jobs, like the graduates from Latvia, Poland and Ukraine who work in our office canteen.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The price for the dumbest example in this thread must go to Alan, by the way. Next time I drink a pint of "real ale" (or "real stout"), I will raise my not-a-Continental-lager glass to his general ignorance about beer culture in Europe... Just because I can find an Alt or Bockbier in Germany that resembles English beer more than the standard issue German Pils doesn't mean that there aren't very pronounced differences that really distinguish the beer culture around here.
And, the prize for not actually reading what I said goes to ...
I never mentioned German Pils or other Continental beers. My point was only that there are lots of different British beers, which reflect lots of different British cultures.
The point is not that cultures are immutable and fixed. The point is that within a small geographic area there are lots of different cultures, some being associated with distinct areas, some with groups of people. And, they're all equally British (if that small geographic area is Britain) as much as all those different beers are also British. There is no such thing as "British Culture", there is a rich tapestry of British cultures which is being enriched by a constant influx of new cultural ideas.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently. When one votes, whether at a local or national level, one is, presumably, being asked to make some kind of decision about the country one wants to live in. Is it one that places a greater premium on public health spending, for example, or one that builds a lot of houses on fields. All of these things affect one's life and I don't see how one can say on the one hand that these things are worthy of public input, but being the only English speaker in one's street is something that one can't have any say over.
As I say, I think the debate is really over the nature and scale of immigration, rather than whether we have any immigration at all (no-one is voting UKIP because French bankers are taking the best lycée places in South Kensington).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never mentioned German Pils or other Continental beers. My point was only that there are lots of different British beers, which reflect lots of different British cultures.
Rather, considered together they reflect one British culture quite distinct from for example German culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The point is that within a small geographic area there are lots of different cultures, some being associated with distinct areas, some with groups of people. And, they're all equally British (if that small geographic area is Britain) as much as all those different beers are also British. There is no such thing as "British Culture", there is a rich tapestry of British cultures which is being enriched by a constant influx of new cultural ideas.
What is this "rich tapestry" made of? Well, maybe English, Welch, Irish and Scottish culture. But then what about the English, isn't London different from say Bristol? Sure thing. But what then of London, is not this district from that one? Yep. And then perhaps we can go on to streets and houses and family members and we find that we are all a culture onto ourselves. And we have said really nothing particularly meaningful in this wonderful zoom through the hierarchy of cultural associations.
The point actually is that at the level of Great Britain there is a culture that is distinct from other cultures at a similar level, say in Germany or Spain. The "rich tapestry" is actually not so rich as to let all cultural differences at this level disappear in multicultural noise. And yes, one can similarly argue at lower levels (Welch vs. Scottish culture) or at higher levels (European vs. Arabic culture). Unless and until you embrace this, you will give up ground to parties like UKIP. Because whatever you may mean by it, it sure sounds as if you are somehow denying British culture as a unifying point of identification. And that will piss off the many Brits who are happily identifying as Brits.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
IngoB; your mis-spelling of "Welsh" does not lead me towards the conclusion that you know more than the square-root of bugger all about Welsh culture, at least.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean they haven't kept going up.
Sure, there does seem to be a recent levelling off, but that wasn't my point.
It doesn't have to be your point. It was mine. The hordes have stopped coming, so you can relax.
You were asked not only for figures but to indicate over what period of time they applied to. If the number of Poles after 10 years isn't much different from the number of Poles after 3 years, that is highly pertinent information.
[ 04. November 2014, 13:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently. When one votes, whether at a local or national level, one is, presumably, being asked to make some kind of decision about the country one wants to live in. Is it one that places a greater premium on public health spending, for example, or one that builds a lot of houses on fields. All of these things affect one's life and I don't see how one can say on the one hand that these things are worthy of public input, but being the only English speaker in one's street is something that one can't have any say over.
But that just brings me back to what I asked earlier: since when have you had control over the characteristics of your neighbours?
Why does speaking a language suddenly give you a right of veto? Should Alan's Japanese neighbours be able to get him kicked out if his Japanese isn't up to scratch?
Besides, the odds of being "the only English speaker" are tiny. The fact is that many people who don't natively speak English will still try to learn it as best they can because they want to deal with the English-speakers around them. They can't ALL live in a self-enclosed enclave with no need to communicate in the dominant language of the country.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact is, if Poles stick around in the UK, then over time Polish elements will become transfused into 'British' culture, and will be seen as part of 'British' culture, and in 80 or 100 years time some of our descendants will be lamenting how immigrants to the UK from Kazakhstan fail to take an interest in "traditional British culture" when referring to something that traces it origins back to Krakow.
And my point is that they then will be right to do so. That culture is a transient construct does not make it any less binding in its current state.
Exactly what do you mean by "binding"? I've got several different responses in my head, depending on that.
But they all come back to the point that expecting people who aren't like you to behave like you is fundamentally stupid.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
…In any case, better figures are arrived at by looking at population density, both as an absolute and, perhaps more importantly, by arable land (in other words, how dense compared to the capacity of the country to grow food)…And since our cities are in the same areas as our arable land, providing the extra housing and infrastructure for our burgeoning population is bound to decrease our capacity to provide for it…
Sorry, but I'm buying exactly none of the leaps of logic you've made here. First, what countries rely entirely on their own agriculture these days? Even living in a vast agricultural nation like the US, I see "product of Mexico" or "product of Argentina" on produce all the time. When I lived in England, I expected things in the supermarket to be from overseas. More to the point, arable land cannot be equated with potential agricultural production, which can't be equated with potential food supply, which can't be equated with population capacity. The corn, wheat, and soy belts of the American Midwest produce a truly astonishing amount of calories—much of which goes to feedlots to be converted (rather inefficiently) into beef. Or other meat products. Or ethanol. Or corn plastic. Or…well, other things that aren't recognizable as "plant-based food." And, of course, there are other factors—droughts happen, groundwater reserves run dry, crops fail, climates change—that make "arable land" basically useless as a stand-in for population capacity.
Next up, what cities of any age aren't built in arable land? I'm sitting here in a metropolitan area of over 9 million people less than a mile from what was once the State Agricultural College (and still has the state's ag program, complete with sheep on campus), and regularly ride my bike through the US Department of Agriculture's research farms; when I go south to ride in the UDSA's other big plant research facility in DC, I go past Bladensburg, a major tobacco export port in the early 1700's, before intense tobacco farming caused the river to silt over. The town in which I was born was surrounded by wheat fields; as it sprawled outwards, holdout fields and ranches would remain, leading to the odd sight of combines on city streets, come to harvest fields in what was by then an increasingly unfashionable neighborhood, or horses, cattle and emus (yes, really) peeking over their neighbors' back fences. When I worked in New Mexico, it was on a working cattle ranch. Basically, of all the places I've lived, England may have had the least agricultural heritage.
Of course, if you're looking to preserve farmland, open space, the environment, and the arable land on which cities are built, there is an obvious solution—curtail sprawl and encourage density. Dense, transit-oriented cities make better use of limited resources, especially fossil fuels, than sprawling suburbs. The advantages of urban density, provided it is efficiently planned and used, for connecting people with services is astonishing; without the need to own a car or navigate inefficient suburban bus systems, people can be connected with the network they need to thrive.
In other words, I'm just not seeing the validity in either your premises or your conclusions. Sorry.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point actually is that at the level of Great Britain there is a culture that is distinct from other cultures at a similar level, say in Germany or Spain. The "rich tapestry" is actually not so rich as to let all cultural differences at this level disappear in multicultural noise.
Well, clearly in Britain our dominant cultural characteristics do not just disappear into a multicultural noise. That seemed so obvious I didn't think it needed saying.
Consider the birds. A small island has a population of finches, within that population there is a variety of genes that express themselves in a range of slight variations in plumage, beak size and other traits. You might be able to take an average of all the feather colours and beak sizes and define an average finch. But, it's actually quite unlikely that if you go looking around the island that you will ever find the average finch, every finch you find will differ very slightly from the average.
Not very far from that island there is another island, with another population of finches. These also have a range of genes and characteristics. Again, you can define an average finch and not find it. You can take individuals from both populations and find you can't tell which island they came from. Yet, taken as a whole each population is clearly distinct and different.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that just brings me back to what I asked earlier: since when have you had control over the characteristics of your neighbours?
You don't get to choose your individual neighbours, but I think you do have a say in what your society is like. If mass immigration is going to affect that, I don't see why one shouldn't have a say in it, in the same way one is allowed to comment on whether a housing estate is built on the field at the end of the road.
quote:
Should Alan's Japanese neighbours be able to get him kicked out if his Japanese isn't up to scratch?
Japan's immigration policy is a matter for the Japanese. But again, it's presumably a question of nature and degree? Half a dozen French bankers with broken English moving into South Kensington probably isn't going to bother anyone. Several thousand Eastern European labourers with limited English moving into a market town is probably a different kettle of fish.
quote:
Besides, the odds of being "the only English speaker" are tiny.
It's an admittedly extreme example, but finding that your town is one full of foreign voices could, I think, be rather alienating. I've spoken to a number of people who have talked of feeling 'like a stranger in their own country'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So have I. They've invariably prefaced it with "I'm not a racist but..."
Which as the Heaven thread showed, is generally a good sign of a racist comment from a racist on the way.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
]
You don't get to choose your individual neighbours, but I think you do have a say in what your society is like. If mass immigration is going to affect that, I don't see why one shouldn't have a say in it, in the same way one is allowed to comment on whether a housing estate is built on the field at the end of the road.
The best way to have a say in what your society is like is to participate in it. Stand for the council, school governing bodies, the PTA, get some cultural society going (as you're so fond of culture), help with the Scouting movement, become a JP. All of them far more direct and influential than voting, writing to your MP (though that is not to be underestimated) or waving a placard around.
Honestly, I've read more cogent arguments in favour of hosts intervening in debates than I've seen on this thread.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The best way to have a say in what your society is like is to participate in it. Stand for the council, school governing bodies, the PTA, get some cultural society going (as you're so fond of culture), help with the Scouting movement, become a JP. All of them far more direct and influential than voting, writing to your MP (though that is not to be underestimated) or waving a placard around.
They're all worthy activities, but if immigration is a concern for you, then becoming an Arkela isn't going to deal with the matter. Voting is. And voting is one way of participating in society.
[ 04. November 2014, 20:44: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The best way to have a say in what your society is like is to participate in it. Stand for the council, school governing bodies, the PTA, get some cultural society going (as you're so fond of culture), help with the Scouting movement, become a JP. All of them far more direct and influential than voting, writing to your MP (though that is not to be underestimated) or waving a placard around.
They're all worthy activities, but if immigration is a concern for you, then becoming an Arkela isn't going to deal with the matter. Voting is. And voting is one way of participating in society.
Here we differ quite fundamentally. While I have a strong preference for the political party I want in government (and an even stronger one for the party I want out) that's something we do on one day each five years. It doesn't even take a whole day! When one considers the limits placed on government by business interests, that leaves a lot of time to do much more for the community.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I'm afraid I don't understand.
If one feels that immigration is an issue, and that the established parties aren't listening to the people on the issue, one might vote UKIP.
Now one might vote UKIP and have no other interaction with society.
Or one might vote UKIP, be a UKIP council candidate, and help one's community by leading a scout group, coaching a local football team and taking the lead on getting hanging baskets fitted in the town centre.
But they're different things. Coaching the team or hanging geraniums isn't going to alter the level of immigration to this country, in the same way that it isn't going to alter the amount of tax revenue spent on the National Health Service.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that just brings me back to what I asked earlier: since when have you had control over the characteristics of your neighbours?
You don't get to choose your individual neighbours, but I think you do have a say in what your society is like. If mass immigration is going to affect that, I don't see why one shouldn't have a say in it, in the same way one is allowed to comment on whether a housing estate is built on the field at the end of the road.
Well, I think Margaret told you there was no such thing as society...
The problem is that no-one is ever required to identify what "mass" immigration is, nor how it "affects" things, nor what "society" it is affecting. It never gets beyond "I'M CONCERNED".
About what, exactly? I've already gone through a round of ridiculing the idea that what the people down the road speak or wear or eat or pray to has any effect on what I speak or wear or eat or pray to in my home. Would you like me to go through it again?
And frankly, I'm amazed at all these people who seem to spend so much time either talking to their neighbours or being highly invested in their neighbours' lifestyles. I talk to one of my immediate neighbours once every few months on average. I suppose the fact that he's the one I leave a spare key with when I'm away makes it handy that he speaks English. Other aspects of his lifestyle have never come into it. The other immediate neighbour I probably talk to a couple of times a year.
The people a couple of houses away who speak another language to each other, I've never needed to speak to. I never spoke to any previous resident of the same house. The only reason I'm aware of them speaking another language is because very occasionally I've been outside and the same time they've been outside.
You want to talk mass migration? I live in a country where the latest Census says 18% of people speak a language other than English at home, nearly 1 in 5, and I can't say that it affects me much. Not least because only 3% of people don't speak English or speak it poorly.
So I'm afraid you're going to have to spell it out for me. What's the actual concern, and how the hell do these people actually affect you and your society?
[ 04. November 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Anglican't:
How often does it need to be said that immigrants are used to deflect attention from what is really wrong with society: the NHS and welfare state are being dismantled, economic interest is conflated with the national interest (did the 'credit crunch' come from Eastern Europe?) and MPs make up the rules to suit themselves.
You've been hoodwinked pal, like a lot of others.
[edited to clarify intended recipient]
[ 04. November 2014, 21:45: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also, travel to northern Wales and see how you cope. I bet you'll be fine. Perfect testing ground for what happens when you have an enclave of people with a different culture who speak to each other in a different tongue.
My experience was that they switched to English as soon as they saw my big southern-English ears.
But of course, on the bus between Bangor and Caernarfon they all kept speaking Welsh to each other in my presence. The swine.
[ 04. November 2014, 21:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
While at uni in Liverpool I was frequently told that the opposite was true, the Welsh spoke English until someone came in and then they switched to Welsh. But, the people telling me that had often not bothered to travel the few miles across the water into Wales. It was certainly not something I experienced in Wales. A friend told a story of going into a pub on his own, where the TV was showing a rugby match with Welsh commentary and the locals provided a running translation of the commentary for his benefit. With the usual additional comments about "he doesn't know what he's talking about", but since when have professional sports commentators been better informed than an intoxicated group of blokes in the pub?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's occasionally observed in this city that a surprisingly high number of the bakeries are owned by Vietnamese people.
I've yet to discern any impact this has on the products I can buy or the prices. Perhaps after decades of being exposed to Vietnamese-style sausage rolls and lemon slices and bread rolls I've somehow lost the capacity to distinguish them from the true Aussie ones elsewhere.
I do get service with an accent when the older family members are serving. A couple of times a year I have to ask someone to repeat what they said. But then again, exactly the same thing happens with people without any accent, because they mumble or there's noise.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently.
The difference is that people have rights and buildings don't.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To throw in some facts, I found the England & Wales census results on speaking English.
Which indicate that you have a lot lower percentage of non-English speakers than we do. Hell, although acknowledging the questions/breakdown are different, you might even have fewer people in absolute terms despite your population being over double!
[ 04. November 2014, 22:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Anglican't:
How often does it need to be said that immigrants are used to deflect attention from what is really wrong with society: the NHS and welfare state are being dismantled, economic interest is conflated with the national interest (did the 'credit crunch' come from Eastern Europe?) and MPs make up the rules to suit themselves.
You've been hoodwinked pal, like a lot of others.
[edited to clarify intended recipient]
Well, we really will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do think they should have some say, yes. However, that is utterly different from getting to decide exactly who lives in the building, regardless of whether it is ornately Victorian or a tower block.
I'm afraid I don't see the two things so differently.
The difference is that people have rights and buildings don't.
But non-Britons don't have an automatic right to live in Britain. Whether they do or not depends on immigration policy of the day. And that immigration policy should be subject to debate like any other government policy.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Another interesting news item. Immigrants contribute £25billion more to the UK tax man than they receive in state services. Whereas, us "native Brits" received more than £600 billion from the state in excess of what we paid. The message is clear, if you want to balance the state budget and secure funding to the NHS, schools, pensions etc then you need to get rid of some of these expensive natives and/or bring in more of these net-contributing immigrants. Reducing the number of immigrants is just going to make balancing the accounts at the treasury even more difficult.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
'Don't confuse me, my mind's made up'.
(alt: Let's not have the facts interfere with a good story.)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If one feels that immigration is an issue, and that the established parties aren't listening to the people on the issue, one might vote UKIP.
This is what's so annoying about this debate. The idea that the parties aren't listening. ALL of the three major parties are pandering to the anti-immigration mob.
It is a reasonable position to think that it is too easy for people coming from other countries to get into the UK. That's fine - but only, only if you have some understanding of what the UK immigration procedures involve. It is not easy for non-EU people to get into the UK. Not at all. And our Asylum system is a brilliant piece of bureaucracy designed simply to deny claims regardless of their validity. It's the same nonsense as when you hear the Mail et al. wailing that you can't talk about immigration... I just wish they'd shut up about it for a day.
You see the same fallacy in other debates. It is an entirely reasonable position to think benefits (SOCIAL SECURITY ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ) are too generous. But only if you actually know how much it is and have some understanding of that level of subsistence living. Surveys show that people consistently over-estimate how much benefits are and when asked independently about what sort of level of lifestyle should be the minimum allowable the level they think therefore social security needs to be is significantly higher than it actually is. And these are the same people who support cutting benefits.
It is a constant battle of misinformation.
What I want to see is a party who STOPS listening now - they've done that enough - and stands up and leads.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly what do you mean by "binding"? I've got several different responses in my head, depending on that.
How binding any part of culture is, is itself part of culture. If you were to try to marry a twelve year old girl now, there would be outrage and possibly criminal persecution. If you tried this in a different part of the world, or around here three hundred years ago, it would perhaps have raised some eyebrows but not more. If you jump a queue around here now, people will find that rude. If you are in Italy, they will find it normal and who knows what the crowds at Stonehenge would have thought. If you want to feed a bunch of kids now, and do not know them well, you are likely to opt for pizza - and all other parents will find that a reasonable approach. For obvious reasons that would not have been always the case as you go back in time, where pizza would have first been a luxury food not to be "wasted" on children and then simply not have been around. Etc.
However, it simply does not help to say "but I want to marry a twelve year old, jump queues, and feed kids caviar on toast" just because the cultural binding on these is variable. People will still find this unacceptable, rude and unreasonable here and now, and act accordingly,
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But they all come back to the point that expecting people who aren't like you to behave like you is fundamentally stupid.
No, it isn't. What is stupid is to hear that sort of silly judgement from the mouth of a lawyer. Law is of course nothing but the explicit and particularly ferocious enforcing of communal standards of behaviour against individual preference.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What pisses me off, is how people keep making spurious economic arguments regardless of the evidence. Migrationwatch are particularly classic in this regards. Not unlike the government and its drugs policy.
[ 05. November 2014, 07:18: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
What new problem from Polish immigrants? We've already absorbed Polish culture. We have had a significant Polish presence in the UK since the Pogroms pre-WW2 and the Polish Government residence in London during WW2. South Kensington has a Polish Institute and Museum which was founded there using Sikorski's papers in 1946. There's also the Daquise - founded in 1947.
(I went to university in South Kensington and the number of students with Polish surnames meant a permanent challenge for our tongues, such names as Zbrzezniak, Zbigniew and Tubielewicz were common. They often knew little of their families' origins as "it is better not to know".)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly what do you mean by "binding"? I've got several different responses in my head, depending on that.
How binding any part of culture is, is itself part of culture. If you were to try to marry a twelve year old girl now, there would be outrage and possibly criminal persecution. If you tried this in a different part of the world, or around here three hundred years ago, it would perhaps have raised some eyebrows but not more. If you jump a queue around here now, people will find that rude. If you are in Italy, they will find it normal and who knows what the crowds at Stonehenge would have thought. If you want to feed a bunch of kids now, and do not know them well, you are likely to opt for pizza - and all other parents will find that a reasonable approach. For obvious reasons that would not have been always the case as you go back in time, where pizza would have first been a luxury food not to be "wasted" on children and then simply not have been around. Etc.
However, it simply does not help to say "but I want to marry a twelve year old, jump queues, and feed kids caviar on toast" just because the cultural binding on these is variable. People will still find this unacceptable, rude and unreasonable here and now, and act accordingly,
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But they all come back to the point that expecting people who aren't like you to behave like you is fundamentally stupid.
No, it isn't. What is stupid is to hear that sort of silly judgement from the mouth of a lawyer. Law is of course nothing but the explicit and particularly ferocious enforcing of communal standards of behaviour against individual preference.
Yes, but law IS binding. I actually read the first part of your post, before getting to the last part, thinking "it doesn't matter how much outrage there is unless it's in a law".
Thank you for proving my point for me. If you try to marry a 12 year old girl, you will be prosecuted because it's in a law. Not because people find it culturally inappropriate.
It is perfectly possible to have laws on the books that people don't think SHOULD be on the books. Look at copyright infringement. Vast numbers of people are absolutely fine with copyright infringement. And it's quite evident that a large majority of the community are perfectly fine with ignoring speed limits, because they do it around me every freaking day.
Despite your assertion that laws are just the embodiment of communal standards, the truth is that many communal standards are not enshrined in law and many laws fail to reflect communal standards.
[ 05. November 2014, 08:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What new problem from Polish immigrants?
Given that there were Dacians and Thracians manning Hadrian's Wall, it's not like the Rumanians and Bulgarians are new here, either.
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And frankly, I'm amazed at all these people who seem to spend so much time either talking to their neighbours or being highly invested in their neighbours' lifestyles. I talk to one of my immediate neighbours once every few months on average.
I suppose one aspect of 'traditional' English life is that people do communicate with the neighbours. I live in a fairly settled yet multicultural suburb with my father, and he sees himself as a good neighbour who helps people out. But for older people in a once close-knit area that suddenly becomes very transitory, full of young men who can't speak English very well, the change must be hard to deal with. The local authorities and institutions should help long-term residents to come to terms with it, but they rarely do.
quote:
You want to talk mass migration? I live in a country where the latest Census says 18% of people speak a language other than English at home, nearly 1 in 5, and I can't say that it affects me much. Not least because only 3% of people don't speak English or speak it poorly.
So I'm afraid you're going to have to spell it out for me. What's the actual concern, and how the hell do these people actually affect you and your society?
Again, it sounds as though your culture is rather different from ours! Canada, like the USA, is a country that prides itself on being a nation of immigrants, and where individuals aren't encouraged to see themselves as part of a collective. But 'Old World' cultures haven't envisioned themselves in quite this way, and high levels of immigration tend to raise concerns about social cohesion.
People living in the big British cities are further ahead at coping with this situation - although the stats show that the indigenous population are tending to move away from these cities, leaving the most intensively multicultural areas to be experienced by others rather than themselves. I don't know if this is also happening in North America.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And frankly, I'm amazed at all these people who seem to spend so much time either talking to their neighbours or being highly invested in their neighbours' lifestyles. I talk to one of my immediate neighbours once every few months on average.
I suppose one aspect of 'traditional' English life is that people do communicate with the neighbours. I live in a fairly settled yet multicultural suburb with my father, and he sees himself as a good neighbour who helps people out. But for older people in a once close-knit area that suddenly becomes very transitory, full of young men who can't speak English very well, the change must be hard to deal with.
But I bet it would be just as hard if it was full of young men who speak English perfectly. It's the fact that they are young, mobile people that causes them not to behave the same way as older generations, not their English skills.
You can see young people the world over playing with their smartphones and texting each other rather than engaging in conversation with older people around them. English skills has little to do with it. In my view you're not describing an immigration problem, you're describing a changing demographic problem. You're describing the fact that younger people today have grown up in a world where it is perfectly normal to move long distances and to move often.
[ 05. November 2014, 12:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
orfeo
It is indeed a problem of changing demographics. But in this case, that's been brought about by immigration. The fact that these young men can't communicate adequately with their neighbours is an additional problem.
Immigration has many effects. It's been said above that immigration form the EU has been economically beneficial for the UK. I have no doubt that's true. After all, young men generally want to work (especially if they haven't been raised in a benefits culture). And employers want a choice of candidates. But there are other effects (as well as other kinds of immigration), and we should be honest about them.
The British population is going to age significantly, and families will remain small, so it's likely that immigration (not only from the EU) will continue at all levels. The demographic challenges are therefore going to continue. The state and public institutions will have to work harder to bring people together, because atomisation won't be so desirable when there are so many old people in the society, many living alone.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you try to marry a 12 year old girl, you will be prosecuted because it's in a law. Not because people find it culturally inappropriate.
It is in the law because people now find it culturally inappropriate. It wasn't before because people didn't. It isn't now elsewhere because people there don't. Of course.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is perfectly possible to have laws on the books that people don't think SHOULD be on the books. Look at copyright infringement. Vast numbers of people are absolutely fine with copyright infringement.
Perhaps it is news to you that political, social and economic power is not actually equally distributed across society, and that therefore conceptions of "correct behaviour" can be imposed on people even if left to their own devices they would do differently?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Despite your assertion that laws are just the embodiment of communal standards, the truth is that many communal standards are not enshrined in law and many laws fail to reflect communal standards.
Of course laws are just the embodiment of communal standards, what else could they possibly be? It's just the case that society is not thoroughly homogeneous. Factors like political influence, wealth and social standing determine who gets to set the standards for whom.
That is after all exactly what you are worrying about, that some Englishman might tell some Chinese immigrant that he must eat bangers and mash henceforth, or else... Well, guess what, you as copyright lawyer (I assume) are a primary agent of just such an imposition of cultural norms from one group (authors, but more importantly, publishers) on another group ("ordinary" people). The only difference is that the prejudice on how people should deal with authored works has been codified and given some official stamp of approval by what you - according to even more cultural norms - consider as the relevant "governing authority". There is however no principle difference there at all. We could have laws about bangers and mash, and you could be the henchman for those. That you and I find this very suggestion so absurd, but the one about authored works not, is - guess what - yet another cultural norm that in fact has been reversed historically (certainly in ancient Israel people were way more concerned with food laws than with copyright).
I think however that we find in your attitude a deeper distinction between people on opposing sides than just "racist vs. non-racist".
It looks like you - and many other people - think roughly like this: "All things that are necessary for people to follow are given by the law. If something necessary is missing, then there should be a new law about it. All things that are not given by the law are not necessary for people to follow. If there are things in law that are not necessary, such law should be abolished. In interacting with other people, hence all we can and should require of them is to follow the law. All other demands that we might make of them are problematic as unnecessary restriction of their freedom and liberty to act as they wish."
There probably is some fancy term for this kind of ideology, but I will call it "liberal legalism" for now. It is legalism, because it makes the law the be all and end all of social interaction. And it is "liberal" because it justifies this in terms of freedom and liberty.
This runs here into a different conception, which is more directly concerned with goodness, and the common good in particular. This sees law more as a last resort, indeed, as a kind of necessary evil. It is a reflection of human corruption, which requires us to draw a line in the sand somewhere as a last line of defence for individual good but in particular the common good. Furthermore, maximising freedom of choice is not seen as the ultimate aim of society, as its final good. Rather there are specific goods that one wishes to realise, and sometimes more choice may make it easier to achieve those goods, and sometimes it may make it more difficult. There is then no simple prescription as in "liberal legalism", rather every case has to be discussed on its own terms: what goods one wants to achieve, and how this can best be done.
Obviously there is also real racism out there. But I think a lot of the conflicts between more well-meaning people boil down to this: is obedience to the law enough, and no measures should be taken unless law is broken, or is there more we wish to see happening in society, and if so what means are legitimate to bring it about? So for example we might have an immigrant who has lived here for twenty years but essentially speaks not a word of the local language. There is no law that requires people to speak the local language. Should we hence see this as OK, since no law was broken, or should we see it as a problem, because we see it as an essential common good that all people can communicate with each other to a working degree? And if we agree that it is a problem, what do we consider as the best reaction? Making a law about it?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
orfeo
It is indeed a problem of changing demographics. But in this case, that's been brought about by immigration. The fact that these young men can't communicate adequately with their neighbours is an additional problem.
When the family next door moved out a single professional woman (with four cats) moved in. Apart from some snarling when our kids kicked a ball over the fence she has hardly spoken a word to us in over ten years. She's entirely British too. quote:
Immigration has many effects. It's been said above that immigration form the EU has been economically beneficial for the UK. I have no doubt that's true. After all, young men generally want to work (especially if they haven't been raised in a benefits culture). And employers want a choice of candidates. But there are other effects (as well as other kinds of immigration), and we should be honest about them.
The British population is going to age significantly, and families will remain small, so it's likely that immigration (not only from the EU) will continue at all levels. The demographic challenges are therefore going to continue. The state and public institutions will have to work harder to bring people together, because atomisation won't be so desirable when there are so many old people in the society, many living alone.
Those demographic challenges have advantages as well as drawbacks. If more people of working age are coming to the UK that is a major benefit, especially with the aging population you mention for they need health and social care and plenty of immigrants work in those sectors, my GP for a start.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
When the family next door moved out a single professional woman (with four cats) moved in. Apart from some snarling when our kids kicked a ball over the fence she has hardly spoken a word to us in over ten years. She's entirely British too.
Can't say that's a great thing myself. As I said, if we're all getting older, the idea that we're not supposed to talk to our neighbours isn't very helpful! Neither does it help new immigrants integrate into the society.
quote:
Those demographic challenges have advantages as well as drawbacks.
I haven't denied this at all. Indeed, quite the opposite.
[ 05. November 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If more people of working age are coming to the UK that is a major benefit, especially with the aging population you mention for they need health and social care and plenty of immigrants work in those sectors, my GP for a start.
It's a neo-liberal scheme to undercut the native workforce.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You didn't learn anything about the dangers of "soft-core" racism from that ?
I did,(and do), hence the comparison.
Danger has a pungent smell and can draw someone like me towards it. I'd much rather toddle off to the polling booth at a General Election and put a cross in the Liberal candidate's box as I have done most of my life.
I still don't know if the media are stirring this shit or whether the shit has already arrived and they're merely pointing it out.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Doublethink (and others)
The study released today studied a group of migrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004. A few things to note:
Three more countries have joined since then (Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia) and immigration from the first two of those has been well above what was anticipated.
No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin. It is unclear whether the figures include Child Benefit paid to a bank account in the country of origin.
The figure for receipt of benefits is bound to be lower in total because these people aren't of pensionable age.
In any case, regardless of this particular (small) cohort of immigrants, this does not address the issue of whether or not immigration at the current rate is sustainable: all the evidence from the point of view of housing, education, health, etc, would suggest not.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
L'organist: No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin. It is unclear whether the figures include Child Benefit paid to a bank account in the country of origin.
It's almost as if you want immigration to be unsustainable.
quote:
L'organist: In any case, regardless of this particular (small) cohort of immigrants, this does not address the issue of whether or not immigration at the current rate is sustainable: all the evidence from the point of view of housing, education, health, etc, would suggest not.
Evidence of which you have given none.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No questions were asked about how much or what proportion of salary was sent "home" to the person's country of origin.
We don't ask you where you send the money you earn, either. Online shopping? With foreign companies?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ingo,
You are trying to teach a legislative drafter about the nature of law.
This is fucking hilarious.
Regards,
Orfeo.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
