O/T Unilever

[great_fire]

Where did all these bloody lefties come from anyway?

I blame Comrade Corbyn.

[mikemiller]

Where did all these bloody lefties come from anyway?

I blame Comrade Corbyn.

Do you ever take a day off from spewing out racism and red-baiting? Or constantly misquoting genuine sources of information or quotiing stuff from conspiracy theory sites with links to the far right, as fact? You are a sick individual

[PerigordMiller]

Quote Originally Posted by millmoormagic View Post
Wow, how many times do you need to be told, immigration has had a NETT effect monetarily on the country, that means they put more in than they take out, that is FACT, what can't you get about that...the other facts are that this gov't is consistently and deliberately underfunding the welfare state...once again, your argument is poor to say the least, and can only lead to one conclusion really...
"19.8% of Muslims aged 16-to-74 were in full-time employment."

Net benefit? Paying more in than they take out?

You're shilling for the globalists.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ce-study-finds


What is the correlation between 'immigrants' (being of net benefit) and 19.8% of muslims ?

Innocent question - I'm just guessing that most immigrants in the last 10 years are not muslims and are indeed working and paying taxes. And possibly that the vast majority of muslims in the UK are not immigrants. Someone will know ?

[millmoormagic]

It was a Guardian link, of course that's the slant they'd put on it. Are you disputing the figures?

It was the other thing you should have been disputing, they've actually raised the retirement age to 64 from 61 with plans to raise it further, to around 69, all to pay for the open-door immigration policy when they told the Swedish people the immigrants would pay for their pensions.

You must be just as gullible as them is you believe immigration is a net benefit, none of those calculations in the past took account of their use of public services like the study in the link I posted does.

And you haven't explained how a group of people, less than 20% of whom are in full employment can be a net benefit to the economy, isn't it the truth that we are subsidising them with our taxes?

Wow, talking about putting a slant on things, you obviously havent read your own link, it actually is a sad tale of how as young people muslims are very high achievers in school but that isn't reciprocated into the workplace, and your link plainly states that a lot of that is to do with islamaphobia, something you are an expert on.....

[great_fire]

Wow, talking about putting a slant on things, you obviously havent read your own link, it actually is a sad tale of how as young people muslims are very high achievers in school but that isn't reciprocated into the workplace, and your link plainly states that a lot of that is to do with islamaphobia, something you are an expert on.....

I only posted that link because it was the Guardian so you couldn't dispute the figures.

"Islamophobia" is their slant and opinion and IMO is bull**** and a different argument anyway.

[ragingpup]

I only posted that link because it was the Guardian so you couldn't dispute the figures.

"Islamophobia" is their slant and opinion and IMO is bull**** and a different argument anyway.

Been on hol so missed your replies. Thanks for linking.

So the "Islamophobia" reason for the stats is the Guardian's slant? So you are accepting the stats, but not the reasons why the stats are as they are, simply because your link is from the guardian?

Will you accept the reasons for the stats if they are from your own newspaper:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/441191...ack-by-racism/


I'm assuming you won't, so with bated breath I ask you:

1. Why so you think so many Muslim adults are out of work and on what grounds should we follow your reasoning than that of the Social Mobility Report (on which both articles are based)

2. What would you like to see done about it? And I'm talking here about the UK Muslims that are here now (not just loose bollo about "stop em coming in!") that are not in work for whatever reason. How would you go about solving the issue for those that are here?

[animallittle3]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...nglish-economy

[great_fire]

Like I said before, when it was calculated before that immigrants were a (very small) net benefit to the economy, no account was taken of their use of public services, when it is then that is no longer the case.

Besides not everything is about money. That may be the motivation for the corporations who want open borders but there are more important things to the public like preserving our cultures, keeping women and children safe, preventing terrorism, not feeling like strangers in our own neighbourhoods.

[ragingpup]

Like I said before, when it was calculated before that immigrants were a (very small) net benefit to the economy, no account was taken of their use of public services, when it is then that is no longer the case.

Besides not everything is about money. That may be the motivation for the corporations who want open borders but there are more important things to the public like preserving our cultures, keeping women and children safe, preventing terrorism, not feeling like strangers in our own neighbourhoods.

Lots of detail in the below Fact Check article:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/how...blic-finances/

In short, it depends how you approach the figures in looking at whether immigration causes +/- net profit/loss. But the general conclusion is that either way the net profit/loss is tiny, around 1% GDP. Lots of variables - age, length of time in U.K. Etc so will vary from immigrant group to immigrant group.

So, unless you you are planning on focusing on one particular immigrant group, age group and forcibly deporting them to make a small improvement on the economic picture, then you don't really have anything to discuss here do you?

Or are you talking about forced deportation of immigrant groups which you think of as undesirable? For some reason, you never seem to answer this question, that of what you would like to do about the problems you highlight.

I think the cultural reasons for discussing the careful management of immigration are perfectly valid. I agree that many of the problems we face now, especially in Northern towns are the result of disastrous management of immigration from successive governments since the 1950s. Recent increases have inflamed this all the more and make it even more important that we have a sensible and sensitive discussion with actions on properly managing immigration for the benefit of our communities. Your constant misinformation and bigoted comments can only make things worse, unless of course you are agitating very genuinely for a brutal solution of forced removal of targeted communities and see this as the only solution?

[animallittle3]

Like I said before, when it was calculated before that immigrants were a (very small) net benefit to the economy, no account was taken of their use of public services, when it is then that is no longer the case.

Besides not everything is about money. That may be the motivation for the corporations who want open borders but there are more important things to the public like preserving our cultures, keeping women and children safe, preventing terrorism, not feeling like strangers in our own neighbourhoods.

My partner would be very grateful if you can get the Brits to work in social care for more than one shift before quitting , the nature of the job and pay doesn't appear to be very appealing for some reason .

When she is on the phone explaining to elderly people or their relatives who have fallen and can't get up that it maybe an hour or two before someone can attend due to staff shortages it tends not to be the nicest of conversations to say the least .

Perhaps you'd like to have a bash at solving this one fire using locally born labour only because as much as I sympathise with some of your concerns regarding migrants the NHS and Social Care would collapse pretty quickly without it .