Topic

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 217 of 311 < 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 >

Topic Locked

TheJudge 16 Mar 15 9.00pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 8.55pm Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 8.41pm Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 12.16pm But,as to your proposition that immigration is responsible for our ills ,including crime etc, no I have to completely disagree with you.Its exactly what they said about Jewish immigration 100-120 years ago and about immigrants from Asia and the West Indies 40-60 years ago.Same arguments then as now. The real cause of our problems is elsewhere, and "divide and rule" so people scapegoat groups at the bottom of the pile is as old as the hills. ......................................................................................................... And what exactly would that be ? It seems to me that people have never wanted streams of foreigners coming into their neighbourhoods. Some have been born into that world and see it as the norm. Some older people still find it very hard to accept the changes that have taken place. Back in the sixties when immigration was starting to accelerate, the likes of Griffiths tried to represent his constituents who did not want the problems associated with migrants to effect their area. Harold Wilson, one of the most cynical politicians ever, used the situation for political gain and even used a well known actor to run for the seat. He used the whole "race" issue as a political vehicle while accusing the Tory of the very same. Politics has remained in that mode ever since, using race as a political football when in reality race has nothing to do with it. Only far right idiots,self interest groups, including ethnic minorities and politicians talk about race. The rest of us have either been brainwashed by left wing propaganda or are just concerned by the practical issues that effect the local areas and the country with regard to large amounts of migrants coming here to settle. There has been no attempt to be honest in this debate as politicians try to secure the White middle England and the ethnic vote. ........................................................................................................ What I do not suggest are the following: 1.That many people do not genuinely feel immigration has been/is excessive. 2. That many politicians have not shamelessly chosen and varied their position on issues surrounding "race" and immigration in the past 60 years for cynical political gain,on all parts of the political spectrum. 3.That the popular press over this period has not shamelessly tried to whip up hysteria over such issues,with the popular press having not zero influence in shaping public opinion 4.That there is not a legitimate discussion to be had over population numbers alongside many other issues ,but including overall migration figures in and out, and the benefits economically of, for example EU membership, and benefits of immigrants economically.Provided such discussion in not premised on ethnicity or race.What I object to is the plain aversity to differing ethnicities and the hankering for a "mythic" Britain which in which so much of the debate put forward by those opposing immigration seems to be based. You ask me who/what I blame for our woes? I don't claim to have easy answers.But,for example, fundamental inadequacies in our education system do not seem to me to stem principally from numbers of immigrants.Problems from our water and sewerage system stem from fundamental underinvestment for over a hundred years. If we look at housing shortages,they were very much there between the wars, when there was very little immigration.The problems with house price rises don't basically stem from or start with immigration, and rent levels stem primarily from abolition in 1980 of most rent controls coupled with the drive away from state provision of housing. IMO (and of course not all will agree) and simplistically given I am not writing a 40 page analysis, our problems stem in significant part from increasingly becoming a society of greater income inequality and loss of access for social mobility.The "market" is God with profit to be pocketed often rather than re-invested;though that was our undoing economically from the late 19th century onwards,and the idea of "society" diminished.Blame the less fortunate being the mantra of the day. The real causes of some of our problems being not immigrants but those elites which benefit from our society increasingly being one of "I'm Alright Jack,sod everyone else", increasing inequality, lack of equality of opportunity,envy of those at the bottom of the heap for the morsels they grab, and an "austerity" which in reality is simply a further vehicle for increasing inequality.But that's just my opinion as an old style Attlee Government social democrat,just an opinion and I have my "hard hat" ready! Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 8.47pm) Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 8.59pm) I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant. In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing. I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

16 Mar 15 9.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 8.55pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 8.41pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 12.16pm

But,as to your proposition that immigration is responsible for our ills ,including crime etc, no I have to completely disagree with you.Its exactly what they said about Jewish immigration 100-120 years ago and about immigrants from Asia and the West Indies 40-60 years ago.Same arguments then as now. The real cause of our problems is elsewhere, and "divide and rule" so people scapegoat groups at the bottom of the pile is as old as the hills.

.........................................................................................................

And what exactly would that be ?

It seems to me that people have never wanted streams of foreigners coming into their neighbourhoods. Some have been born into that world and see it as the norm. Some older people still find it very hard to accept the changes that have taken place.
Back in the sixties when immigration was starting to accelerate, the likes of Griffiths tried to represent his constituents who did not want the problems associated with migrants to effect their area. Harold Wilson, one of the most cynical politicians ever, used the situation for political gain and even used a well known actor to run for the seat. He used the whole "race" issue as a political vehicle while accusing the Tory of the very same. Politics has remained in that mode ever since, using race as a political football when in reality race has nothing to do with it. Only far right idiots,self interest groups, including ethnic minorities and politicians talk about race. The rest of us have either been brainwashed by left wing propaganda or are just concerned by the practical issues that effect the local areas and the country with regard to large amounts of migrants coming here to settle.
There has been no attempt to be honest in this debate as politicians try to secure the White middle England and the ethnic vote.

........................................................................................................

What I do not suggest are the following:

1.That many people do not genuinely feel immigration has been/is excessive.

2. That many politicians have not shamelessly chosen and varied their position on issues surrounding "race" and immigration in the past 60 years for cynical political gain,on all parts of the political spectrum.

3.That the popular press over this period has not shamelessly tried to whip up hysteria over such issues,with the popular press having not zero influence in shaping public opinion

4.That there is not a legitimate discussion to be had over population numbers alongside many other issues ,but including overall migration figures in and out, and the benefits economically of, for example EU membership, and benefits of immigrants economically.Provided such discussion in not premised on ethnicity or race.What I object to is the plain aversity to differing ethnicities and the hankering for a "mythic" Britain which in which so much of the debate put forward by those opposing immigration seems to be based.

You ask me who/what I blame for our woes? I don't claim to have easy answers.But,for example, fundamental inadequacies in our education system do not seem to me to stem principally from numbers of immigrants.Problems from our water and sewerage system stem from fundamental underinvestment for over a hundred years.

If we look at housing shortages,they were very much there between the wars, when there was very little immigration.The problems with house price rises don't basically stem from or start with immigration, and rent levels stem primarily from abolition in 1980 of most rent controls coupled with the drive away from state provision of housing.

IMO (and of course not all will agree) and simplistically given I am not writing a 40 page analysis, our problems stem in significant part from increasingly becoming a society of greater income inequality and loss of access for social mobility.The "market" is God with profit to be pocketed often rather than re-invested;though that was our undoing economically from the late 19th century onwards,and the idea of "society" diminished.Blame the less fortunate being the mantra of the day.

The real causes of some of our problems being not immigrants but those elites which benefit from our society increasingly being one of "I'm Alright Jack,sod everyone else", increasing inequality, lack of equality of opportunity,envy of those at the bottom of the heap for the morsels they grab, and an "austerity" which in reality is simply a further vehicle for increasing inequality.But that's just my opinion as an old style Attlee Government social democrat,just an opinion and I have my "hard hat" ready!

Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 8.47pm)

Edited by TheJudge (16 Mar 2015 8.59pm)

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant.
In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing.
I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 16 Mar 15 9.18pm
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant. In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing. I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial. It depends whether one views immigration as a crucial causal factor or not in the instances in question and whether any benefits arising from immigration or EU membership outweigh them.I don't but that's just my opinion.Another question worth asking is,does one believe that if we had no further immigration in any significant numbers, the elites I referred to would suddenly ensure and advocate for as strongly as some advocate against immigration, reinvestment in infrastructure as opposed to profit pocketing and whether,for example, a plethora of affordable new homes would result.I think not,based on the performance of those elites over the past century or more. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

16 Mar 15 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm

It depends whether one views immigration as a crucial causal factor or not in the instances in question and whether any benefits arising from immigration or EU membership outweigh them.I don't but that's just my opinion.Another question worth asking is,does one believe that if we had no further immigration in any significant numbers, the elites I referred to would suddenly ensure and advocate for as strongly as some advocate against immigration, reinvestment in infrastructure as opposed to profit pocketing and whether,for example, a plethora of affordable new homes would result.I think not,based on the performance of those elites over the past century or more.

Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 16 Mar 15 9.36pm
Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant. In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing. I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial. It depends whether one views immigration as a crucial causal factor or not in the instances in question and whether any benefits arising from immigration or EU membership outweigh them.I don't but that's just my opinion.Another question worth asking is,does one believe that if we had no further immigration in any significant numbers, the elites I referred to would suddenly ensure and advocate for as strongly as some advocate against immigration, reinvestment in infrastructure as opposed to profit pocketing and whether,for example, a plethora of affordable new homes would result.I think not,based on the performance of those elites over the past century or more. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm) I can't say but I share you cynicism. I would maintain that any problem that exists which involves pressure of numbers can only be exacerbated by more numbers. Whether the benefits of increased numbers can outweigh specific negatives is impossible to gauge since there are no accurate figures. I would suggest that any evidence that demonstrated that specific negatives outweighed benefits would be dismissed by government and self interest groups anyway. Therein lies the problem of the reality being presented by the establishment against anecdote and observation. I would liken it to a situation where you met and had a cup of tea with an alien who landed his spaceship on your lawn but the government say flying saucers don't exist so it could not have happened.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

16 Mar 15 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm

Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm)

I can't say but I share you cynicism.
I would maintain that any problem that exists which involves pressure of numbers can only be exacerbated by more numbers. Whether the benefits of increased numbers can outweigh specific negatives is impossible to gauge since there are no accurate figures.
I would suggest that any evidence that demonstrated that specific negatives outweighed benefits would be dismissed by government and self interest groups anyway.
Therein lies the problem of the reality being presented by the establishment against anecdote and observation.
I would liken it to a situation where you met and had a cup of tea with an alien who landed his spaceship on your lawn but the government say flying saucers don't exist so it could not have happened.

Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 18 Mar 15 9.13am
OMG, Pedants of the world unite!! Apartheid can refer to any kind of segregation, race, sex, religion etc. I thought anyone with a basic knowledge of the English Language would know that, clearly not, so I apologise. Preventing children of immigrants from receiving education is a terrible idea, only reinforcing the 'them and us' mentality which seems to be more and more prevalent. My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 18 Mar 15 9.13am

OMG, Pedants of the world unite!!

Apartheid can refer to any kind of segregation, race, sex, religion etc. I thought anyone with a basic knowledge of the English Language would know that, clearly not, so I apologise.

Preventing children of immigrants from receiving education is a terrible idea, only reinforcing the 'them and us' mentality which seems to be more and more prevalent.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 10.08am
Quote reborn at 18 Mar 2015 9.13am OMG, Pedants of the world unite!! Apartheid can refer to any kind of segregation, race, sex, religion etc. I thought anyone with a basic knowledge of the English Language would know that, clearly not, so I apologise. Preventing children of immigrants from receiving education is a terrible idea, only reinforcing the 'them and us' mentality which seems to be more and more prevalent. Indeed, preventing anyone from reasonable access to education is a terrible idea. The irony is that we generally seem to deny education access to people who need it most or those who would benefit most from it (Prison, Migrants, Poor). For example, we should require all citizens speak reasonable English, and provide educational facilities and programs to ensure it, rather than just demand that they can pass the 'citizenship exam' part - Not because its the national language, but because it improves the capacity for integration and communication. It probably shouldn't be limited to just migrants, given some of the conversational skills displayed by British Nationals. Edited by jamiemartin721 (18 Mar 2015 10.09am) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Mar 15 10.08am

Quote reborn at 18 Mar 2015 9.13am

OMG, Pedants of the world unite!!

Apartheid can refer to any kind of segregation, race, sex, religion etc. I thought anyone with a basic knowledge of the English Language would know that, clearly not, so I apologise.

Preventing children of immigrants from receiving education is a terrible idea, only reinforcing the 'them and us' mentality which seems to be more and more prevalent.

Indeed, preventing anyone from reasonable access to education is a terrible idea. The irony is that we generally seem to deny education access to people who need it most or those who would benefit most from it (Prison, Migrants, Poor).

For example, we should require all citizens speak reasonable English, and provide educational facilities and programs to ensure it, rather than just demand that they can pass the 'citizenship exam' part - Not because its the national language, but because it improves the capacity for integration and communication.

It probably shouldn't be limited to just migrants, given some of the conversational skills displayed by British Nationals.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (18 Mar 2015 10.09am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 10.18am
Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.36pm Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant. In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing. I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial. It depends whether one views immigration as a crucial causal factor or not in the instances in question and whether any benefits arising from immigration or EU membership outweigh them.I don't but that's just my opinion.Another question worth asking is,does one believe that if we had no further immigration in any significant numbers, the elites I referred to would suddenly ensure and advocate for as strongly as some advocate against immigration, reinvestment in infrastructure as opposed to profit pocketing and whether,for example, a plethora of affordable new homes would result.I think not,based on the performance of those elites over the past century or more. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm) I can't say but I share you cynicism. I would maintain that any problem that exists which involves pressure of numbers can only be exacerbated by more numbers. Whether the benefits of increased numbers can outweigh specific negatives is impossible to gauge since there are no accurate figures. I would suggest that any evidence that demonstrated that specific negatives outweighed benefits would be dismissed by government and self interest groups anyway. Therein lies the problem of the reality being presented by the establishment against anecdote and observation. I would liken it to a situation where you met and had a cup of tea with an alien who landed his spaceship on your lawn but the government say flying saucers don't exist so it could not have happened. Anecdotal evidence generally is unreliable, as its capacity for any kind of independent analysis is impossible. Also its entirely biased towards the experience of the recounting party. That said there are methods of analysis open towards collation of anecdotal evidence, such as discourse analysis, that specifically deal entirely with anecdotal sources (there is also Phenomenology and Psychoanalytical analysis - I'm biased towards social sciences as that's what I know) - All of these work with anecdotal sources. Observational Evidence can be exceptionally reliable, provided its conducted to a specific methodology - infact almost all science is 'observational research'. However a lot of what people call observation is anectodal evidence, rather than observational evidence. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Mar 15 10.18am

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm

Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm)

Anecdotal evidence generally is unreliable, as its capacity for any kind of independent analysis is impossible. Also its entirely biased towards the experience of the recounting party. That said there are methods of analysis open towards collation of anecdotal evidence, such as discourse analysis, that specifically deal entirely with anecdotal sources (there is also Phenomenology and Psychoanalytical analysis - I'm biased towards social sciences as that's what I know) - All of these work with anecdotal sources.

Observational Evidence can be exceptionally reliable, provided its conducted to a specific methodology - infact almost all science is 'observational research'. However a lot of what people call observation is anectodal evidence, rather than observational evidence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

chris-shot Thornton Heath 18 Mar 15 2.07pm
In hard times, parties can easily take control by being Right-Wing and finding a scapegoat - for example the Nazis.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris-shot

Thornton Heath 18 Mar 15 2.07pm

In hard times, parties can easily take control by being Right-Wing and finding a scapegoat - for example the Nazis.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 18 Mar 15 7.39pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 10.18am Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.36pm Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant. In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing. I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial. It depends whether one views immigration as a crucial causal factor or not in the instances in question and whether any benefits arising from immigration or EU membership outweigh them.I don't but that's just my opinion.Another question worth asking is,does one believe that if we had no further immigration in any significant numbers, the elites I referred to would suddenly ensure and advocate for as strongly as some advocate against immigration, reinvestment in infrastructure as opposed to profit pocketing and whether,for example, a plethora of affordable new homes would result.I think not,based on the performance of those elites over the past century or more. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm) I can't say but I share you cynicism. I would maintain that any problem that exists which involves pressure of numbers can only be exacerbated by more numbers. Whether the benefits of increased numbers can outweigh specific negatives is impossible to gauge since there are no accurate figures. I would suggest that any evidence that demonstrated that specific negatives outweighed benefits would be dismissed by government and self interest groups anyway. Therein lies the problem of the reality being presented by the establishment against anecdote and observation. I would liken it to a situation where you met and had a cup of tea with an alien who landed his spaceship on your lawn but the government say flying saucers don't exist so it could not have happened. Anecdotal evidence generally is unreliable, as its capacity for any kind of independent analysis is impossible. Also its entirely biased towards the experience of the recounting party. That said there are methods of analysis open towards collation of anecdotal evidence, such as discourse analysis, that specifically deal entirely with anecdotal sources (there is also Phenomenology and Psychoanalytical analysis - I'm biased towards social sciences as that's what I know) - All of these work with anecdotal sources. Observational Evidence can be exceptionally reliable, provided its conducted to a specific methodology - infact almost all science is 'observational research'. However a lot of what people call observation is anectodal evidence, rather than observational evidence. Where did you copy that from ? Wiki ? One of the frustrations of posting on a web site such as this is peoples inability to read posts properly and then replying to a small section of it by just repeating some well rehearsed mantra. Understand. There is no reliable data to measure either the benefit of immigration or the numbers coming and going. The former is a product of the latter. It is therefore political bunk to tell us categorically that immigration is "good" for the country. It is perhaps good......for bankers, businessmen, oh, and immigrants. Live in your delusion of liberal moralizing and statistical hogwash if you please but at least spell anecdotal properly when you trying to appear clever. Edited by TheJudge (18 Mar 2015 7.43pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

18 Mar 15 7.39pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 10.18am

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm

Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm)

Where did you copy that from ? Wiki ?

One of the frustrations of posting on a web site such as this is peoples inability to read posts properly and then replying to a small section of it by just repeating some well rehearsed mantra.

Understand. There is no reliable data to measure either the benefit of immigration or the numbers coming and going. The former is a product of the latter.
It is therefore political bunk to tell us categorically that immigration is "good" for the country.

It is perhaps good......for bankers, businessmen, oh, and immigrants.

Live in your delusion of liberal moralizing and statistical hogwash if you please but at least spell anecdotal properly when you trying to appear clever.

Edited by TheJudge (18 Mar 2015 7.43pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 18 Mar 15 8.00pm
Quote TheJudge at 18 Mar 2015 7.39pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 10.18am Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.36pm Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I believe that just because there may be a number of factors that might effect a particular issue does not mean that their individual contribution are less significant. In the example of water. Of course the system has seen under investment, as have other areas, but as it stands, an increase in numbers using it can only exacerbate an existing problem. The same with housing. I believe that some are so keen to uphold the principle of multiculturalism and freedom of movement that they have buried their heads in the sands of denial. It depends whether one views immigration as a crucial causal factor or not in the instances in question and whether any benefits arising from immigration or EU membership outweigh them.I don't but that's just my opinion.Another question worth asking is,does one believe that if we had no further immigration in any significant numbers, the elites I referred to would suddenly ensure and advocate for as strongly as some advocate against immigration, reinvestment in infrastructure as opposed to profit pocketing and whether,for example, a plethora of affordable new homes would result.I think not,based on the performance of those elites over the past century or more. Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm) I can't say but I share you cynicism. I would maintain that any problem that exists which involves pressure of numbers can only be exacerbated by more numbers. Whether the benefits of increased numbers can outweigh specific negatives is impossible to gauge since there are no accurate figures. I would suggest that any evidence that demonstrated that specific negatives outweighed benefits would be dismissed by government and self interest groups anyway. Therein lies the problem of the reality being presented by the establishment against anecdote and observation. I would liken it to a situation where you met and had a cup of tea with an alien who landed his spaceship on your lawn but the government say flying saucers don't exist so it could not have happened. Anecdotal evidence generally is unreliable, as its capacity for any kind of independent analysis is impossible. Also its entirely biased towards the experience of the recounting party. That said there are methods of analysis open towards collation of anecdotal evidence, such as discourse analysis, that specifically deal entirely with anecdotal sources (there is also Phenomenology and Psychoanalytical analysis - I'm biased towards social sciences as that's what I know) - All of these work with anecdotal sources. Observational Evidence can be exceptionally reliable, provided its conducted to a specific methodology - infact almost all science is 'observational research'. However a lot of what people call observation is anectodal evidence, rather than observational evidence. Where did you copy that from ? Wiki ? One of the frustrations of posting on a web site such as this is peoples inability to read posts properly and then replying to a small section of it by just repeating some well rehearsed mantra. Understand. There is no reliable data to measure either the benefit OR DETRIMENT of immigration or the numbers coming and going. The former is a product of the latter. It is therefore political bunk to tell us categorically that immigration is "good" OR "BAD"for the country. It is perhaps good......for bankers, businessmen, oh, and immigrants. Live in your delusion of liberal moralizing and statistical hogwash if you please but at least spell anecdotal properly when you trying to appear clever. Edited by TheJudge (18 Mar 2015 7.43pm) Corrected for accuracy
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

18 Mar 15 8.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Mar 2015 7.39pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 10.18am

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 Mar 2015 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 16 Mar 2015 9.00pm

Edited by legaleagle (16 Mar 2015 9.19pm)

Where did you copy that from ? Wiki ?

One of the frustrations of posting on a web site such as this is peoples inability to read posts properly and then replying to a small section of it by just repeating some well rehearsed mantra.

Understand. There is no reliable data to measure either the benefit OR DETRIMENT of immigration or the numbers coming and going. The former is a product of the latter.
It is therefore political bunk to tell us categorically that immigration is "good" OR "BAD"for the country.

It is perhaps good......for bankers, businessmen, oh, and immigrants.

Live in your delusion of liberal moralizing and statistical hogwash if you please but at least spell anecdotal properly when you trying to appear clever.

Edited by TheJudge (18 Mar 2015 7.43pm)

Corrected for accuracy

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 Mar 15 10.47pm
Sorry bout the source, but some interesting points. [Link] Awaits it's just lefty bulls** response without salient arguments against the points it raises.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 18 Mar 15 10.47pm

Sorry bout the source, but some interesting points.
[Link]

*Awaits it's just lefty bulls*** response without salient arguments against the points it raises.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 19 Mar 15 10.27am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Mar 2015 10.47pm Sorry bout the source, but some interesting points. [Link] Awaits it's just lefty bulls** response without salient arguments against the points it raises. You should have put up an NSFW warning if you're going to post views of cnuts nick!
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 19 Mar 15 10.27am

Quote nickgusset at 18 Mar 2015 10.47pm

Sorry bout the source, but some interesting points.
[Link]

*Awaits it's just lefty bulls*** response without salient arguments against the points it raises.

You should have put up an NSFW warning if you're going to post views of cnuts nick!

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 19 Mar 15 11.38am
200 plus pages of utter bollocks and I am still voting UKIP. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 19 Mar 15 11.38am

200 plus pages of utter bollocks and I am still voting UKIP.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 217 of 311 < 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

ukip (LOCKED)

Site Map

Sponsors