You have to admire the BBC. Even a HINT of some “good news” about immigration into the UK and the comrades are to the fore in pushing it down our throats. Even better if it shows the Conservatives in a bad light!
Downing Street has withheld publication of a cross-governmental report that suggests one potential impact of immigration is smaller than claimed. It suggests “displacement” – the number of UK workers unemployed as a consequence of immigration – is well below the figure used by ministers of 23 for every 100 additional immigrants. This was considered potentially incendiary, BBC Newsnight has learned.
The BBC report is full of weasel words and plays fast and loose with the concept of immigration. It is implying that the report relates to ALL immigration whilst in fact it concerns non EU immigration. So the elephant in the Immigration room gets a de facto pass. Meanwhile, when it comes to sources of NON EU immigration, Pakistan and Bangladesh feature right up there and I was curious to know what economic benefits individuals from those countries bring to the UK?
From the same BBC UK website today.
“Home Secretary Theresa May has previously used research from 2012 by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), a group of independent academics, as a basis for saying that “for every additional 100 immigrants… 23 British workers would not be employed”. ”
I’m usually interested in information in this area, but I have no recollection of THIS report being discussed anywhere.
Is this report well known, or did I just miss it? The Beeb are certainly making a fuss over the new one. It gets top billing on their website.
” Is this report well known, or did I just miss it?”
I’m sure Dez will provide you with a link to albeeba’s comprehensive news report from the time.
He’s good at that.
The albeeba hack (cook) is spouting descriptions of the difference such as ‘ minimal’.
So, if he knows the report figure just tell us!
If he doesn’t STFU.
Is the latest figure 3, 10, 20?
Just tell us, and we can decide if we want all that wonderful enrichment they bring with them.
As for Somalis, some 80& are unemployed.
Over 80% of Somali-speaking pupils qualify for free school meals. In Waltham Forest, a borough in east London, home to nearly 4,000 Somalis, 73% live in households on benefits. More than 50% of British Somalis rent from local councils, the highest proportion of any foreign-born population.
What was the reason that so many Somalis are in Britain? Was there not enough crime or terrorism for the police to be gainfully employed? Do we need experienced pirates to raid Spanish galleons of Gibraltar?
Correction. Some 90% of Somalis are unemployed.
OMG…even worse….and i bet the men of military age could assemble and strip an AK47 with their eyes shut…..more guns in Somalia than people. In Bristol, most sit around chewing quat or whatever their weed of choice is called….most carry knives…..and most are evil looking and fuck-ugly……Dez loves them no doubt. They are a total drain on our economy, i despair.
‘Military age’ being 10 years and over!
That’s why they don’t have an impact on jobs – they don’t effing work!
we can never have too many taxi drivers or kebab places in the UK……sarcasm alert!
Hey. Those are the essential skills that St Vince of Cable says this country is short of.
The trouble is that due to our world class state education system so many of our young are going to exciting new metropolitan colleges like Balham University (formerly the Lionel Blair School of Dancing) to get their Media Studies degree that there’s no one left to fill the jobs gap (except for the unemployed Brits).
I suppose they are not taking the jobs from British Imams, Come to think of it, maybe they are not taking that many jobs, but they and their families are on welfare. Take a walk around our overcrowded cities, and ask whether immigration has had no significant impact.
You don’t have to go to the cities to see the impact. Our village will have had close to a thousand new properties added over the last 15 years. This was from a starting point of about 6 thousand people. As you can imagine the impact has been huge especially on quality of life, including the doctors,dentist, water pressure, traffic, community cohesion (I hate that term ) and many other things. I fail to see any benefit from the levels of immigration (oops maybe I should have said migration) we have been subjected to, but hey you won’t hear any of this on our glorious state broadcaster.
Totally agree. Immigration limited to those with skills we need is welcome, but I think that would be less than 100,000 pa. Above that level we get no benefit from immigration only enormous downsides which have been exhaustively and honestly covered on this site many times before. In summary all the unskilled immigrants that have come to the UK in past 20 years have: a) put great strain on our services and housing stock resulting in new building on what little unspoilt land remains in this overcrowded island and enormous cost to the tax payer,b) driven down wages and, despite this so called report increased unemployment ( you would have to be nuts to think having 2 million more people in the labour force hasn’t increased unemployment unless we had full employment in the first place), c) allowed employers to employ people on low wages instead of investing in new equipment and so increasing productivity, low productivity is a chronic weakness of the UK economy as the BBC frequently points out, d) eroded our sense of nationality and community, of the course the BBC sees this as a massive positive, e) created ethnic tensions which may one day become uncontainable and result in something much worse than riots, the BBC blithley ignores this and hopes that its community cohesion policy, which blights just about all its output for me personally, will help avoid this.
Even the idiotic liberal left must have recognised that all these problems would follow the immigration of millions of aliens into our country, but they decided that they wouldn’t consult us with this the biggest change in the UK for perhaps a thousand years. No, they just thought it was best for us and that if they did ask us we would have said NO. So much for democracy! But that lack of a democratic process on immigration will result in millions of native Brits feeling justified in rejecting the whole immigration experiment. The liberal left have created a time bomb that will consume them, the immigrants and many of those who were never consulted.
The BBC is a key part of the policy to get us to accept millions of immigrants without complaint. They use their monopoly of news and current affairs to manipulate the news , bury the truth , lie to us . If the BBC wasn’t biased in favour of immigration and instead told us the truth about it, there wouldn’t have been even 10% of the immigration that has taken place.
The BBC is concerned about the environment, so you would think they would be dead against mass immigration, since a city the size of Birmingham will have to be built every 10 years to house them all.
that is a very good point and just shows the double standards in the left’s thinking
But that’s the trouble with the Left….they just do not think….just plot and bluster and meddle, total wasters….and traitors to boot.
They lack logic – been demonstrated on here time and again by BBC-supporting trolls over the years.
The reason that the Swiss voted for restricting immigration, even from the EU, was concerns for the environment. The argument was that as Switzerland is a small country, and for the most part made up of mountains and lakes, there is very little land area for more housing and all the rest of the infrastructure required for an increasing population, without degrading the environment, which Switzerland is proud of.
Great point.
But the more cities the size of Birmingham we need to build the more we need to import highly-skilled construction workers in their sandals, white skirts and voluminous trousers, and chefs to cater for them. And as for the women…
I heard some loony on Radio 5Dead yesterday morning spouting that the NHS wouldn’t work without all the immigrants it employs.
I can never understand why the lefties espouse the colonial view that it’s OK for us to take talented people from other (poorer) countries in order to prop up our failing economy. Surely their own country needs them more than we do?
Yes, it’s pretty selfish, robbing Africa and Jamaica of its nurses and doctors, they need them more than we do.
Immigrants also get old.
An exception is the Philippines. They have a policy of training far more nurses than they need, with the extra numbers getting work abroad and sending money back. The NHS would be struggling without them, but it means that substantial amounts of money leave the UK. Overall it would be better for the UK to train the number of nurses it needs – but that doesn’t seem to have occurred to those responsible for setting the number of training places.
I remember my son-in-law having a Philippino nurse in hospital. She could hardly speak a word of English.
When my mum was in hospital an ethnic British staff nurse commented on the Phillipinas (would have got her sacked if overheard by the wrong person):
“Theyre good little workers, but no sooner do they arrive here than they are off having babies.”
Hmmmm.
Well off course an ‘anchor’ baby ensures if they should want to stop working they wont have to leave, ever.
And this report fits another of the bBBC’s lines, to concentrate on the supposed economic benefit of immigration and never mention the cultural disadvantages of filling our country with people who want to change Britain to a medieval misogyny.
Exactly so. It is important when discussing this matter that we do not concentrate on the economic arguments. That is to play the game the liberal’s way.
I refuse to engage on any other basis thatn cultural , national ( what exactly is a people and a nation) and moral.
On these grounds the liberal has no arguments other than whining bluster and resort to insults.
Perhaps the displacement is less than 23 per 100 as fewer immigrants are taking jobs, instead coming for a life on benefits. That’s certainly the impression I get in my town centre with exotically dressed pram pushers of all ages
A left-leaning acquaintance of mine employs – almost exclusively – foreigners (you know, to do all those jobs that the lazy Brits won’t do). As he puts it: “It’s like slavery, but all totally legal!”. To paraphrase Clausewitz: “Immigration is the continuation of slavery by other means”.
Interesting to listen to the gleeful reading of the news of this story
this morning and the hammering home of the Torys failure to release the info,wonder how long bbc had this same information
probably just long enough for prime ministers question time the next day !! just heard about forthcoming tv debate farage v clegg
interesting line from bbc about the audience – “selected by a reputable polling organisation to be demographically representative and with an equal number of people for and against British membership of the EU” presumably the same ones for Question Time , good luck Nige you`ll need it.
Farage is a fool to take part. Not that he has anything to fear from his opponent but it is now useless to engage with the liberal dominated media.
Not just useless but harmful to the conservative right.(not to be confused with the Toryparty)
If Farage is on form he will wipe the floor with Clegg
Depends if he will get a fair run at him with uber-neutral Dimbleby and a hand-picked selection of lefties baying at him calling him a waaaaysist
Can’t see many votes in it for Clegg (none for Cameron/Milliband either which is why they are not taking part)
Perhaps this is a long term plan to increase UKIP’s vote, make Tory victory a year later less likley and thereby increase the LibDem’s realtive value to Cameron?
Inclined to agree – Farage is in danger of allowing the BBC/Guardian/Coalition to choose the battleground.
As I see it, the issue is not about precise numbers of “net migration”, how the impact on jobs or GDP is measured, or choice of restaurants. The main issue is that the majority of people did not want their country changed into somewhere else.
Farage is better when he sticks to this. The Government will always have an advantage because it has the resources (ie: our money) to control the evidence. Instead, encourage people to look around, avoid the MSM and find out what is really happening, and ask themselves if this is what they have been voting for for the last 50 years.
Alas I feel you are right. The audience will be a la QT, so called balanced. The reporting on it will also be very skewed by the liberal/left media. We desperately need something like Fox TV in this country but are very unlikely to be allowed to have it.
Nigel is mad to appear with dimblebore. Should be on ITV with Tom Bradbury
It will be the usual BBC pro-EU kangaroo court.
BBC News just received the impartial views of Jonathon Portes (NIESR) – he seems to be greatly in favour of immigration. He tells us that he always knew the previous report was “not robust” but appears to have no doubts about the quality of a report which has not yet been published
Heh heh. Yes, ‘Today’ was all over this like a cheap suit earlier. As transparent as a pane of glass.
I can’t wait until Muslims set off suicide bombs on the streets of London, when they behead a non Muslim in public, when they enforce shria law on us all, when woman are openly treated like second class citizens, then we will see the liberal elite change their minds about how Non EU Immigration can only be good for us.
No Wait….
Are you serious Pounce?
All those things you quote have actually happened ! Still the fascists turn a blind eye and refuse to accept what is happening.
Sharia law is steadily being introduced but because the government call it by a different name the usual dullards fail to notice what is going on.
You don’t seem to have grasped the degree of fanaticism the fascists have over Islam. Gay people and Jews completely unable to even criticise the Qur’an or Muslims over the calls for them to be murdered en masse!
You see them squawking about Putin and not allowing gay ‘propaganda’, whilst failing to ever criticise Muslim countries where being gay is illegal, and in some cases, carries the death penalty.
When it gets to the stage where people would rather be killed and see their friends killed, rather than standing up & criticising you know that the only thing which is going to change their minds is their own deaths.
‘Are you serious Pounce?’
I stand ready to be corrected, but sensed a degree of tongue in cheek there.
Sorry if my post confused you, I was taking the piss out of all these idiots who keep on banging their (sharia compliant) drum about how Islamic immigration is not only good for us, but we..Non Muslims can only be racist bastards for asking questions about the gay death cult. As much as i despise the likes of the EDL, I have yet to see them do any of the above, yet to the ethical tampon users , anybody who does can only be seen as…evil.
Which is why prefaced the post ‘are you serious’.
“You see them squawking about Putin and not allowing gay ‘propaganda’, whilst failing to ever criticise Muslim countries where being gay is illegal, and in some cases, carries the death penalty.
I wonder if that Pakistani school who who was shot in the head after reporting for the bBC and then brought to live in the Uk subscribes to the POV that Gays must be killed. Nice if somebody could ask her.
Ah, but wasn`t it so sad that the disability games of Sochi were made a political puck by that well known anti-disablist Mr Putin.
They all seemed so sad there at the BBC this morning around 7.25am/Radio 4
Maybe time will judge the THE tragedy of the Crimean conflict…so no we`ll have to count how many days it is before Oscar P shows up in a Reliant Robin at his court appearance instead.
If anyone watches Disability Games slosh to please the BBC, they probably are eligible to join the Games there as a participant, or at least need to lose an eye and get a job….THAT`S how angry I get at the BBC massaging my phantom legs with their endless tosh of “celebrating sports-no matter HOW far removed they are from what they were once were”
The figure is meant to be less than the 23 given before (I never caught the original press conference with May) but if it’s still a positive number then it’s still bad news for British people.
Why doesn’t the BBC give the figure?
The BBCs latest report, just watched on 6 o’clock news,
seems to be back peddling a bit. Perhaps it wasn’t all they hoped for or perhaps their trying to be even-handed I’ll let the viewer decide.
Utterly laughable efforts on BBC Radio 4 News at 7am
Humph reads the headlines “apparently the Government is being URGED to publish a report about itself”.
Didn`t get to hear who was doing the urging though…apart from the BBCs civil partner there at the Labour Party, who did get a mention in the very next sentence.
And then I thought back to a glimpse of last nights Newsnight as I hopped past Kirsty on the remote.
I saw her yelling at something looking like a Tory…sound down, but there were flags in the logo behind…so this would have to be something about immigrants of the EU.
I pieced it all together-the string of pearls complete, and the messages echoed, amplified and allowed to fester overnight into todays news…sod Ukraine or Oscar now…REAL URGINGS(as opposed to true news) from the massage Boys of BBC Chocolate fountain “analysis”.
I need no news from the BBC today-no Ukraine or Oscar now…for EU Immigration or whatever is being used by the BBC to let Islam flower, let the Roma run riot…
no other news or questions.
Reassuringly predictable, and expensive…totally pawned and in Hamzas jiffy bags and Saviles laundry hamper…with a Big Weed growing beside the Pot Plant…or Russell Brand as we tend to call him!
Old dope, Saviles jockies and Hamzas peroxide..the intoxicating fragrance of the BBC!
The BBC is “being urged ” to put a millstone around its f***in neck and drop anchor in the Serpentine!…a new report from the Labour working Force who pay for its shite said today…I have this on good authority…
The fact is we don’t have any say on immigration. If we did there would be six million fewer people in these islands and we wouldn’t be covering prime agricultural land in concrete – the most bizarre, perverse and stupid long-term policy anybody could think of. Our great-grandchildren will curse us.
In Arabic, probably.
The BBC – always in tune with the great British public:
‘Seven out of ten voters want immigration reduced or stopped completely, according to a poll released last night.
The YouGov survey found strong public concern about immigration, with people saying only the economy will be more important in the 2015 general election’.
(That was a Channel 5 poll, by the way.)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560908/70-say-no-migrants-Survey-reveals-publics-concerns-immigration.html#ixzz2v7MKbwgg
If anyone can recall any BBC programme where this 70% majority was clearly represented – audience, phone-ins or whatever – please speak now or forever hold your peace.
The Beeb’s constant meme is that immigration has been beneficial and mass immigration has been even better for us. Some simple folk might actually believe this fable, particularly if they are fortunate enough to live in the leafy shires. Those of us familiar with London will have witnessed an unparalleled change in the ethnicity of our capital and an unparalleled increase in all sorts of crime. When I was a lad old ladies could walk the streets in safety, gun crime was negligible and we looked askance across the Atlantic at the dreadful gang culture. Now we’ve got the lot. Gangs, as feral and illiterate as they are dangerous, abound in London. Once peaceful suburbs have become grimy, unpleasant multicultural areas seething with mutual suspicion and mistrust.
Of course BBC types love these places and enthuse about “diversity” and “vibrancy”. I’ve heard both the Dimblebys use those very phrases on numerous occasions; usually just before they piss off home to the leafy shires…
And yet-NO encroachment whatsoever in that gilded bunch of traitors that go by the name of “BBC journalist”!
Is the BBC hideously racist, as well as sexist and all too fond of its PIES and Savilons?
Why no perky Bulgarians to give us the news-or Latvians to read the autocue and smoulder on Strickly?
Can`t ALL be grasping Scots hogging way too much of Newsnight and Today can it?…
Not just London.
Man sucker punched to death in Bournemouth, for God’s sake.
CityAM: “Britain is in debt to a new generation of foreign entrepreneurs”
http://www.cityam.com/article/1393984474/britain-debt-new-generation-foreign-entrepreneurs
It’s easy and cheap to set up a company in the UK .
But let’s take that scenario you paint seriously for one minute .
A Romanian leaves his country , with his cash , and sets up a thriving company here immediately .
Yeah ,better than a Disney movie ain’t it ?
“you paint”. I am not painting anything. I am simply linking to a report in CityAM, itself based on a report based on Company House data that looked at the impact of immigration on entrepreneurship.
If you look at the US, a 2011 report showed immigrants founded or cofounded almost half of 50 top venture-backed companies in the United States.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-venture-immigration-idUSTRE7BJ1WK20111220
An American financier coming into the UK to set up a subsidiary company will be classed by those statistics the same as a Bulgarian spending £25 to register so he can sell the Big Issue .
I would like to believe your post , but experience tells us the PTB use obfuscating statistics to cover up
I am linking to data. Unless you think the Companies House is flawed then I am not quite sure what the objection is.
Of course we can all speculate around the data, or try to create alternative narratives, but without evidence to support them speculation is all such narratives are.
I’ve set up four companies with companies house . it’s easy and doesn’t mean you re trading .
Sure, but in the £1-200m turnover range companies founded by foreign owners created 1.16m jobs. And that is just companies that report employment. And that is just companies that have owners who are owned by foreign nationals – it does not include those who have taken UK citizenship.
Is that 1 million full time jobs for Brits ?
So it’s jobs maybe for the Brits .
How do those who compiled the report not know if these businesses would have been there in the first place ,
Ie displacement again ?
Sorry, without more detail the information in this article is simply meaningless.
One might also ask what the other 82.8% who are not setting up companies are doing.
Here you are – the full report
Click to access MigrantEntrepreneursWEB.pdf
Thank you.
However the glossy brochure contains no further hard information than was set out in the cityam article. There is no data to back it up.
I did note however that subsidiaries of overseas firms have been left in. That was interesting. And that companies co-founded by migrants and British nationals have been counted twice.
What more data do you need? It is all in there. This report is likely to under-represent because it doesn’t include immigrants who have taken British citizenship since moving to the UK.
I’m sorry but it is not all there. A very superficial brochure with no detail to back up its claims. If anyone presented that as a piece of serious research it would be throw out.
What is it that you feel is missing?
some info on the immigration problem would be nice.
2011 census: immigrants make up 13% of population
Danny: immigrant business makers make up 14% of business makers
I’m not feeling the love.
My computer security system is flagging this link as a *dodgy* site.
Curry houses, kebab shops and somewhere you can get Polish gherkins? We are so fortunate.
I am sure that some of the 464,527 active UK firms with foreign nationals as founders or co-founders are as you suggest “Curry houses, kebab shops and somewhere you can get Polish gherkins” but of the 8,398 companies created by the 8,798 Bulgarian entrepreneurs in the UK 364 are in manufacturing and heavy industry, 232 are in information technology and 154 in healthcare. Maybe the curry houses are amongst the 347 consumer goods and services companies?
You ended your first post saying immigrants create jobs not destroy them .
So are you including the criminals as entrepreneurs ?
My post was quoting CityAM, a financial newspaper handed out in the City of London. It is the editor’s words, not mine. You can see from the report (linked above) what is included.
Your post implied that that the mass immigration we have suffered recently has created more jobs for the British than destroyed them or reduced wages , whether you are citing someone else or not .
No. The article in CityAM is very clear.
CityAM is referring to the entrepreneurs who set up these companies, not to all immigration.
So what do you think, Danny Boy – is uncontrolled immigration a good thing?
No. I think it is a bad thing. But what worries me about the immigration debate is how crude it has become. There are, crudely put, two kinds of migrants: those we want, and those we don’t. At the moment the political climate (as evidenced by those polls) is such that all immigration is seen as bad. As this report shows, that is not the case. Creating 1.16m jobs is obviously a very good thing.
Surely it would be a better thing for their own countries if they created jobs ‘back home’. This idea that we ‘need’ other nationals is going to see the destruction of our culture, it is happening already. The more we import the more the ‘need’ rises.
“all immigration is seen as bad.”
Don’t agree. Estimated 600,000 (I think it is) French people in London but never a single complaint from anyone.
Those ‘we want’ end up have the same effect on infrastructure, services, social amenities, etc. as the ones we do not want. I tend to side with those who wish to put a stop to all immigration, good or bad. This first world country was not formed by importing overseas ‘aid’. It is time we took stock.
The report says that immigrants create jobs , not destroy them . It did not add any qualifiers that it is only looking at one aspect of an economic case .
Nor did you .
DH writes:
The evidence is there for all to see. Immigrants don’t take jobs – they create them in vast quantities.
Oh please here is a Guardian article from Jan 12:
Big Issue seller wins right to claim housing benefit
“A Big Issue seller is claiming victory in a landmark case to have her work classed as a proper job and thus be eligible for extra benefits.
Romanian Firuta Vasile was refused housing benefit because a local authority judged that her job selling the magazine “didn’t count”. But she has successfully argued that because she bought the Big Issues and sold them at her own profit or loss she was self-employed. Speaking through an interpreter, Vasile, 27, said she came to the UK in 2007 to look for a job, but could only find work selling the Big Issue. The mother of four said she made about £100 a week but that was not enough to meet all her family’s expenses so she asked Bristol city council for housing benefit.
Different story when somebody comes up with the actual facts Danny .
That person was self-employed. This is data regarding companies registered with Companies House so does not include sole-traders.
“Different story when somebody comes up with the actual facts Danny.”
Quite so. Like the actual facts from Companies House. Like the 1.16m jobs created.
You mean like this:
Yes, I mean exactly like that – where the Mail points out “17% of migrants in UK start a business, but just 10% of Brits do the same”
This is just the sort of claptrap that Nigel Farage is in danger of getting sucked into.
The implication seems to be that because SOME immigrants, largely European or American, are “entrepreneurs”, we should be happy to accept immigrants from anywhere. Immigrants have always tended to be more adventurous than the people they left behind, and this includes Brits who’ve left. It doesn’t, however, address the following:
1 – How much of this benefit is being squandered by those who are not “entrepreneurs”, or even close.
2 – The fact remains that a large number of people do not want their country transformed beyond recognition, regardless of the financial benefit, real or otherwise.
This report is not an argument in favour of un-restricted immigration. What it does do is to show the benefits that the country has reaped because of some immigrants.
If you look at the US, as I wrote earlier, some 50% of high tech Silicon Valley companies were started by entrepreneurs – that includes Google, a $400 billion company. Be nice if the UK were able to generate the next Google.
The fact remains, we’ve been subjected to the highest levels of immigration in our long history, but we still don’t have a Google. People are still using these crude figures to justify what has been done, not what needs to be done – ruthless filtering of those allowed in.
A huge amount of damage has been inflicted on communities from London to Bradford and sweet FA in return.
I am not sure if I were one of the 1.16m people to have a job because of a migrant founder I would say there was sweet FA in return.
Also London is an economic powerhouse and has the most ethically diverse population so not sure there is a correlation.
The danger at the moment (as the polls in the report show) is that we are at risk of jeopardising the benefits (employment etc) from some immigration because of an overly-crude approach to the subject.
You’re assuming that the 1.16m is what it claims to be (statistics being what they are), and that the 1.16m are indigenous people, not immigrants themselves, who wouldn’t be employed otherwise.
Have you considered whether there might me one or two potential entrepreneurs amongst the white, working class Brits who appear to have been sidelined in the rush to accommodate the needs of certain immigrants?
‘The evidence is there for all to see. Immigrants don’t take jobs – they create them in vast quantities.’
So why do we still have 2.5 million unemployed? Because most of the new jobs have gone to immigrants.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/294891/Immigrants-do-take-British-jobs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031973/UK-immigration-9-10-jobs-created-year-went-foreign-nationals.html
Nobody would argue with letting wealth creators into the country, it’s the lazy bastards and criminal dross we can do without. And yes, there are tens of thousands of them.
What additional benefits though are given to non indigenous start up businesses? You can bet your last penny that there will be extra financial incentives and tax breaks that us Brits never see.
What additional benefits though are given to non indigenous start up businesses? You can bet your last penny that there will be extra financial incentives and tax breaks that us Brits never see.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Or is that just conjecture?
Yes, they create them for themselves. Set up a Private Limited Company, state that you work more than 26 hours but a low pay regime as a director (not as an employee thus skirting the low pay law) and then claim Working Tax credits which entitles you to make claims for housing benefit, Council tax rebates and much more. We should all rejoice at their entrepreneurial skills.
It would also be interesting to see the demographic breakdown of their employees, would it not?
“We should all rejoice at their entrepreneurial skills.” Indeed so, since in the £1-200 million turnover range of active UK firms some 14 per cent of jobs in that segment of the economy are with companies that have foreign nationals as founders or co-founders. If you are one of the 1.16m people in employment because of those foreign nationals then I would imagine you do rejoice at their entrepreneurial skills.
Like I have said, we should rejoice, but of those who are employed by these entrepreneurs, I would like to see the breakdown of those who are employed, after all wasn’t it a Labour PM that once said British jobs for British workers? I do in fact trade with some of these entrepreneurs, but when visiting their establishments, do wonder why their workforce is, to miss quote an ex BBC DG, hideously *black*?
I`m looking forward to the first time that a Roma gypsy community…or indeed a good old Irish traveller bunch-come up against a planned mosque-or indeed any area devoted to the Muslims in their sector of fragrant, multiculti Brum, Pennine mill town or Essex.
Can we order tickets online to see how it ends?…and maybe rent a few gallows out to any passionate people who wish to hang the DG, or any of his attendant train of traitors?
Oh god after reading this thread all I can think of is that great screen moment of a psycho battering at a door shouting ‘here’s danny’ !
Does rather seem that way.
Ending a rather welcome respite after one from the ‘H’ block of the Borg box highlighted the obsessive posting of some at times, which gave a few colleagues pause for reflection on the meaning of irony, foot shooting and what they too are up to of a weekend or evening (and in the cases of Dez, well into the wee small hours, which is surely going to get a gold star for going beyond the call of duty).
Lucky all these happy young men have so much free time to invest on sites whilst also claiming they can’t imagine why folk would waste theirs upon them. Which is… odd.
Anyway, let the attrition comm… continue.
Play the ball, not the man.
‘Play the ball, not the man’
Noble words, if perhaps from one of those different moments in time that can breeze in, and out, and in…?
Danny Howard says:
February 22, 2014 at 8:33 pm
Some of us have jobs, families and lives and do not share your obsession with the output of the BBC.
Presumably the volume of posts on just this thread alone are indicative of a tolerant employer and the Howard clan leaving you to your own devices?
Others are playing by the rules; I am playing by yours. Which I agree can be frustrating if seeking to dominate and distract.
So, ta for the demand, but no thanks.
Conor & Eric certainly seemed to have missed a crucial half of the charm offensive memo.
Maybe have a quick word?
Guest Who says:
August 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Hate to sound like one of our cowardly political classes here, but that means recognising a few rules of the game, and one of the main ones is distraction means victory… not in addressing the substance of a debate, but to spoil it.. For some, that is clearly the only aim.
Where, in your two contributions to this thread, have you addressed the “the substance of a debate”?
But congratulations on diverting the topic. Why not count it as a victory? That seems to be important for you.
Anything to say on the topic?
Crikey, you’ve gone back to August 2012 for that? Were you posting as Danny Howard then? Or was this from one of the standby archivists who keeps things in their Madocian notebooks.
Impressive.
I wrote that?
More impressive still (immodestly).
Trouble is, I stand by every word. Because, to repeat, this is a site I enjoy and value, like visiting voluntarily and want to contribute to and learn from on matters of BBC unprofessionalism, lacks of objectivity and integrity.
Versus those who come on a rota who claim not to like this site, wish it didn’t exist and try and mess with it at every turn, as a (if apparently distasteful)
obsession with the output of the BBC.duty. Often 76 times in one go. Not obsessive at all.That you are trying to claim some kind of high ground given your past body of pigeon chess master work is novel, but unless you are a site owner or editor I regret that any attempt to impose your ever-shifting rules to suit the moment at hand is not something I feel inclined to defer to.
‘Where, in your two contributions to this thread, have you addressed the “the substance of a debate”?’
What ‘debate’ would that be? It may have kicked off originally with something mentioned about the BBC, but principally thanks to you is now little to do with it. Personally I can live with off topic sidebars, but pulling a selective hall monitor flounce on prodedure to keep things in your comfort zone won’t cut it.
I am of course teasing you, because it is so easy to do.
You refer to my two contributions ‘on this thread’, and ignore near all my others elsewhere. For sure I amuse myself derailing a Flokker assault on occasion, but mostly I address facts of BBC failure with clear facts and URLs.
I do notice you seldom go near such things from me or anyone else.
Is that the kind of ‘say’, on the actual topic of debating BBC performance, that you had in mind?
Or are you still going to ignore the hypocrisy of your shifting claims and manner of ‘debating’, continue avoiding questions you don’t fancy and whine that the ‘game’ is not being played to favour your aims?
And all on a thread that everyone else has long moved on from bar me, you, and your followers.
Let’s see if we can get to single word columns by clocking off. You know you want to.
Ah Guest (may I call you Guest? I feel I have known you long enough)?
You are, by a long way, my favourite contributor. You never disappoint. We all agree that you are wasted on this site. You should be on Breitbart.
Rude of me to mention it, but back on topic, anything to add?
‘..may I call you Guest? I feel I have known you long enough’
If it serves you, I doubt my permission would make a real difference, but feel free. Duration aside, it is how I can be known here (unless being Dopplegangered), and I have been called worse.
‘We all agree that you are wasted on this site.’
Sparing my blushes on the rest, this ‘we’ of whom you speak being?
I appreciate this may see matters reach somewhat of an impasse, as that is a question, and I do note that in true Patten style, you appear to feel being asked is not on when you are here to just to pose them.
Still, the exchange, surprisingly (to me, at least) is still garnering attention from others (that merry band of ‘we’ to whom you refer? Another question, I know) and heading towards the one word column point I predicted earlier.
‘..but back on topic, anything to add?’
What topic would that be? If on matters BBC, how it addresses news objectively, or not… or the antics of those who really don’t like seeing them discussed at all, much less called in to question (the kind of folk who don’t like their techniques applied back, or having unfortunate previous outings replayed, for instance), that would be a definite maybe.
I’m off now, with my family, for an evening out. So now be careful not only what you post, but how often and how late. You won’t want folk thinking you to be obsessive or have no life.
Guest Who says:
August 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Hate to sound like one of our cowardly political classes here, but that means recognising a few rules of the game, and one of the main ones is distraction means victory… not in addressing the substance of a debate, but to spoil it. For some, that is clearly the only aim.
Where, in your two contributions to this thread, have you addressed the “the substance of a debate”?
But congratulations on diverting the topic. Why not count it as a victory? That seems to be important for you.
Anything to say on the topic?
(If this appears twice then apologies. The first one ended up in moderation for some reason.)
Peter Brookes cartoon, ‘Times’ (£).
https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/441331117279707136/photo/1
For a different take on the article you can always rely on the Mail
Yes you can, but that is a different report. Here is the Mail’s report on the same story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573732/Migrants-set-one-seven-companies-UK-people-born-abroad-twice-likely-start-business.html
The BBC only bang on about the economic angle of immigration the most important issue is to most people is now one of RACE, more than half of the population of our capital city is now a massive alien wedge , something we are expected not to notice , on the pain of being branded a racist , well it won’t wash any more, the indigenous population have had enough.
One of the most unintentionally hilarious comments I’ve ever read on the BBC website, for the article on the Farage/Clegg debate:
—–
521. DeadMike
5th March 2014 – 16:10
Wah wah wah..BBC is baised toward the left wing etc etc
http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc
Is it? Really? Let’s look at the facts.
—–
Do I even need to detail how rubbish this is? Any comment that begins with ‘wah wah wah’ is immediately discredited as being emotionally blinkered and intellectually dishonest. Criticism and complaining are not the same thing. But then he actually has the balls (or the stupidity, whatever) to link to a NEW STATESMAN article as ‘proof’ that the BBC is not biased. This is the same New Statesman that is openly far-left leaning. Unbelievable.
i dont care if immigrants are good for the economy, there’s too many of them here. All those who came since 1997 should be sent back to where they came from. Unless they’ve served in in infantry regiment in the British Army, then they’ve earned the right to stay.
Sorry if some people may find that offensive but its how i feel
Today’s ‘Daily Mail’:-
“Migrants DO cost UK jobs says ‘buried’ report:
” BBC attacked after claiming document was suppressed by No 10″
[Opening excerpt]:-
“British workers have been ‘displaced’ from the jobs market by migrant workers – especially during the recession, a controversial Whitehall study claims.
“A fierce row has broken out inside the Coalition over a Government report on the economic impact of mass migration.
“Newsnight on BBC2 claimed on Tuesday that the still-unpublished document would undermine the Tory Party’s case for imposing stricter controls on workers from overseas.
“The Corporation said that, as a result, it was being ‘suppressed’ by Downing Street – with pro-immigration Lib Dem MPs demanding its immediate publication.
“But the Mail now understands that the study – written by civil servants in the Home Office, Treasury and Department for Business – will clearly state that some Britons have suffered ‘displacement’ from the jobs market. It says this has been particularly noticeable for ‘low-skilled natives’, especially during the last recession.
“Last night, the row led to renewed claims of the BBC having an ‘habitual lack of impartiality on the subject of immigration’.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574289/Migrants-DO-cost-UK-jobs-says-buried-report-BBC-attacked-claiming-document-suppressed-No-10.html#ixzz2vCVfkZeg
Also relevant:-
“The Economic Impact of Immigration”
By Prof R. Rowthorn.
(2004).
Pdf form, pamphlet.
Click to access Rowthorn_Immigration.pdf
“BRITAIN’S AFRICAN BORDER – A CRISIS INFLICTED BY THE EU”
By Michael Copeland.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6323-britain-s-african-border-a-crisis-inflicted-by-the-eu
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“Low-skilled workers most affected by immigration in recession, says report.
“Immigration makes it harder for low-skilled British workers to find and keep jobs during economic downturns, a Government report that was reportedly withheld suggests.”
By James Kirkup.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10680436/Low-skilled-workers-most-affected-by-immigration-in-recession-says-report.html
“Immigration Fallacies”
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6319-immigration-fallacies
‘Telegraph’ (£) –
“Middle class benefiting from immigration, says minister.
“New immigration minister James Brokenshire says the ‘wealthy metropolitan elite’ have benefited from the arrival of foreign workers into the UK ‘for too long'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10680516/Middle-class-benefiting-from-immigration-says-minister.html
The BBC-NUJ political line on Immigration is one of campaigning alongside the Labour Party; their joint commitment is to an open-door, mass immigration ‘policy,’ as proved by their actions under the previous Labour government.
Beeboids are grossly misrepresenting the impact of mass immigration.
They censor the negative cultural, economic and social effects of mass immigration on indigenous British people.
It seems that much of the political left (inc BBC-NUJ) is still engaged in engineering a transformation of British society from being a predominantly white race, Christian society into a predominantly non-white race, heavily Islamic society.
Re: Somalians
It’s worse than you think. How did Somalians get over here, well here’s the answer. Thousands of them made their way to Scandinavia, Denmark and Holland to claim asylum and were given it. They were given Swedish, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian Passports. They are now EU citizens. They came over here because the benefits were more rewarding. Ask the children of these immigrants where they were born and they’ll most likely say Norway. One Somali I know spends six months in Denmark and six months in the U.K. to claim maximum benefits from both countries. Every year they travel to Somalia via Turkey from the UK for their annual holiday. Most Somali families have cars. The city of Birmingham where I live has tens of thousands of Somalis; pressure on housing, school places and GP surgeries etc has to be seen to be believed. Forgive the cliche but my city has lost any resemblance it once had as an English city.
Yes, you are right about the impact of Somalis in Birmingham.
In addition to the economic, social, criminality, and cultural costs, there is the Islamic jihad threat to security of non-Muslims:-
“Terror group al-Shabaab boasts of British followers and names Birmingham as top UK recruiting ground”
(Nov 2013).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/al-shabaab-boasts-british-followers-names-2801862#ixzz2vD7c287Q