See, I disagree… Social media definitely doesn’t help, but what does help is talking to people. Being non-judgemental. Trying to understand someone else’s point of view, even those you disagree with. In fact especially those you disagree with. You don’t have to try to change people’s mind, and trying to do so can be pointless. It’s confrontational, and it automatically makes people defensive. You retreat to the safety of your “tribe” and suddenly it’s no longer about talking to people and understanding their point of view, now it’s my tribe against your tribe. But the reality is that people have more things in common that bring them together than they do things that drive them apart. Of course social media - which includes this forum - doesn’t help foster that kind of environment at all.
I think that's where most arguments do arise from, the assumption that "I'm right, they're wrong. I'm sure if I share all my sources they'll come to their senses and change their position." doesn't fare well online! I just keep out of these things when someone's opinions are so far removed from my own it'll only end in tears confronting it head on. Working with quite a few anti-vaxxers and 'just-asking-questions' conspiracy theorist enjoyers only helps to discourage me more...
The problem is... sometimes you are right and they are wrong. Like, we're not talking issues of opinion, here. I can like the colour orange, and you can prefer the colour blue; neither of us are wrong. But when one party says something like "immigrants commit more crimes than the native population," that is wrong - and we know it's wrong because we have actual figures that say it's wrong. A point of fact, not a matter of opinion. Now, it would be very very nice indeed if people who have managed to get a counterfact wedged in their head, either through misinformation or disinformation or however it got there, did come to their senses when presented with the truth of the actual fact. Again, we're talking facts and not opinions here: I'm not going to try to convince you orange is superior to blue, but if you say the moon is made of cheese I might throw a few NASA survey results at you...
Also, imo - Not all ideas/positions are worth engaging with and engaging with them on any level does more harm than good. Take Tommy Ten-names... Waxy Lemming or whatever his grifting arse is calling himself this week... Ah screw it, @Gareth Halfacree put it better than I ever could.
You had better not, everyone knows damn well that purple is the pimpingest of colours! Aye, I'm much less stressed keeping clear of it.Others tend to put forward what I'm trying to communicate much more coherently, plus I don't end up with a headache.
I've been reading newspapers recently, every couple of weeks I'll buy the Guardian or Sunday Times and read it cover to cover (excluding the sport, obvs.), it's a good way to escape the filter bubble. Between the two I get a sort of central spread, and it's quite fun to hide behind a giant broadsheet.
I've been using Ground News over the last few months. You can often see the slant on stories based purely on the sources providing them. It's not perfect, and can be a little more labour-intensive, but you can usually pick your way through the bias and rhetoric.
Just make sure its current survey info you pick up What science knows and understand changes overtime, don't go breaking my cheese moon dreams I mean its fine to cite links to info, like your immigration article above but you know it could be a bit more current, the article itself is a bit all over the place, some data based on report that is 10yrs old looking back 10yrs, the 2013 report predating even the 2015 EU migrant 'crisis' never mind recent events, then flitting between different types of immigration with a lack of clarity, So yeah migrant crime info was fact at some point in time Much like it was fine to have slaves once upon a time, No need to dig up more upto date info, I'm well enough informed, just saying. Suffice to say legal migration is very important and very necessary, as a legal migrant, you come to study or with an employer backed job being able to fund yourself whilst here due to salary requirements that employers have to provide to get the Visa etc.so they should be net fiscal contributors or at least no more of a fiscal parasite than your average worker. I'm not arguing against your statement of course, I don't have data to back it up, just being the forum knob as usual Irregular migration is a problem and it's a big expense whose funds could be put to better use elsewhere. One of the problems is that for many there isn't a differentiation for immigrants, so your Albanian gangster and your local GP gets tarred with the same brush, that's very clear when in my local having a beer, some of the things I hear are uuumm eye opening, but I'm not about to jump in, no amount of explaining visas, replacement rates, skilled vs non skilled etc, is going to put some at ease and besides it probably wouldn't end well if I tried.
0.3 per cent of government spending, last I checked. Maybe a bit higher after the last lot threw a massive bag of cash at Rwanda for nowt...
Only because the new lot junked it after the money was spent and decided to sweep a few billion under the 'blackhole' carpet.
Funny scare quotes for something that was independently verified - and even half the Tories themselves admitted the Rwanda plan was smoke and mirrors. It was only ever going to be a money pit, enriching Rwanda and a cadre of lawyers, no more - it should have been ash-canned long before Labour got in. Bear in mind that sending someone to Rwanda was going to cost £63,000 more (an official figure prepared by the last government) than keeping them in the UK... Now *that's* money that could be better spent elsewhere!
It always cost more to setup something up that it does once up and running, investment is that thing you do to benefit you in the future, shutting it down after the money is spent, pure genius.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record now because I’ve said this so many times already in this thread… Illegal immigration is a problem that’s easy to solve: Safe and legal routes into the country Fast and fair processing of claims That’s it. That’s literally all that’s needed. Get people here safely, get their claims processed quickly and fairly. If you’re eligible to be here then hurry the f’ up and start earning an income we can tax; if you’re not eligible to be here then please allow these nice burly guards to help you back the way you came.
Tell me you didn't read the linked report without telling me you didn't read the linked report: that figure is for the *per-subject cost after setup*. It categorically does not include the setup costs. That's right: the Rwanda plan, as enacted, would have cost £63,000 extra for every individual extradited... *on top of the millions already spent*. Shutting it down *saved that money*. Like I say, it should have been cancelled pretty much as soon as that report came out. Also, could you maybe play a bit of the research game yourself? It's a little one-sided when you just post supposition and feelings and I feel the terribly inconvenient urge to go out and find the truth of the matter. C'mon, fair's fair, you've got the same internet as I have in front of you.
OK, I'll just link the bill as a source then you can filter the BBC cherry picking, or cherry pick your own as the BBC rarely credible these days, its quite a good document Impact Assessment (parliament.uk) The assumption with that number is that the people coming across don't reduce and ignore the value of Rwanda as a deterrent, other countries that have implemented similar scheme saw the illegals drop massively. Some one who doesn't come because of the deterrent cost us nothing. In addition the costings spouted by the BBC miss the details about what is missing from the calculations, that is the fact that as with everything, costs will increase in the UK to match the Rwanda deterrent due to accommodation constraints but not act as a deterrent, more will stream in and cost us more, in fact the assumed 85 cost per night was already at a massive discount, from the impact assessment 'The average nightly cost of accommodation for those on support is assumed to be £85. If this continued to grow at the trend rate observed since the start of the small boat crisis it would represent an average discounted cost of £160 per night.' Also from the bill the numbers also don't include the costs that are saved once they have been removed from the UK associated with their resettlement, such as access to UK benefits, local authority support, social housing, integration spending, transport healthcare, etc. Not to worry, our well spent dough won't go to waste, the EU will likely use our infrastructure, always nice to help a neighbour. Germany wants to send migrants to Rwanda in facilities paid for by the UK, after scheme... - LBC I think the net takeaway for me is there is very little difference in cost if they are here or Rwanda but the deterrent impact of Rwanda would hopefully see the same reduction in illegals that the likes of Australia did in the past where they went from 100s of boats to single digit, a reduction in those can only be a good thing for all involved.
Err... I know it's a good document, 'cos that's the same document I linked to: so I'm not sure why you're talking about BBC bias. (In fact, I linked to the primary source specifically because I knew you'd talk about BBC bias.) Yes, that's discussed in the report, starting on page three. Yes, those are discussed too. As is the fact that the actual impact, in terms of both how many people would be extradited and what that would do to the overall immigration numbers, is unknown. Calling it now: it won't happen for the same reason it didn't happen here. Tenner to the nonpolitical charity of your choice if I'm wrong. (Also, I'm done for the night - doing this on a phone is a nightmare!)
Did not see that you linked to the same thing even so as you can see, our takeaways from same document are very different.
I remember a bloke called Blair sprouting on about WMD in Iraq, so yes, you can take your pick All Politicians are after power, plain and simple, nothing to do with people ro the Country
I remember a bloke called Saddam Hussein. He was trying to wipe out the Kurds in the northwest of Iraq, invaded Kuwait and was a serious threat to the whole region, he had to be stopped. Talking about WMDs, was the wrong way to justify stopping him though.
Yeah, most of us can remember that, because this forum is filled with old farts who are at least middle aged. But what I also remember about that is the enormous protest against the invasion, and the complete lack of any kind of riot, protest, march, etc, in favour of going into Iraq. I also remember the first time we went after Saddam Hussein because of all the horrible **** he’d done. And I was also alive when Leopold Galtieri landed an Argentinian invasion force on a small piece of British territory a few thousand miles away… I don’t remember it because I was 2 months old when they invaded, but I do have family that served in that conflict. So… what’s your point? What…? That doesn’t even make sense, how is political power nothing to do with people? We do still have some semblance of democracy in this country, so we still put these people in place. I’m confused as to what your post is trying to say, other than the same tired old “they’re all the same” narrative (which is objectively and factually not true)..