http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

Nobody is actually tackling the elephant in the room though are they. People
are just people and come from everywhere. We ourselves are cross breeds. The
elephant basically is this.
We have some problems which we are not sure of the reason for about people
who do not look like us, with different customs and beliefs who cannot speak
our language very well. Sadly these people also feel the same about other
people including us.
What do you do about this. Whose view is valid? The answer is of course
that all or none of them depending on your way of seeing the world.
Maybe people in countries need to set out their rules before the situation
gets too bad. IE we only accept those who will integrate, learn the language
and customs and not form enclaves of the culture they have come from.
If one did that, then it would be seen as bad in the current climate of we
are all humans, but if we don't do it then things will just get more
divided and tribal.

You only need to look at countries where a significant number of British or
US citizens have settled to see the problem is universal so we cannot blame
anybody, other than our own stupidity.
I have not mentioned political asylum or refugees, but in the former case
they would not be applying here if they were not prepared to be like us, and
in the latter, one would hope that their humane treatment would only last
till they could go home, which in the long run would be better for them,
though they may not see it now.

Unfortunately, if you believe in sea level rise due to the warming of the
planet less and less of the land will be habitable due to it being
underwater or so hot and arid that nobody could live there. Something will
need to be done about the other even bigger elephant in the room our
tendency to breed a lot.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git? Employers don't start their hiring
process by saying "Hmm, I wonder what nationality I should employ to do
this job." - they go looking for the person who will do the job most
effectively and most efficiently. Gawd, how terrible that is.

Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

On 13/05/2016 10:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

Nobody is actually tackling the elephant in the room though are they.
People are just people and come from everywhere. We ourselves are
cross breeds. The elephant basically is this.
We have some problems which we are not sure of the reason for about
people who do not look like us, with different customs and beliefs who
cannot speak our language very well. Sadly these people also feel the
same about other people including us.

Over time, you get used to people. What is of more concern at the
minute is one of population density. People talk about the added
prosperity generated by immigrants. This is quite true, but misses the
point, which is that more people means more houses, schools, hospitals,
roads, cars, pollution, sewage farms, power stations, landfill sites,
and so on. Infrastructure, in other words.

France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's a
more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking to
reduce the population, not increase it.

Now, where is all this extra infrastructure going to go?

Given the traffic jams etc, it doesn't need to go anywhere.

On 13/05/2016 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git? Employers don't start their hiring
process by saying "Hmm, I wonder what nationality I should employ to do
this job." - they go looking for the person who will do the job most
effectively and most efficiently. Gawd, how terrible that is.

This is where you are wrong. Except an additional question would be
asked. "How long have you worked in the UK?"

If more that 2 years it can be safely assumed the immigrant worker has
adopted much of the Briton's workshy properties.

Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

Given the older age of retirement and more women working, I can believe
that. Even in Victorian times with a working ages of 10 to death, a
higher proportion of women would not have worked.

On 13/05/2016 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git?

They don't even need to be that. They simply need not to have the right
qualifications.

A case in point are the eye clinics at our two local hospitals. My
partner has been a regular visitor there over the past several weeks.
The senior consultant is a Mr Lam, whose nationality I don't know. The
other ophthalmologists she has been seen have been Irish, Greek,
Romanian (the surgeon who operated on her eye) and one half French half
German. The specialist eye photographer is Latvian.

--
Colin Bignell

On 13/05/16 09:25, Brian Gaff wrote:
Something will
need to be done about the other even bigger elephant in the room our
tendency to breed a lot.
Well we had that sorted. Until Mohamed's children invaded


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 13/05/16 11:08, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git?

They don't even need to be that. They simply need not to have the right
qualifications.

A case in point are the eye clinics at our two local hospitals. My
partner has been a regular visitor there over the past several weeks.
The senior consultant is a Mr Lam, whose nationality I don't know. The
other ophthalmologists she has been seen have been Irish, Greek,
Romanian (the surgeon who operated on her eye) and one half French half
German. The specialist eye photographer is Latvian.

And all the patients are Romanians, Latvians, Pakistanis, ...etc etc.



--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 13/05/16 10:27, Nightjar cpb wrote:
it is more than offset by the benefits to the UK economy from EU migrants:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...20bn-ucl-study


Oh no, someone quoting the 'Guradian' as an authority!

Bless!


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 13/05/16 10:17, Adrian wrote:
Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

And that frankly is the most crippling indictment of socialism one can
utter.

More people 'employed' and real incomes falling.

Whatever happened to the leisured society? Why build robots and then
keep people in stupid mindless jobs?

I suppose with a education and political correctness geared to making
them fit for only that, and not even leisure, what else can they do?



--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

In article ,
Nightjar cpb insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 13/05/2016 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git?

They don't even need to be that. They simply need not to have the right
qualifications.

A case in point are the eye clinics at our two local hospitals. My
partner has been a regular visitor there over the past several weeks.
The senior consultant is a Mr Lam, whose nationality I don't know. The
other ophthalmologists she has been seen have been Irish, Greek,
Romanian (the surgeon who operated on her eye) and one half French half
German. The specialist eye photographer is Latvian.

This is not a new phenomenon. In 1970, I was traeated for a broken arm at
Hammersmith Hospital. I don't think I saw a single native English person -
except the consultant! One Scot - though.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Friday, 13 May 2016 08:58:17 UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

I still think they are undercounting even with the above.

On 13/05/2016 11:59, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 08:58:17 UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

I still think they are undercounting even with the above.

I do think NI numbers show the tip of an ice-berg. Many will have
children and partners who don't work.

What is interesting is to ask why these numbers are being distorted and
wonder what other stats are being used to mislead us.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 10:17:15 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git?

I've a few friends like that who have a degree, one went to Holland to become a rose buderr because they couldn;t find any dutch people or other nationalities that weren;t work shy so they employ brits. He did the job regually for about 6 years. Now he works in spain as an English Teacher he is number dyslexic and he has taught English to some spanish footballers.
Another is working on a building site nerlly had an acident as someone shouted in Polish look out as something just missed hi head. Out of the 10 or so working in the local area of cross rail is the ONLY english person their the majority are polish because they work cheaper.


Employers don't start their hiring
process by saying "Hmm, I wonder what nationality I should employ to do
this job."

They do you know, that's why some job adverts don't appear in the UK
or they are help by agencies like A4E.




- they go looking for the person who will do the job most
effectively and most efficiently. Gawd, how terrible that is.

That isn't how it works in a lot of industires, it's how it should work.


Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

There were even more in the days of slavery and down 't pit.
even 6 years olds could get a job.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 11:33:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:17, Adrian wrote:
Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

And that frankly is the most crippling indictment of socialism one can
utter.

More people 'employed' and real incomes falling.

Whatever happened to the leisured society? Why build robots and then
keep people in stupid mindless jobs?

I suppose with a education and political correctness geared to making
them fit for only that, and not even leisure, what else can they do?

They get degree in multi-media and art and then get a well pai job in admiistartoion or local govenrment where because they have a degree they are put in chrage of people that actually know how to do a job.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:

But how often do they come back? Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits. As the
figures seem to indicate that approximately 25% of immigrants displace a
British worker every million immigrants costs 2.5 BILLION POUNDS IN
BENEFITS!

And it seems only a few minutes ago all EU immigrants came here simply
because of benefits.

Now that is shown to be crap, they are walking into jobs previously
occupied by the English? Wonder how this works. Presumably they go to the
boss and say 'geeza job' so he sacks his English employee?

--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.
Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's a
more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking to
reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

And that frankly is the most crippling indictment of socialism one can
utter.

More people 'employed' and real incomes falling.

If this government is Socialist, as you've just said, wonder what you
consider a right wing one?

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 14:32:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:

But how often do they come back? Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits. As the
figures seem to indicate that approximately 25% of immigrants displace a
British worker every million immigrants costs 2.5 BILLION POUNDS IN
BENEFITS!

And it seems only a few minutes ago all EU immigrants came here simply
because of benefits.

No the most accurate statement is they don;t come here for benifits they come her for a better life, which obviously means they move up the greasy ladder.


Now that is shown to be crap,

They don;t ask for benifits as they don;t have to.
Show me the immigrants that arrive from anywhere in teh EU and I'll let you say syria is in the because it's migrants are.
Now show me where they lived and where they will live in the UK.

The vast majority will not be left on the streets especailly if they have children they will be put up in thses new hotels springing up in places you wouldn't think needed a hotel. Who do you think will be paying for hotel rooms.
Do you really think those leaving the EU or syria can afford to rent or buy a property in the UK. ?


they are walking into jobs previously
occupied by the English? Wonder how this works.

well with one couriour company who employed a friend of mine.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/dec/23/2


Presumably they go to the
boss and say 'geeza job' so he sacks his English employee?

well done you got it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/dec/23/2

I told him to record his telephone conversations with the manager.
After the courts heard a phrase like "well if you don't work extra hours
then there's planety of polish out there we can empoly.

He won just under £10k compemsation after over a year of fighting.he couldn;t get another job at the time bacuse of the on going case.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 14:32:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's a
more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking to
reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

Paris IS NOT France most french people hate Paris and pariasains
you'll be saying Hong Kong is china next.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 14:32:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Now that is shown to be crap, they are walking into jobs previously
occupied by the English? Wonder how this works. Presumably they go to the
boss and say 'geeza job' so he sacks his English employee?

here's the situation with more detail.

http://www.taxiforums.co.uk/Home/tab...c/Default.aspx

On Friday, 13 May 2016 12:19:38 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:59, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 08:58:17 UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

I still think they are undercounting even with the above.

I do think NI numbers show the tip of an ice-berg. Many will have
children and partners who don't work.

What is interesting is to ask why these numbers are being distorted and
wonder what other stats are being used to mislead us.

It works both ways of course.
My american flatmate had a NI number. She was working in the UK for over 10 years. She was affraid to try using it for anything like dole money, so never did, but she worked 6 to 7 days a week in a night club mostly at the bar or cloakroom. Weekdays 9pm to 4am saturdays 10pm to 8am. times approxamte

On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:32:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If this government is Socialist, as you've just said, wonder what you
consider a right wing one?

Trump would probably count as centrist.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 14:32:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's a
more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking to
reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

Paris IS NOT France most french people hate Paris and pariasains
you'll be saying Hong Kong is china next.

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And France
is generally little different to the UK in that.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 15:29:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 14:32:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's a
more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking to
reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

Paris IS NOT France most french people hate Paris and pariasains
you'll be saying Hong Kong is china next.

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.


The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And France
is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Perhaps there are other solutions.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3247001.html

On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:27:52 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's
a more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking
to reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

Paris IS NOT France most french people hate Paris and pariasains
you'll be saying Hong Kong is china next.

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

France has fewer large cities, and much larger swathes of sparse rural
areas.

And, of course, it depends entirely on what you call "Paris", and what
you call "London" for calculating the population densities - "Paris" is a
much, much smaller city than "London", because so much of suburbia is
officially outside "Paris".

On 13/05/16 16:51, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:27:52 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's
a more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking
to reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

Paris IS NOT France most french people hate Paris and pariasains
you'll be saying Hong Kong is china next.

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

France has fewer large cities, and much larger swathes of sparse rural
areas.

And, of course, it depends entirely on what you call "Paris", and what
you call "London" for calculating the population densities - "Paris" is a
much, much smaller city than "London", because so much of suburbia is
officially outside "Paris".

London 'suburbia' goes out as far as Stevenage, Haslemere,
Canterbury...even Cambridge.

--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 13/05/16 16:51, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:27:52 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's
a more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking
to reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

Paris IS NOT France most french people hate Paris and pariasains
you'll be saying Hong Kong is china next.

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

France has fewer large cities, and much larger swathes of sparse rural
areas.

And, of course, it depends entirely on what you call "Paris", and what
you call "London" for calculating the population densities - "Paris" is
a much, much smaller city than "London", because so much of suburbia is
officially outside "Paris".

London 'suburbia' goes out as far as Stevenage, Haslemere,
Canterbury...even Cambridge.

no, that's not suburbia that's commuterbia. London is basically contained
by the Metropolian Green Belt - roughly "inside the M25".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:32:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If this government is Socialist, as you've just said, wonder what you
consider a right wing one?

Trump would probably count as centrist.

True. But at least he's sane compared to Turnip.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.


The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example. No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Or the more logical thing of not ****ing up their country so they stay
there.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:59:41 +0100, charles wrote:

And, of course, it depends entirely on what you call "Paris", and
what you call "London" for calculating the population densities -
"Paris" is a much, much smaller city than "London", because so much
of suburbia is officially outside "Paris".

London 'suburbia' goes out as far as Stevenage, Haslemere,
Canterbury...even Cambridge.

no, that's not suburbia that's commuterbia. London is basically
contained by the Metropolian Green Belt - roughly "inside the M25".

London's easy to draw a big line - the boroughs. So, yep, more-or-less
the M25.

"Paris" is much, much smaller - probably not dissimilar to if London was
just the north/south circular, if not even smaller than that. Everything
outside that is officially separate cities.
http://www.lodysseedeparis.fr/img/paris_map.jpg

Paris itself is only about 2m people - but if you view it as the
metropolitan area, it's about 10m.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:14:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If this government is Socialist, as you've just said, wonder what you
consider a right wing one?

Trump would probably count as centrist.

True. But at least he's sane compared to Turnip.

Three-quarters of Broadmoor is sane compared to Turnip.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:27, Nightjar cpb wrote:
it is more than offset by the benefits to the UK economy from EU
migrants:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...20bn-ucl-study



Oh no, someone quoting the 'Guradian' as an authority!

Bless!


Remember he wants to be ruled by Brussels!

On 13/05/2016 11:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 11:08, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git?

They don't even need to be that. They simply need not to have the right
qualifications.

A case in point are the eye clinics at our two local hospitals. My
partner has been a regular visitor there over the past several weeks.
The senior consultant is a Mr Lam, whose nationality I don't know. The
other ophthalmologists she has been seen have been Irish, Greek,
Romanian (the surgeon who operated on her eye) and one half French half
German. The specialist eye photographer is Latvian.

And all the patients are Romanians, Latvians, Pakistanis, ...etc etc.

Not in this part of the country. We do have a fair number of Portuguese
though.

--
Colin Bignell

On 13/05/2016 11:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:27, Nightjar cpb wrote:
it is more than offset by the benefits to the UK economy from EU
migrants:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...20bn-ucl-study



Oh no, someone quoting the 'Guradian' as an authority!

I thought that a synopsis might be simpler for the average Brexit
supporter to understand. If you want the full report from UCL, it is he

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf


--
Colin Bignell

Brian Gaff wrote

Nobody is actually tackling the elephant in the room though are they.

Plenty are.

People are just people and come from everywhere.

Problem is that the culture varys a lot and some
have much higher murder rates etc than others.

We ourselves are cross breeds.

Harry isn't, pure anglo saxon according to him.

The elephant basically is this.

We have some problems which we are not sure of the reason for about people
who do not look like us, with different customs and beliefs who cannot
speak our language very well. Sadly these people also feel the same about
other people including us.

What do you do about this.

Nothing can be done about that, it's human nature.

Whose view is valid?

Everyone's.

The answer is of course that all or none of them depending on your way of
seeing the world. Maybe people in countries need to set out their rules
before the situation gets too bad.

Some have tried that, it doesn’t work.

IE we only accept those who will integrate, learn the language and customs
and not form enclaves of the culture they have come from.

Problem is that it isn't possible to work that out in
advance when deciding who to let into your country.

And if Britain had gone that route in the past, none of the Angles, Saxons,
Jutes, Romans, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Irish etc etc etc would have been
allowed into the country and there would never have been any colonial
empires and the entire would would have been a VERY different place.

If one did that, then it would be seen as bad in the current climate of we
are all humans, but if we don't do it then things will just get more
divided and tribal.

I doubt it on that last, they mostly do integrate to some extent over time.

There's only a few of the more rabid like harry that proclaim that they
are pure anglo saxon without any taint of any cross breeding. But even
he proclaims that they have a coat of arms and that was something
those unspeakable Normans brought with them so even the most
rabid like harry do get infected by other cultures eventually.

You only need to look at countries where a significant number of British
or US citizens have settled to see the problem is universal

Yep.

so we cannot blame anybody, other than our own stupidity.

Or not be silly enough blame anyone or anything for what comes naturally.

I have not mentioned political asylum or refugees, but in the former case
they would not be applying here if they were not prepared to be like us,

That's very arguable. Many of them appear to choose to move
to where they have decided that their economic prospects are
much better or to where they are more likely to be able to get to.
Nothing much at all to do with liking anyone with many of them.

And they'd be pretty stupid if they didn’t do that.

Some economic refugees like Dave the Plowthing do end up deciding
that they'd rather stay where they have migrated to than return to
where they came from and don’t appear to like quite a few of those
in the place they have ended up as economic refugees.

Plenty of others like the more rabid northerners in here decide
that they hate everyone who isn't the same as them and return
to where they came from or were kicked back there by the place
they attempted to move to.

and in the latter, one would hope that their humane treatment would only
last till they could go home, which in the long run would be better for
them, though they may not see it now.

Plenty of them never intend to move permanently
and do intend to move back where they came from
when the reason for them leaving has gone.

And most of the economic refugees from Britain that ended
up here decided to stay here and never did choose to return.

Unfortunately, if you believe in sea level rise due to the warming of the
planet less and less of the land will be habitable due to it being
underwater

That has very little effect on the total habitable land even
with the worst possible outcome of say no permanent ice
in the Arctic or Antarctic.

or so hot and arid that nobody could live there.

There is nowhere on earth that is like that except inside an active volcano.

Something will need to be done about the other even bigger elephant in the
room our tendency to breed a lot.

That is basically fixing itself now. Not one modern first world
country is even self replacing now if you take out immigration.
and that is true of plenty of the second world too.

And in fact birth rates are dropping world wide now except where
the birth rate is so low that it is right down in the noise now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

On 13/05/2016 17:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

I just look it up in Winky:

England: 1054 per sq mile
UK: 662
France: 301
Germany: 583
Netherlands: 1056

Simples.


Scotland 174 average and 23 in the Highlands.

--
Colin Bignell

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/2016 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:12:18 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Every EU migrant who leaves a
Briton jobless costs the taxpayer £10K per annum in benefits.

How about if that Briton happens to be jobless because he's an
unqualified, useless, workshy git? Employers don't start their hiring
process by saying "Hmm, I wonder what nationality I should employ to do
this job." - they go looking for the person who will do the job most
effectively and most efficiently. Gawd, how terrible that is.

This is where you are wrong. Except an additional question would be asked.
"How long have you worked in the UK?"

If more that 2 years it can be safely assumed the immigrant worker has
adopted much of the Briton's workshy properties.

BULL****.

Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

Given the older age of retirement and more women working, I can believe
that. Even in Victorian times with a working ages of 10 to death, a higher
proportion of women would not have worked.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/16 10:17, Adrian wrote:
Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

And that frankly is the most crippling indictment of socialism one can
utter.

It's just the result of far more women working than ever used to.

Nothing whatever to do with socialism.

More people 'employed'

Yes.

and real incomes falling.

Bull****. Real living standard keep improving
dramatically over even just say the 50s.

Whatever happened to the leisured society?

Nothing. Those women who didnt have paid employment
weren't 'leisured'

Why build robots and then keep people in stupid mindless jobs?

Because we haven't worked out how to get robots
to do what the bulk of the workforce does.

And even when we have done that with say automats,
we choose to not patronise those places and prefer to
have humans doing more of the work in fast food places
and restaurants etc.

I suppose with a education and political correctness geared to making them
fit for only that,

Even sillier than you usually manage with universities alone.

and not even leisure, what else can they do?

On 5/13/2016 2:55 PM, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 17:58, Tim Streater wrote:
wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.
On average it is.
Depends what your benchmark is.
I just look it up in Winky:

England: 1054 per sq mile
UK: 662
France: 301
Germany: 583
Netherlands: 1056

Simples.

Scotland 174 average and 23 in the Highlands.

That's one of the things I like about the Highlands.