Dubstepforum.com

djacroama wrote:

magma wrote:It's more the principle that offends me rather than any practical fear.. I normally carry something with my name/face on it anyway (driving license usually) and still need to use it surprisingly often to prove my age, but I hate the idea of being forced to carry something.

same, nearly 25 and i still get ID'd for cigarettes.

my mum says im lucky i look young, i say its embarasing when i dont have my ID on me and a whole newsagents full of people pretty much laugh you out haha

I agree, I have no problems with the idea but if it becomes a mandatory scheme and you can get in trouble for not having one on you then I feel our government maybe overstepping the mark. It's just a bit too sinister and Orwellian for my rural british sensibilities.

As I said before however I think the idea behind them is great, it's a convergence and may make life simpler in some respects (the passport arguement makes sense for example) but it needs to be rationally developed, not caught up in a idiotic whirlwind of threat levels and data harvesting that would corrupt the good idea at the heart of it all.

.

I'm sure the conversation has moved on from the UKBA but I saw this article in the Guardian and it seemed topical.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/0 ... stleblower

tr0tsky wrote:I'm sure the conversation has moved on from the UKBA but I saw this article in the Guardian and it seemed topical.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/0 ... stleblower

That's depressing. Someone should educate those stnuc in how it feels to be genuinely desperate.

Although I have to admit that article was a bit like "people whose job it is to work for racist immigration controls in racism shocker"

But he said the agency "expects the highest levels of integrity and behaviour from all our staff," adding: "We take all allegations of inappropriate behaviour extremely seriously."

lol what a load of tosh. from my experience any kind of issue gets brushed under the carpet because most managers don't want to deal with it

nothing quite as bad as that here but quite a few examples of low level racism and general bigotry that goes unpunished or even mentioned, and nothing ever gets done about bullying etc

PS: you have to bear in mind that this is coming from a daily mail reading bigot, as firky so astutely deduced, so ignore anything i say

Can firky please have this information that he doesn't have the ability to comprehend?

Sorry for the long post, can't link to it because the article is protected, but:

Dr Teresa Hayter, Oxford University



The last Labour government treated refugees and migrants with even
greater harshness than its predecessors. It more than doubled the
number of asylum seekers locked up in prisons and detention centres
at any one time, and announced its intention to more than double
them again, to 4000 by 2002. It denied welfare benefits to all asylum
seekers, rather than just some of them, as the Tories did, and
introduced the infamous policy of dispersal to one ‘no choice’ offer of
accommmodation, frequently sub-standard and away from friends,
lawyers, even families, and the possibility of employment. It tightened
the measures intended to close off legal means of escape for
refugees, and thus force them into reliance on so-called ‘people
traffickers’. And it engaged in shameful competition with the Tories
to prove who was ‘toughest’ on ‘bogus asylum seekers’ and ‘illegal
immigrants’, and thus stirred up most racism.
The intention of these policies is to stop people coming here to
exercise their right to claim asylum. As the government openly
admits, or in fact claims, its ‘toughness’ is intended to reduce the
numbers of what it, usually falsely, says are unfounded asylum applications.
It is casting around for ever more brutal ways of deterring
political refugees, as well as others who may be seeking work, or
actually making it impossible for them to leave their countries at all.
This implies that it is not much good arguing for better treatment of
refugees unless one also argues that immigration controls are unnecessary,
and should be abolished.
In addition, the escalating repression and abuses of human rights
involved in the attempt to keep people out of Britain have not
prevented a rise in the number of people fleeing wars and persecution
(although the proportions coming to Britain remain very small).
What will the government do next? Will it send the army to Calais,
as one commentator suggested? Will it lock up all asylum seekers
indefinitely? Immigration controls are a twentieth century phenomenon. At Davos, Blair talked about an ‘open world’, by which he
meant an open world for goods and capital but a closed one for people.
Yet the globalisation of the economy creates both opportunities and
needs for people to migrate. The issue is how much more suffering
will be imposed on innocent people before immigration controls are
finally abandoned—as unworkable, too expensive in suffering and
money, too incompatible with the ideals of freedom and justice.
There is also, as it happens, much evidence that free migration is
in the interests of both the working class and employers in the rich
countries, as well as of the migrants themselves and the countries they
come from. Migrants make a small dent in the current extreme
international polarisation of wealth; their remittances (the money they
save and send back) exceed total official foreign aid. Rich countries
benefit from the skills, enterprise and good health of migrants
(provided they are allowed to work). The government’s current plans
to cherry-pick skilled refugees and migrants demonstrate, yet again,
that immigration is in the self-interest of the countries the migrants
go to; and, as economists point out, there are needs for unskilled as
well as skilled workers, in particular as European populations age and
decline. Immigration controls are explicable only by racism, which,
far from alleviating, they legitimate and feed.
I feel ambivalent about arguing that, if immigration controls were
abolished, the number of people migrating would not be huge,
because I don’t wish to imply that people should not migrate if they
wish to. All the same we should recognise that talk of floods and so on
is scaremongering. Most people do not wish to uproot themselves
from their families and friends and cultures. People flee in desperation
from wars and repression or, if they are exceptionally enterprising,
they migrate to work. Most could not do so even if there were fewer
barriers. In the 1950s, when there were no controls on Commonwealth
citizens, immigration correlated with the rise and fall in job
vacancies. If people could come and go freely, they would probably
do so.
But it is also true that many people don’t migrate because they
wish to, but because they are forced to by wars and political
repression. If the governments of the rich countries object to migration,
they ought to recognise their own part in causing it. Most of the
recent increase in asylum applications is the result of the break-up of
Yugoslavia, for which the West bears at least some responsibility. The
West should stop using the World Bank and the IMF to enforce

privatisation and extract payments on an unjust debt. It should stop
propping up right-wing repressive regimes. It should not supply arms
to participants in civil wars, or at all. I would argue for the opposite
of the current situation. The world should be open for people, but
investment should be planned and controlled, to create more justice
and less inequality.
It is doubtless too much to expect that the new Labour government
will take any stand of principle on these issues. Nevertheless
resistance forced the abandonment of apartheid, whose attempt to
preserve white privilege has parallels with immigration controls.
We should campaign for the abandonment of immigration controls as
well.

From my perspective, this is all evidence of the massive influence that the drama-hungry media has at the moment.

The fact that the phrase "Asylum Seeker" is difficult to use without immediately getting involved in a discussion about illegal immigration (entirely different matter!) just shows how much they've managed to subvert the issue. It's a sadly apparent fact that Government at this stage (and I think this will ring true for Tories as much as Labour) would rather get itself re-elected than make a lasting, positive impact on the world. That means responding to headlines rather than expert advice or figures from the Office of National Statistics.

Masquerading genuinely xenophobic and racist ideas behind talk of "Asylum Seekers" is the most effective thing the Daily Mail and Daily Express have done in the last 20 years. I'm not even convinced the journalists or maybe even the editors properly believe in a lot of it... they've just created a story, fictional or otherwise, which will keep creating panic and selling papers indefinitely - what do they care if things get difficult for some brown people at the borders?

First against the wall when the revolution comes. stnuc.

tr0tsky wrote:Sorry for the long post, can't link to it because the article is protected, but:

The last Labour government treated refugees ...

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/21/4/544

alien pimp wrote:Can firky please have this information that he doesn't have the ability to comprehend?

i posted that back on page 6 so i don't know why he keeps asking

interestign post trotsky, you know my views so no need to start all that up again but this bit is key

tr0tsky wrote:If the governments of the rich countries object to migration,
they ought to recognise their own part in causing it. Most of the
recent increase in asylum applications is the result of the break-up of
Yugoslavia, for which the West bears at least some responsibility. The
West should stop using the World Bank and the IMF to enforce
privatisation and extract payments on an unjust debt. It should stop
propping up right-wing repressive regimes. It should not supply arms
to participants in civil wars, or at all. I would argue for the opposite
of the current situation. The world should be open for people, but
investment should be planned and controlled, to create more justice
and less inequality.

the west has a lot of responsibility for why these people want to leave their home countries so we should look at preventing these conditions if at all possible; or at least not add to the problems that already exist

missedthebus wrote:

tr0tsky wrote:Sorry for the long post, can't link to it because the article is protected, but:

The last Labour government treated refugees ...

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/21/4/544

Not everybody has access to Athens…

badger wrote:

alien pimp wrote:Can firky please have this information that he doesn't have the ability to comprehend?

i posted that back on page 6 so i don't know why he keeps asking

cuz firky was asking for it on p. 7 and felt like helping

alien pimp wrote:cuz firky was asking for it on p. 7 and felt like helping

yeah i know. still don't know why he keeps asking but i guess he just likes annoying people

Fuck getting an ID card. Gotta beat the system etc etc

I won't even approve Facebook requests from my Dad to confirm I am his son.

badger wrote:

alien pimp wrote:cuz firky was asking for it on p. 7 and felt like helping

yeah i know. still don't know why he keeps asking but i guess he just likes annoying people

might be because it's nothing incomprehensible there, maybe just slightly incorrect, but that's for him to decide

badger wrote:

alien pimp wrote:cuz firky was asking for it on p. 7 and felt like helping

yeah i know. still don't know why he keeps asking but i guess he just likes annoying people

I still haven't seen anything that I am unable to comprehend or a good source, dude. All you have said is that you work for the UKBA and that's a rubbish thing to say, you don't have to be a doctor to work in a hospital, you don't have to flip burgers to worker at Mucky D's etc.

alien pimp wrote:

badger wrote:

alien pimp wrote:cuz firky was asking for it on p. 7 and felt like helping

yeah i know. still don't know why he keeps asking but i guess he just likes annoying people

might be because it's nothing incomprehensible there, maybe just slightly incorrect, but that's for him to decide

Exactly, I haven't seen any independent study, research by a university (such as the UCL study that blew many myths about migrants out of the water), think tank, trust, etc. Absolutely fuck all!

What I am really asking badger is what is he has read that has lead him to come to his opinion. I have explained and cited resources, studies, books etc. of how I came to my opinion.



Instead he gets angry and types in capitals and that just further reinforces the notion he isn't quite sure himself.

lloydnoise wrote:

djacroama wrote:

magma wrote:It's more the principle that offends me rather than any practical fear.. I normally carry something with my name/face on it anyway (driving license usually) and still need to use it surprisingly often to prove my age, but I hate the idea of being forced to carry something.

same, nearly 25 and i still get ID'd for cigarettes.

my mum says im lucky i look young, i say its embarasing when i dont have my ID on me and a whole newsagents full of people pretty much laugh you out haha

I agree, I have no problems with the idea but if it becomes a mandatory scheme and you can get in trouble for not having one on you then I feel our government maybe overstepping the mark. It's just a bit too sinister and Orwellian for my rural british sensibilities.

As I said before however I think the idea behind them is great, it's a convergence and may make life simpler in some respects (the passport arguement makes sense for example) but it needs to be rationally developed, not caught up in a idiotic whirlwind of threat levels and data harvesting that would corrupt the good idea at the heart of it all.

why would that happen? don't worry, because you can't go all orwellian and harvest data and shit by mistake:

lloydnoise wrote: There are no evil people, just twats who get things wrong and don't understand how "people" work and get panicy and introduce dumb ideas that their democratic masses approve or refuse.

badger wrote:

But he said the agency "expects the highest levels of integrity and behaviour from all our staff," adding: "We take all allegations of inappropriate behaviour extremely seriously."

lol what a load of tosh. from my experience any kind of issue gets brushed under the carpet because most managers don't want to deal with it

nothing quite as bad as that here but quite a few examples of low level racism and general bigotry that goes unpunished or even mentioned, and nothing ever gets done about bullying etc

PS: you have to bear in mind that this is coming from a daily mail reading bigot, as firky so astutely deduced, so ignore anything i say

don't bother with the baiting man. its the same old broken record in here....everytime.