EU, Immigration and UKIP

[GatwickDepress]

There's a lot of misunderstanding on how libel laws work here...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Wrong of course, because if you make a defamatory allegation about someone you can be sued for libel.

Accusing an individual of being a racist is defamatory unless of course you can prove it.

Do you really, honestly, think that Nigel Farage and UKIP are going to try and sue a single anonymous poster on a small forum for train spotters? You've gone potty.

In any case, it would be simple to claim the defence of honest opinion.

Wrong, know it all

Oh dear, have I touched a nerve?

I'd also like to know how I am being intimidating, given both yours and Johnuk123's responses, but you edited your post so we'll forget that little comment.

 

[Bishopstone]

The biggest threat to Britain doesn't come from immigrants or so called benefit scroungers, but from the free market. The next logical step now, rather than supporting some far right party that only exists to divide the people and transfer more money to private hands. Is to move towards more public utilities being in the hands of the state, thus reducing the amount of meddling the free market has in ordinary peoples lives.

We need to be heading away from this neoliberal agenda that the three main parties and UKIP support and back towards playing proper politics, when there was such thing as an opposition.

The Green Party support the policies you espouse, at least to some extent.

They are at 6% in the polls, which is better than their performance in 2010 but hardly evidence of a great public appetite for mass nationalisation.

 

[Manchester77]

The Green Party support the policies you espouse, at least to some extent.

They are at 6% in the polls, which is better than their performance in 2010 but hardly evidence of a great public appetite for mass nationalisation.

How often do you hear about what a Green Party candidate has been up to though on the news? Maybe the greens would have a more public support if they received the amount of air time UKIP does and were allowed to participate in the TV debates. It's not like they have no support, they have more MEPs than the lib dems and yet they're still not important enough to revive decent air time :roll:

 

[Johnuk123]

Do you really, honestly, think that Nigel Farage and UKIP are going to try and sue a single anonymous poster on a small forum for train spotters? You've gone potty.
In any case, it would be simple to claim the defence of honest opinion.

I don't think Nigel Farage will sue anybody, but anybody calling well known people racist on a public forum is not a very clever thing to do.

Frankie Boyle sued the Daily Mirror after they called him a racist and he won.

If you think posters on here can't be traced you're mistaken.

 

[Bishopstone]

How often do you hear about what a Green Party candidate has been up to though on the news?

Down here, where Caroline Lucas is a local MP and the Greens run Brighton & Hove council, barely a day goes by without them featuring in a news story. Not all of the coverage is positive, but some of their wounds are self-inflicted.

 

[ExRes]

Do you really, honestly, think that Nigel Farage and UKIP are going to try and sue a single anonymous poster on a small forum for train spotters? You've gone potty.

In any case, it would be simple to claim the defence of honest opinion.


Oh dear, have I touched a nerve?

I'd also like to know how I am being intimidating, given both yours and Johnuk123's responses, but you edited your post so we'll forget that little comment.

I edited/deleted my comment because, after a few moments thought, I wasn't sure whether your response was serious or in jest

Your 'defence of honest opinion' I find very interesting though, would it be alright for me to make accusations on here of theft against someone, call them a child molesting sex pervert or make comments about someones sexuality because it's my honest opinion, or does your simple claim only cover racism accusations against one group of people, ie UKIP supporters ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't think Nigel Farage will sue anybody, but anybody calling well known people racist on a public forum is not a very clever thing to do.

I don't think shouting racist at anyone is particularly constructive, however given UKIP's policies and past members it's not entirely unsurprising.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think shouting racist at anyone is particularly constructive, however given UKIP's policies and past members it's not entirely unsurprising.

I have to say, as someone who is very much on the pro-immigration side of the debate, I was uncomfortable at reading some of the accusations of racism that have been made in this thread.

It seems to me that it is a difficult area because, on the one hand, *some* (not all) of the arguments that are often put forward against immigration (or against the EU) do appear to me to rely on underlying assumptions that are somewhat racist in nature, and an honest debate does require that people feel able to draw attention to that when it occurs. But on the other hand, accusing a person of racism is such an unpleasant accusation that you need to have very good evidence before you do. And I don’t think that happened in this thread.

In my view, being concerned about levels of immigration (for example, because you are worried about whether our infrastructure can cope, or about loss of countryside) is a perfectly legitimate concern and it's completely wrong to accuse anyone of racism simply for expressing that kind of concern. It's also pretty stupid because you're never going to persuade people that way.

However, if as a result of a genuine concern about levels of immigration, you start wanting to discriminate against those people living in the UK who happen to be foreign because they are foreigners, or start looking at such people in a hostile manner, or say things likely to stir up dislike of those people, then that does start to look like racism.

In this regard, it does often seem that behind many of the arguments that – for example UKIP – put forward, there's an underlying unspoken assumption that foreigners are somehow less worthy of respect, purely because they are foreign. Look for example at Nigel Farage's comments in that well known radio interview about living next door to Romanians. Or at the anti-Romanian scaremongering UKIP used as part of their campaign in Eastleigh. That kind of thing also looks to me very much like racism.

In the end, everyone is a human being. If someone has (for genuine and ethical reasons) made the UK their permanent home, then in my view, they are just as entitled to respect and fair treatment as anyone else in the UK.

With regard to the immigration debate, it's worth remembering that immigration controls are restrictions on the lives of real human beings. When you impose controls that prevent people entering a country, you're not just dealing with abstract numbers. You're often talking about preventing – for example – human beings from seeing their friends, their family – often, even of separating wives from husbands, or even mothers from their own children. Yes, seriously, that really happens in the UK, on quite a significant scale to people who are from outside the EU and therefore not protected by EU freedom of movement laws. Mostly, this goes unreported by the Press . I know about it in part because I'm married to an immigrant, and I've seen both what happened to us and what's happened to many of her friends at the hands of the (former) UK Border Agency. Immigration controls can truly be devastating to people's lives. And those who casually talk about wanting more immigration restrictions would do well to remember that.

 

[Wyvern]

Down here, where Caroline Lucas is a local MP and the Greens run Brighton & Hove council, barely a day goes by without them featuring in a news story. Not all of the coverage is positive, but some of their wounds are self-inflicted.

While the Greens insist on relying on their members for funds and refusing corporate or similar donations they'll never have the money to mount an effectively competing campaign.

They aren't as "newsy" as UKIP of course, though whether people will take UKIP seriously next May is a different matter.

What interests me is that former Left leaning supporters are looking for an alternative to Labour and turning to UKIP when you would have thought that the Greens would have been more appropriate.

Meanwhile the Johny come lately UKIP gets mentioned almost daily on the BBC and has been invited to join the Con/Lab/Lib debates before the election, yet the BBC has flatly refused to entertain the idea of the Greens also taking part.

 

[Antman]

They have every right to be in this country as much as we do. Gentle reminder that somewhere down your family tree that one of your relatives would have immigrated into the UK. Do you have problems with Americans immigrating to the UK, out of interest?

I have no particular problem with people of any nationality coming to live in the UK but there has to be a limit to how many people can be reasonably housed here and we have long since passed that limit and UKIP seem to be the only party addressing the problem whilst others prefer the bury head in sand approach.

 

[Amberley54]

I have no particular problem with people of any nationality coming to live in the UK but there has to be a limit to how many people can be reasonably housed here and we have long since passed that limit and UKIP seem to be the only party addressing the problem whilst others prefer the bury head in sand approach.

Could you tell me what the housing limit is, and when it was passed, as I haven't come across those statistics/dates before?

 

[meridian2]

With regard to the immigration debate, it's worth remembering that immigration controls are restrictions on the lives of real human beings. When you impose controls that prevent people entering a country, you're not just dealing with abstract numbers. You're often talking about preventing – for example – human beings from seeing their friends, their family – often, even of separating wives from husbands, or even mothers from their own children. Yes, seriously, that really happens in the UK, on quite a significant scale to people who are from outside the EU and therefore not protected by EU freedom of movement laws. Mostly, this goes unreported by the Press . I know about it in part because I'm married to an immigrant, and I've seen both what happened to us and what's happened to many of her friends at the hands of the (former) UK Border Agency. Immigration controls can truly be devastating to people's lives. And those who casually talk about wanting more immigration restrictions would do well to remember that.

Then one wonders why they would put themselves in such a position to have their lives disrupted by tighter immigration laws. And that's after trying to reason with such an implausible situation.

 

[Antman]

Could you tell me what the housing limit is, and when it was passed, as I haven't come across those statistics/dates before?

There are no such stats as I'm sure you are well aware.

So how many do you think we should allow into the UK?

 

[Amberley54]

There are no such stats as I'm sure you are well aware.

So how many do you think we should allow into the UK?

Indeed, I wasn't aware of any independent evidence to support the points you made, but thought I better check.

You go on to ask me 'How many should we allow in?

Whilst such simplistic and popularist questions are easy to pose, they are virtually useless in the real world.

If we say for example 'one in, one out' The economy would benefit tremendously if we 'exported' an aged pensioner with chronic respiratory problems to the Costa Blanca in return for a 20-something qualified and experienced nurse from the Fiji or the East european construction worker. Both of whom fill skill shortages in our labour force, are unlikely to make heavy demands on the NHS etc. and pay taxes.

Alternatively, if we only allow rich people in, they inevitably manage to avoid paying virtually any tax in the UK, so their net benefit (other than bank rolling the odd Premiership football club) is not that significant.

The overwhelming % of incoming migrants actually make a significant positive contribution to UK plc whilst placing minimal strain on public services

The housing issue is the legacy of the selling off of a major proportion of the public social housing stock, much of which in areas of acute housing demand is now in the hands of for-profit landlords, and is costing many millions more in housing benefit/allowance to the taxpayer that it would have if still owned by local councils or housing associations. The lack of replacement social housing being built saw the access to decent housing exploited as a campaigning issue by the BNP in LB of Barking & Dagenham, and the English Patriots ( I think Ive got their name right) in Rotherham, for example.

To conclude, the seemingly unending series of cock-up by an under funded Home Office, Border Agency, etc. and the exploitation of the inherent human fear of strangers by politicians And certain media with emotive language has created an environment that is increasing toxic.

By the way one of my grandfathers was born in Odessa and settled here as a 'displaced person' after fighting for the wrong side. He was a HGV driver for 40 years and was amongst the most patriotic men you could meet. My late father in law was born in Jamaica and worked for Manchester Corporation and GMT for over 40 years, raising three children, two of which attended Russell Group Universities. Both men arrived in the UK with the closes they stood in- would they have 'been let in' today if UKIP were in power despite both making a significant positive contribution to our society and economy.

 

[Antman]

Indeed, I wasn't aware of any independent evidence to support the points you made, but thought I better check.

You go on to ask me 'How many should we allow in?

Whilst such simplistic and popularist questions are easy to pose, they are virtually useless in the real world.

If we say for example 'one in, one out' The economy would benefit tremendously if we 'exported' an aged pensioner with chronic respiratory problems to the Costa Blanca in return for a 20-something qualified and experienced nurse from the Fiji or the Gas Safe registered polish plumber.

Alternatively, if we only allow rich people in, they inevitably manage to avoid paying virtually any tax in the UK, so their net benefit (other than bank rolling the odd Premiertship football club) is not that significant.

In fact The overwhelming % of incoming migrants actually make a positive contribution to UK plc whilst placing minimal strain on public services.

The housing issue is the legacy of the selling off of a major proportion of the public housing stock, much of which in areas of acute housing demand is now in the hands of for-profit landlords, and is costing many millions more in housing benefit/allowance to the taxpayer that it would have if still owned by local councils or housing associations. The lack of replacement social housing being built saw the access to decent housing exploited as a campaigning issue by the BNP in LB of Barking & Dagenham, and the English Patriots ( I think Ive got their name right) in Rotherham, for example.

The lack of social housing hasn't helped but it would be physically impossible to build sufficient housing for everybody that wants to come here.

 

[EM2]

I don't think Nigel Farage will sue anybody, but anybody calling well known people racist on a public forum is not a very clever thing to do.

When I hear a well-known person say something racist, I'm inclined to think that they are racist.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have no particular problem with people of any nationality coming to live in the UK but there has to be a limit to how many people can be reasonably housed here and we have long since passed that limit and UKIP seem to be the only party addressing the problem whilst others prefer the bury head in sand approach.

You've made a couple of very strong assertions there, but you have given no evidence to back them up.

Here's a couple of statistics that might surprise you:

1. Net migration to the UK since 2000 has been running at something like around 0.3% of the UK population per year.
2. 'Urban' (ie. non-countryside land in the UK) amounts to less than 7% of the land. And half of that 7% is made up of green space (parks etc.) within towns and villages (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096). In other words, even if in an extreme case, the UK population doubled, the proportion of existing rural land you'd need to build on to house everyone would still be very small.

In the light of those figures, would you like to explain your reasoning behind your statement we have long since passed that limit? Might I suggest that what's actually going on is not that other parties are 'burying their heads in the sand' but that UKIP (and much of the popular press) are dishonestly scaremongering and exaggerating over the issue.

 

[muz379]

That doesn't make the party, as a whole 'racist'; merely people have taken umbrage to those tweets that they themselves see as 'racist'. It's quite a blurry distinction, but it's an important one.

If the leader of a party and a lot of its members and candidates for election say racist things and somebody wished to accuse that party as a whole of racism I would say that there is obviously some recurring theme there .

Lets put it this way If I was a member of a political party and the leader / or some candidates said racist things . Id cancel that membership

Wrong of course, because if you make a defamatory allegation about someone you can be sued for libel.

Accusing an individual of being a racist is defamatory unless of course you can prove it.

Wrong

You can actually claim "fair comment" as a defence to libel . That means if a reasonable person could hold the view in the statement then there is no Libel .

Given the number of news sources that publish allegations of Racism against Farage and his candidates I think it is probably a reasonable view to hold .

When I hear a well-known person say something racist, I'm inclined to think that they are racist.

Exactly , And im not talking about his stance on immigration which one could argue is reasoned . Im talking about his comments about living next door to Romanians as an example which are completely unreasonable and unacceptable .

 

[radamfi]

Living at higher densities is preferable from an environmental point of view. Big houses can be replaced by flats.

But even so, there are parts of Britain have lost a huge amount of population over the last 50 years. Even London is only now reaching its highest ever population after losing millions until the 80s. I visited the street I lived in until 1982 a few months ago. That part of the street was demolished about 25 years ago and it was still derelict. In that area there are so many closed down old mills and factories. Millions could be housed in areas like that.

 

[Johnuk123]

You can actually claim "fair comment" as a defence to libel . That means if a reasonable person could hold the view in the statement then there is no Libel .

I didn't say you couldn't defend it I just said that anybody calling a public figure a racist on a public forum can be sued for defamation.

 

[muz379]

I didn't say you couldn't defend it I just said that anybody calling a public figure a racist on a public forum can be sued for defamation.

However it would get nowhere . I doubt any lawyer worth their salt would take on a case with such lack of merit anyway .mind you then again they are lawyers aren't they so would probably give it a go

 

[Johnuk123]

However it would get nowhere . I doubt any lawyer worth their salt would take on a case with such lack of merit anyway .mind you then again they are lawyers aren't they so would probably give it a go

It may well get nowhere, I never said it would be a good idea I just said it was possible after somebody said it wasn't.

 

[Bishopstone]

You've made a couple of very strong assertions there, but you have given no evidence to back them up.

Here's a couple of statistics that might surprise you:

1. Net migration to the UK since 2000 has been running at something like around 0.3% of the UK population per year.

1. 
   
   Presumably you have quoted that figure on the basis it sounds like a small number.
   
   Of course, the figure excludes those here illegally and (presumably) those here legally but who have not completed the Census or whatever other source documents the data was derived from. So, there will be under-recording.
   
   However, even working off 0.3% per annum, that's 3.0% over a decade and 9.0% over a generation - thirty years. In terms of numbers of people - about 6,000,000 over thirty years.
   
   Those sound like quite large numbers to me, especially when the proponents of high rates of immigration state that the population figure is not linked to demand for housing, transport, schools etc, so there is no need to expand provision.
   
   Whilst it's true that the UK is predominantly rural, the majority of migrants wish to live in the most densely populated areas, and not Herefordshire or Cumbria.
   
   Immigration has been of benefit to this country in many respects, but the numbers do concern me. I certainly don't think inflows (and outflows) should be stopped, but I think it would be a good idea to adopt a more restrictive approach for a while, and test the contention of the metropolitan left and big business that Armageddon would ensue.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Presumably you have quoted that figure on the basis it sounds like a small number.

I've used that figure because I'd say considering net migration as a proportion of the total population is the best way of doing it. Those opposed to immigration tend to quote the raw figures (around 200K-250K per year) - presumably because those figures sound big and dramatic, but those raw figures are meaningless if you don't relate them to the population. 200K people per year would be unsustainably huge if you are Luxembourg but utterly insignificant if you are the USA! So the figure relative to the population is what's important. Knowing that it's 0.3% per year immediately tells us that our infrastructure needs to expand by around 0.3% per year to cope - and hopefully it's obvious that that's not an unreasonable expansion rate.

Of course, the figure excludes those here illegally and (presumably) those here legally but who have not completed the Census or whatever other source documents the data was derived from. So, there will be under-recording.

Illegal immigration may change the figures a bit but not by an order of magnitude. At an extreme, it could plausibly make it 0.4% instead of 0.3% but that doesn't change that the figures are clearly well within sustainable (in the medium term) levels. People not completing censuses etc. is unlikely to change the % population growth figures significantly, because that under-recording will have the same effect on underestimating population levels in previous years. (In other words, if, hypothetically, due to under-reporting, we've under-estimated the population by - say - 5% in both 2000 AND in 2014, then that doesn't change the % increase that you calculate between those years, because the two 5%'s cancel out). (The 5% I used is just for example, it's extraordinarily unlikely to be that big).

However, even working off 0.3% per annum, that's 3.0% over a decade and 9.0% over a generation - thirty years. In terms of numbers of people - about 6,000,000 over thirty years.

Sure - but an increase of 9% in a generation is not an unreasonable rate of population increase. In principle, you could easily get more than that rate of increase just from natural birthrate alone, without any migration at all (though obviously that's not going to happen in the UK at the moment because the natural birthrate here is very low).

Those sound like quite large numbers to me, especially when the proponents of high rates of immigration state that the population figure is not linked to demand for housing, transport, schools etc, so there is no need to expand provision.

I have to say I've never heard that argument put forward, and I don't think I'd agree with it.

Whilst it's true that the UK is predominantly rural, the majority of migrants wish to live in the most densely populated areas, and not Herefordshire or Cumbria.

Sure, and I believe that does seriously need tackling. But that's not really a problem of immigration, that's a problem of the geographical imbalance of our economy, which pulls people almost exclusively to places like London.

By the way I'm not particularly arguing that high migration levels are a good thing - on the whole, I think there are reasons why high migration levels can be undesirable. But I think a more important issue is that people should on the whole be free to live where they want to live. Interfering with that freedom tends to cause a lot of harm to people's lives, and so needs a very good justification, which on the whole, UKIP and those wanting stricter immigration controls have not provided. And the fact that many of UKIP's arguments appear to be based on scaremongering against foreigners strongly suggests that their motives for wanting more immigration controls are not exactly benign...

 

[Searle]

When I hear a well-known person say something racist, I'm inclined to think that they are racist.

Glad to see someone else has some sense!

 

[Antman]

Glad to see someone else has some sense!

Opposing mass immigration does not make somebody a racist

 

[Greenback]

I don't think Nigel Farage is racist. I doubt he is even xenophobic. I think he believes that making it harder for people to come and live and work here more difficult is what is best for this country. I don't agree with him, but he has the right to that opinion, if I'm correct in my assessment.

Part of my reasoning is that he doesn't seem to object to particular nationalites coming here. He seems to object to everyone.

 

[Antman]

I don't think Nigel Farage is racist. I doubt he is even xenophobic. I think he believes that making it harder for people to come and live and work here more difficult is what is best for this country. I don't agree with him, but he has the right to that opinion, if I'm correct in my assessment.

Part of my reasoning is that he doesn't seem to object to particular nationalites coming here. He seems to object to everyone.

I couldn't have put it better!

 

[muz379]

I don't think Nigel Farage is racist. I doubt he is even xenophobic. I think he believes that making it harder for people to come and live and work here more difficult is what is best for this country. I don't agree with him, but he has the right to that opinion, if I'm correct in my assessment.

Part of my reasoning is that he doesn't seem to object to particular nationalites coming here. He seems to object to everyone.

He has a particular thing about Romanians though constantly talking about them

Not to mention his comments about being concerned if a group of Romanians moved in next door . Fair enough if you dont think that is racist . I happen to feel that it is racist and only helps to stoke up tensions tarring all Romanians with the same brush . We will have to agree to disagree on that one .

Regardless of if it was said with racist intent or not that is unwise for someone in his position to say .