Search results

I think much of this sounds emotionally satisfying but becomes much harder when you turn them into actual policy - how do you define a 'piss taker' etc. I don't disagree with the sentiment per se, but I don't think those are enforceable policy ideas.

I don't think those measures have much material impact on population size in the short term, which is what I was questioning, but I appreciate the response. What does the bit in bold mean? They've halved immigration in a year - ideology didn't seem to stand in the way of that. What ideology...

Did you work for the border force!? You should've mentioned :ROFLMAO:

So what are you suggesting?

I'm not sure I understand your point - I think all people engaged in criminal behaviour should be punished.

Why do so many of you speak like this :ROFLMAO: It's dropped by almost 50% in a year - that's incredibly steep. You know this as well as I do, and so does everyone else.

Why the f*** do you think I care about 'deflecting' anything? Are you so self-important you think your incredibly low-level posts on a Crystal Palace forum are impacting the national conversation?

It's about extending the logic that 'we just need to deal with causes, not consequences'. I think people who engage in violent, criminal disorder should face consequences, irrespective of their 'cause'. This government have made changes that have drastically reduced immigration.

Less tax revenue, more public sector vacancies, worse public services etc. etc. I completely agree that we should be introducing policies to encourage people to have more kids - that's a major way we can wean ourselves off our reliance on high immigration rates, but it takes time.

I've expressed zero moral outrage at all - you're arguing that people who do criminal things shouldn't be blamed if they feel like their cause is just. That's just an absurdly illogical position.

Sort of, mainly by people paid to get criminals off. But in practice, if a wife cheats on her husband and he then violently assaults her... no one is suggesting that the husband shouldn't be blamed.

The people rioting absolutely deserve blame for their actions - I can't believe you're seriously suggesting otherwise. If we accept a reality where if you feel wronged by something, you are not to blame if you go and engage in violent, criminal disorder against innocent individuals... that's...

I didn't say immigration is always economically beneficial or that numbers can rise forever. I said reducing immigration to pre-1960s levels feels unrealistic and would likely come with major economic consequences. The UK today isn't the UK of 1960 - we have an older population, lower birth...

Yes, but you're seeking to remove or reduce blame aimed at the consequence, which doesn't make sense. If unemployment leads to violent crime, we don't start arguing that violent crime is ok/understandable until unemployment drops. You can very easily do both; address the underlying...

I think that's an unrealistic ambition, and I don't think it would even come close to stacking up economically.

If there's less claims there's less people going into the system, obviously. I think once you get to just outright disbelieving official figures, there is little basis for discussion.

This logic could justify anything though right? If you say any consequence is reasonable/acceptable if there's a cause behind it, you can quite literally justify murder. You can very easily do both; discuss the cause, condemn the consequence.

How do you define 'ridiculously high'? What's your benchmark? Also, to reiterate, my point was made in response to a suggestion that people are being 'ignored' on immigration and the government is forcing through immigration policies, which is very evidently untrue.

This year's numbers are roughly in line with early 2000s levels, and pretty middle of the pack internationally. Clearly you support a greater reduction, fair enough, but it's completely inaccurate to suggest people are being ignored on immigration.

That's why he had to get onto Youtube to find out what he thought about it first, obviously.