Instead of locking threads,, just ban Rogue Hanger the troll

[ajstoneservices]

Pretty pointless trying to argue with someone that refuses to accept anything other than their own argument. And why would you argue with someone who says things in an attempt to make his case and when you check you find he's lied.

You would have to be as daft as a brush to think the argument for and against immigration should only be about ££££££££££££££££££££. Whole communites have been changed/displaced due to the numbers now arriving. Low skilled workers and the young have suffered greatly.

Those unaffected by immigration and those ugly fookers that can now get their leg over don't give a damn and nothing we say will change that.

 

[Whitespirit66]

At least miliband has the balls to admit they got it wrong.

Perhaps he borrowed Balls' balls?

 

[jockscott]

At least miliband has the balls to admit they got it wrong.

And if elected to government in the next General Election, will still do fook all about it. He'll probably increase immigration into the UK and tell us "This time we'll get it right."

 

[Brigadier]

You must be frightened to drive, use power tools, cross the road, etc because you read or hear of an accident.

A good point.
When an activity is known to present risks, standard sensible practice is to realistically evaluate the likelihood and consequences of continuing that activity, and perhaps to implement measures to eliminate / reduce the negative outcomes.

Questions are, (current demography and rate of immigration unchecked and unaltered),
what is the likely endgame for England / GB / UK? and,
when will the tipping point be reached, such that it is too late to stop the negative outcomes?

Some massive assumptions there brigadier to assert your beliefs
a) you assert that immigration is a negative. "implement measures to eliminate / reduce the negative outcomes." We already have official reports to counter your assertion. So the rest of your post is based on fallacy, however........

b) then you've tried to use the analogy of implementing measures to reduce immigration when no such analogy is comparable or perhaps even desirable, which you've failed to discuss. Merely assumed it's an undesirable.

c) then you've suggested that there is "an endgame for UK" when no such assumption is possible. You've been watching too many scifi movies.

d) then, based on your assumption that an endgame exists you've invented a tipping point which suggests that a point of no return also exists.

e) then you've reiterated your assumption that this endgame will be negative.

and, finally, of course, your followers adopt your poposals to make some silly assumptions of their own.

Blind leading the blind is very appropriate, don't you think?

a) you missed out the "perhaps". So the rest of your post is based on a fallacy.

b) it is perfectly feasible to reduce immigration, if desired.

c) a plausible endgame might be where the post-EU border de-regulation immigrants outnumber the "natives".

d) once one group outnumber the other. Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

e) I haven't assumed anything - I put forward a scenario, for sensible discussion. You have assumed my motives, and misquoted me for your own lefty ends. Misquoting, followed with copious subsequent blather, is something at which you are very, very able.

You are a troll who hides behind long-winded, pseudo-intellectual diatribe, to bore posters into apathy. Here's a thought - instead of buggering off on attacking a tangential aspect of a (mis)quote, try picking up the debate in a meaningful way. But that wouldn't be very troll-like, would it?

I think immigration has good and bad aspects; I see it as shades of grey. You assume I see in black and white.

 

[JBR]

Far easier to ban you than argue with you , RH.

No need to ban him: ignore him and he'll eventually go away.

I don't think anyone's got the time to devote to arguing with someone who carpet-bombs threads with his endless lefty drivel. His assumptions and analogies are quite ridiculous. See above post for examples.

To stoop to his level with insults, he's a total nause. I won't waste any more time or electricity arguing with the fool.

I enjoy a good argument, as long as it is conducted sensibly and each side is willing to listen to the other. As soon as someone begins to insult me (joking apart - I think I can tell the difference) I take my bat and ball home.

As I said, we should just ignore him: he can't argue with himself...

...or can he?

 

[Brigadier]

"He" is not an individual - "he" is a "left-leaning think-tank".
The posts certainly smell of being generated by committee.

 

[RogueHanger]

Some massive assumptions there brigadier to assert your beliefs
a) you assert that immigration is a negative. "implement measures to eliminate / reduce the negative outcomes." We already have official reports to counter your assertion. So the rest of your post is based on fallacy, however........

b) then you've tried to use the analogy of implementing measures to reduce immigration when no such analogy is comparable or perhaps even desirable, which you've failed to discuss. Merely assumed it's an undesirable.

c) then you've suggested that there is "an endgame for UK" when no such assumption is possible. You've been watching too many scifi movies.

d) then, based on your assumption that an endgame exists you've invented a tipping point which suggests that a point of no return also exists.

e) then you've reiterated your assumption that this endgame will be negative.

and, finally, of course, your followers adopt your poposals to make some silly assumptions of their own.

Blind leading the blind is very appropriate, don't you think?

a) you missed out the "perhaps". So the rest of your post is based on a fallacy.

OK, as yours is the only post, or one of the few, with any thing worthy of discussion (the rest are mere opinions and attempted insults. Sorry ladies but I'm thicker skinned than that) I'll respond to yours first:

The missing "perhaps", touché, didn't we both So your argument was based on fallacy, by your own definition.

b) it is perfectly feasible to reduce immigration, if desired.

But you assumed that it is desirable, therefore all you arguments following that assumption are based on that assumption being correct.

c) a plausible endgame might be where the post-EU border de-regulation immigrants outnumber the "natives".

I'm sure the immigrants already do outnumber the natives. You've just picked a moment in time to justify your argument. Like, "It's been a drought since yesterday, not a drop of rain"

d) once one group outnumber the other. Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

WTF? Once the pigeons outnumber the turkeys. Well, if you consider yourself a tukey.............

e) I haven't assumed anything - I put forward a scenario, for sensible discussion. You have assumed my motives, and misquoted me for your own lefty ends. Misquoting, followed with copious subsequent blather, is something at which you are very, very able.

Your arguments concluded with your denial of any of your assumptions, which I've just destroyed, and then your opinions. Now why didn't you start out like that? We'd all know that the rest of you post is based on your opinion and I wouldn't be able to destroy your argument.

You are a troll who hides behind long-winded, pseudo-intellectual diatribe, to bore posters into apathy. Here's a thought - instead of b*****r off on attacking a tangential aspect of a (mis)quote, try picking up the debate in a meaningful way. But that wouldn't be very troll-like, would it?

I, personally, think I've dealt with your points in a more professional manner than you have dealt with mine.

I think immigration has good and bad aspects; I see it as shades of grey. You assume I see in black and white.

But you're not prepared to discuss the good aspects, hmmmm.
Alternatively, you can't think of any, or close your mind to them. hmmmm.

But we've deteriorated to a discussion of your ability to present a sound argument.
Time to move on, you think?

 

[RogueHanger]

I enjoy a good argument, as long as it is conducted sensibly and each side is willing to listen to the other. As soon as someone begins to insult me (joking apart - I think I can tell the difference) I take my bat and ball home.

As I said, we should just ignore him: he can't argue with himself...

...or can he?

You really mean, "I can't find anymore reasons to justify my prejudice against immigrants".

 

[RogueHanger]

At least miliband has the balls to admit they got it wrong.

And if elected to government in the next General Election, will still do fook all about it. He'll probably increase immigration into the UK and tell us "This time we'll get it right."

You make the fallacious assumption that the govenment are controlling the migration. They can only do that via policies that place criteria on RoW migration, such as language skills, qualifications, knowledge of UK society, etc. Or withdrawal from EU to remove the freedom of movement within the EU, which works both ways and effects commerce.
As a scott, ahem, are you suggesting Scotland is better out than in the UK? It's a similar argument.

It's the employers who think the indigenous population are not sufficiently qualified or are refusing the work, or they don't have the necessary skills, or whatever, that they prefer, or have no option to use migrant wokers.

Based on your assumption that the next govenment will increase migration into the UK, suggest how that will happen? Or is at another wild attempt to ferment your prejudices again.

 

[RogueHanger]

Pretty pointless trying to argue with someone that refuses to accept anything other than their own argument. And why would you argue with someone who says things in an attempt to make his case and when you check you find he's lied.

I agree with you fist statement, but I'm prepared to give it a go, just to point out how fallacious your prejudices are.
As to my lies.....an example, please. No I thought not, another assumption based on fantasy.

You would have to be as daft as a brush to think the argument for and against immigration should only be about ££££££££££££££££££££.

But you are daft as a brush, so I'm in with a good chance.

Whole communites have been changed/displaced due to the numbers now arriving. Low skilled workers and the young have suffered greatly.

3,000,000 million net, cumulative migrant workers over a twenty year period. How have communities been displaced? Granted it's absolutely nomal for migrant workers to accumulate in some areas, it's part of the natural cycle of living amongst your friends, acces to familiar facilities, etc. Not to mention avoiding the prejudice that migrants still suffer from.

Those unaffected by immigration and those ugly fookers that can now get their leg over don't give a damn and nothing we say will change that.

Garbled comments based on nothing more than prejudice. And only 2030hrs when you made those comments. Bit early for the grogg to have taken its toll.

 

[Big Tone]

The reason I started this thread, was the fact that the locked thread contains many insults to many posters from RH, not because I nor anyone else has a different point of view.
Why does he continually label a lot of us "racist" when we say we're worried about the amount of immigration into this small island? Yes, I'm worried about it, as are many others. This doesn't make me or the others racist in the least. We're worried about our jobs, our future and worried for our children and our children's children. Often religion comes up in the course of threads. RH sees nothing but intolerance when we dare mention the "religion of peace" Yes,, the same one which preaches jihad against the kaffirs.(look it up RH, before you respond)
He continually questions my whereabouts in the country, whilst claiming to live in the one European country that has banned the burkha. (perhaps France is a bit quicker at waking up than us Brits) If he does live in France, then it's obvious their ways have not rubbed off on him, yet.

Without going through every post, that's what got up my nose too Jock. How does anyone 'prove' they are not a racist yet vehemently hold an opinion on the sheer numbers in this country?

The only way not to be labelled racist on this Board is by either saying nothing or saying yes to welcoming everyone in. That was RH's attack towards me. But apart from that occasion I find him mostly a good poster and enjoy his intelligent take on things. We can't all agree on everything...

 

[RogueHanger]

Far easier to ban you than argue with you , RH.

No need to ban him: ignore him and he'll eventually go away.

I don't think anyone's got the time to devote to arguing with someone who carpet-bombs threads with his endless lefty drivel. His assumptions and analogies are quite ridiculous. See above post for examples.

To stoop to his level with insults, he's a total nause. I won't waste any more time or electricity arguing with the fool.

You mean you haven't got the ability to justify your racist chants. Don't wory, no-one has. They're racist chants and fallacious arguments based on biases.

 

[RogueHanger]

They now admit that allowing over 2.2 million foreigners into the Uk was a big big mistake.
That's from the artichitects off the fiasco.
Don't you agree then?

Justify your figures first. With genuine research, reports and statistics, not newspaper claptrap.

Your located on French soil, the biggest rogues in the entire eu.
Suits you fine.

Ah so, your prejudice is based on jealousy.

 

[RogueHanger]

He doesn't read links. He thinks they are lies because they prove his silly ideology wrong.

Read this RH. READ it. Don't just look at the title and choose not to open it., READ IT and respond please.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...-Romanians-arrested-figures-show.html[/QUOTE]
Aw, com'on joe, you can do better than that. You still haven't shown that marked impovement that I was expecting. Do promise me that you'll try harder, and don't encourage the rest of the class to misbehave.

The article, that you refer to, is over a year old when the newspapers were whipping up frenzy over the de-restriction of new migrants, remember all those millions that were ready, bags packed.
The paper itself gives you a clue:

The figures, published under the Freedom of Information Act, will fuel fears of a crime wave when restrictions on workers from Romania and Bulgaria are lifted in January next year.

Don't forget my mantra, which I've encouraged you to employ "who's saying it, when, and why". It's served me well.

 

[RogueHanger]

How does anyone 'prove' they are not a racist yet vehemently hold an opinion on the sheer numbers in this country?

Thanks for your kind words, BT. I agree we can't all agree.
But what we can do is discuss/argue our corner, our stance, without resort to abusive comments, either at the other posters, or at the innocent people who are just trying to better their lives. And let's face it, the discussion on here is hardly likely to affect the govenment policy. What it does do is ferment prejudice and further urban mythology.
If posters want to really try to make an intelligent influence, then their MP is the right avenue.

I would be the fist to agree, that I resort to abuse, but I hope that it is only in response to abusive comments.

It helps, of course, if one can support one's argument with official or reliable reports or statistics. Something which the "anti-immigration" crowd have been noticably unable to do. They resort to sensationalist newspaper articles to illustrate their points. The newspaper articles may have some relevant information, but to make the leap that a case of one family is typical of all migrants is beyond belief.

They also try to cloud the issue by jumping fom one hypothesis to another without any connection. (a la joe, et al) which is avidly seized on by others who follow that mistaken logic.

But what really encourages my participation is the use of prejudiced, racist or other abusive terms to try to justify one's reasoning.
Without that use of ridiculous claims or abusive language I probably wouldn't get involved.

So for those that don't want my involvement, just stop the biased, racist language and ludicrous claims, Present your arguments in an intelligent and reasonable fashion, if you can. If you can't then don't bother.
Otherwise, barring "blackballing", I'm here ready to continue my arguments.

Incidentally, BT, I can substantiate my accusation of racism at some posters.