(a) Hire the Albert Hall or some other venue and shou, rant,
community singing, burn effigies or whatever, but don't do it so
that Central London is put into gridlock.

And this is going to get the attention of anyone?

Oh, so you judge the success of the demonstration by the disruption (disruption
= attention) it causes? I thought it was done for the pleasure of those who
attended communing with like-minded souls and feeling good in themselves for
doing something that they thought was right.

The demonstrators clearly didn't invite him here and didn't want him
here,

No, but we have elected Governmnets to make big decisions like who to recommend
for State visits. You can always vote against them for this (and other) reasons
when the next Election comes along.

o why they should care that Bush is a "GUEST" (any different
from "guest"?) is beyond me.

Because that's the way international relations work: Heads of State are invited
on State Visits. I don't recall much if any demonstrations when Ceacescu was
invited here by Callaghan, or a dozen African dictators through the 1970s.

If I invite Pinochet round to my house
does that mean that people who so desire should protest to me about him
getting away with murder? Or should they do the sensible thing and
protest about him?

If you invited Pinochet to your house presumably as a guest, you would protect
him from such protestors - or are you the sort of person that would invite
someone just so that their enemies can have ago at them?

But some random asylum seeker is a person who hasn't done anything to
offend you beyond existing. It's not analogous to the mere presence of
asylum seekers, because it's not the presence of Bush that they're
protesting about. It's the things that Bush has done and may yet do.
It'd be like expressing your disagreement and dislike of an asylum
seeker who regularly kicked dogs if you were opposed to the kicking of
dogs.

I happen to know (as does the Government and most of the legal profession) that
the VAST majority of asylum seekers are here simply as economic migrants, and I
object in principle to them coming here for that reason. That does not give me
the right to treat them unfairly, despit the fact that I daily see the harm
that their presence is doing to the GENUINE asylum seekers and race relations
generally. The problem is one caused by the Government, and it is to it that I
would address my objections.

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


(a) Hire the Albert Hall or some other venue and shou, rant,
community singing, burn effigies or whatever, but don't do it so
that Central London is put into gridlock.

And this is going to get the attention of anyone?

Oh, so you judge the success of the demonstration by the
disruption (disruption = attention) it causes?

No, I judge the success of something like this by the effect it has,
and by the attention (disruption may bring attention, but so do other
things) it attracts.

I thought it was
done for the pleasure of those who attended communing with
like-minded souls and feeling good in themselves for doing
something that they thought was right.

Don't be so stupid. It's done to attempt to change things, to attempt
to get a message across. Not to feel good. People demonstrated against
war in Iraq because they didn't want it to happen, not because they
wanted to 'ave a larf.

The demonstrators clearly didn't invite him here and didn't want
him here,

No, but we have elected Governmnets to make big decisions like who
to recommend for State visits. You can always vote against them
for this (and other) reasons when the next Election comes along.

Let's take the example of a socialist. Who can they vote for? They can
vote for Labour (not socialist), the Conservatives (not socialist) or
the Lib Dems (not socialist). Or some party who won't get in because of
the way the electoral system is set up.

Let's take the example of someone who doesn't want Labour in government
but who lives in my constituency. Who should they vote for? Who cares?
They could vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party and it wouldn't make
a blind bit of difference because the only candidate who will ever be
elected in my constituency is a Labour candidate.

And by the way, you said you don't have any control over the EU. You
can vote for a member of the European parliament, so surely by your
standards you do have control over the EU.

o why they should care that Bush is a "GUEST" (any different
from "guest"?) is beyond me.

Because that's the way international relations work: Heads of
State are invited on State Visits. I don't recall much if any
demonstrations when Ceacescu was invited here by Callaghan, or a
dozen African dictators through the 1970s.

So? What do those visits have to do with the current subject? Obviously
there wasn't such a mass of public opinion against those people. End of
story.

If I invite Pinochet round to my house
does that mean that people who so desire should protest to me
about him getting away with murder? Or should they do the sensible
thing and protest about him?

If you invited Pinochet to your house presumably as a guest, you
would protect him from such protestors

Yes, I'd use my personal army of riot police. This is getting
ridiculous.

- or are you the sort of
person that would invite someone just so that their enemies can
have ago at them?

Well to be honest, you seem to have gone a bit mad here. I was talking
about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point, and you've taken
it a little bit too far. I'm not really mates with Pinochet you know.
I'm not really in a position to ring him up and say "oi, Pinochet me
old mucker, feel like coming round for a visit?"

But some random asylum seeker is a person who hasn't done anything
to offend you beyond existing. It's not analogous to the mere
presence of asylum seekers, because it's not the presence of Bush
that they're protesting about. It's the things that Bush has done
and may yet do. It'd be like expressing your disagreement and
dislike of an asylum seeker who regularly kicked dogs if you were
opposed to the kicking of dogs.

I happen to know (as does the Government and most of the legal
profession) that the VAST majority of asylum seekers are here
simply as economic migrants, and I object in principle to them
coming here for that reason.

Doesn't the Government want free trade with the world? Isn't that what
globalisation and all those summits are about? Because if the
Government does want free trade, that involves free movement of labour
(ie economic migration).

And anyway, what's so bad about economic migration in your opinion? We
get a load of cheap labour to clean toilets and do the other jobs that
British citizens don't want to lower themselves to - sounds right up
your street.

That does not give me the right to
treat them unfairly, despit the fact that I daily see the harm
that their presence is doing to the GENUINE asylum seekers and
race relations generally. The problem is one caused by the
Government, and it is to it that I would address my objections.

This is something I've never understood about the whole asylum seeker
thing. Asylum seekers come here and are allowed to stay while their
case is being dealt with, and the government is blamed for this? They
came here themselves, the government didn't cause them to come here.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

Oh, so you judge the success of the demonstration by the
disruption (disruption = attention) it causes?

No, I judge the success of something like this by the effect it has,
and by the attention (disruption may bring attention, but so do other
things) it attracts.

In other words, to Hell with the flotsam and jetsum (i.e. those trying to
travel about London) that may unwittingly get caught up in those seeking
"attention".

I thought it was
done for the pleasure of those who attended communing with
like-minded souls and feeling good in themselves for doing
something that they thought was right.

Don't be so stupid. It's done to attempt to change things, to attempt
to get a message across. Not to feel good. People demonstrated against
war in Iraq because they didn't want it to happen, not because they
wanted to 'ave a larf.


Now who's having a humour deficit, and missing my carefully-worded sarcasm!

Let's take the example of a socialist. Who can they vote for? They can
vote for Labour (not socialist), the Conservatives (not socialist) or
the Lib Dems (not socialist). Or some party who won't get in because of
the way the electoral system is set up.

Sadly, for the individual concerned, that's simply because hardly anyone else
is a socialist.

We all have our crosses to bear: I desperately want us to leave the E.U., but
who should I vote for?

And by the way, you said you don't have any control over the EU. You
can vote for a member of the European parliament, so surely by your
standards you do have control over the EU.

You will no doubt read my lengthy reply to another of your posts as to why my
view is that we have little or no control over the E.U. I won't bore you by
repeating it.



So? What do those visits have to do with the current subject? Obviously
there wasn't such a mass of public opinion against those people. End of
story.

I have already stated that I do not regard a million or so people a "mass of
public opinion".

If I invite Pinochet round to my house
does that mean that people who so desire should protest to me
about him getting away with murder? Or should they do the sensible
thing and protest about him?

If you invited Pinochet to your house presumably as a guest, you
would protect him from such protestors

Yes, I'd use my personal army of riot police. This is getting
ridiculous.

No, I was simply making the point that it is not unreasonable for there to be
security around Bush for his visit.

- or are you the sort of
person that would invite someone just so that their enemies can
have ago at them?

Well to be honest, you seem to have gone a bit mad here. I was talking
about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point, and you've taken
it a little bit too far. I'm not really mates with Pinochet you know.
I'm not really in a position to ring him up and say "oi, Pinochet me
old mucker, feel like coming round for a visit?"

No, but you seemed to be suggesting that if Bush was in the U.K., he should be
left to the wolves, so to speak.

Doesn't the Government want free trade with the world? Isn't that what
globalisation and all those summits are about? Because if the
Government does want free trade, that involves free movement of labour
(ie economic migration).

Nonsense.

If what you mean by "free movement of labour" that everyone who doesn't have a
health or education service in their country should be able freely to travel to
those countries that do, whilst those same countries lose most of their jobs to
those that pay wages a fraction of those paid there, this is clear economic
suicide.

And anyway, what's so bad about economic migration in your opinion? We
get a load of cheap labour to clean toilets and do the other jobs that
British citizens don't want to lower themselves to - sounds right up
your street.

Because those in the black economy pay no tax, and those of us who do will, as
a proportion of the population, decrease and have to pay more and more as the
resident population needing those taxes (pensioners, benefit claimants etc.)
increases in number.

This is something I've never understood about the whole asylum seeker
thing. Asylum seekers come here and are allowed to stay while their
case is being dealt with, and the government is blamed for this? They
came here themselves, the government didn't cause them to come here.

The Government allowed them to stay. Nobody forced this on the Government. The
Government CHOOSES to adhere to its treaty commitments, it CHOOSES not to vary
its treaty obligations, it CHOOSES not plug the illegal entry methods by
adequate entry checks, it CHOOSES to allow in vast numbers with no visa
requirements whatsoever and, last of all, it TOLERATES whatever regimes they
have allegedly fled from (often subsidising with aid): to allow asylum seekers
free entry is the surest way to guarantee whatever regimes they have fled will
continue.

If you think asylum entry, and other immigration is a good thing in principle,
please let me know what your cut-off point (numerically) would be, or, in
principle, do you believe that the entire World's population should be allowed
to migrate here should it so choose.

Marc.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
But some random asylum seeker is a person who hasn't done anything to
offend you beyond existing. It's not analogous to the mere presence of
asylum seekers, because it's not the presence of Bush that they're
protesting about. It's the things that Bush has done and may yet do.
It'd be like expressing your disagreement and dislike of an asylum
seeker who regularly kicked dogs if you were opposed to the kicking of
dogs.

I happen to know (as does the Government and most of the legal profession)
that
the VAST majority of asylum seekers are here simply as economic migrants,
and I
object in principle to them coming here for that reason. That does not
give me
the right to treat them unfairly, despit the fact that I daily see the
harm
that their presence is doing to the GENUINE asylum seekers and race
relations
generally. The problem is one caused by the Government, and it is to it
that I
would address my objections.

The economic migrant claim is simply untrue. One of my best friends works
for a law firm that works on asylum cases, and says otherwise. A large
proportion of them have some form of proffessional training, and they pay
more tax into the system than take benefits out. Can you supply stats to
back up that statement?

You do not lock yourself in a box with thirty other people for a week
because there's a better rate of dole here. The majority of these people are
fleeing something pretty terrible.

Apart from anything else, Britain is the most popular asylum destination in
Europe not because of anything to do with our welfare state - it's because
we speak English that we're a more attractive option.

Jonn

The economic migrant claim is simply untrue. One of my best friends works
for a law firm that works on asylum cases, and says otherwise.

I have represented a number over the last few years, mainly Kosovans, and I
must disagree with you.

They are simply a milch cow for various solicitors' firms, one of which was
exposed in the national press 2 years ago for providing "package deals",
complete with fake torture claims etc. for their clients.

A large
proportion of them have some form of proffessional training, and they pay
more tax into the system than take benefits out.

None of my Kosovan clients were paying any tax (but most were working illegally
in the black economy).

Can you supply stats to
back up that statement?

The only statistic I can give you is that 100% of the Kosovans I represented
could have returned home - as was the Tribunal's decision when they were
invariably turned down. I doubt, however, if a single one was actually
returned.

You do not lock yourself in a box with thirty other people for a week
because there's a better rate of dole here.

You show a misconception of the issue: it's not a question of "rate of dole"
but the very existence of State benefits, free education, housing and health.
I'd put up with some pretty unpleasant conditions for a week or two if I was
guaranteed a pot of gold at the end.

The majority of these people are
fleeing something pretty terrible.

Yes, it's called "poverty", but that can best be dealt with by improving their
own countries' economies, not by having them all come to the U.K. whilst those
unfortunate enough not to have left their homes just fester.

Apart from anything else, Britain is the most popular asylum destination in
Europe not because of anything to do with our welfare state - it's because
we speak English that we're a more attractive option.


I disagree, but that doesn't matter one jot: we do not have the ability to
absorb hundreds of millions of immigrants, however laudable their wishes for
coming here may be.

I note that nobody has challenged my MAIN objection to mass immigration: the
detrimental effect it has on delicate race relations in the U.K.

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote in message ...
The fetaured link states:-

" March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down.
This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work.
If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one."

Presumably these vile and odious morons actually believe George Bush is more
evil than Saddam.

Just WHAT are they trying to stop Bush form doing? Presumably they'd like to
have Saddam back - George Galloway eat your heart out!


Leaving aside whether these people are actually making a protest or
just sad pathetic people who can't afford to go whitewater rafting so
get their petty little kicks from shouting abuse at the police about
how evil captialism is and then retire back to Starbucks for cake and
afternoon tea.
Whilist attacking McDonalds or decorating a war memorial with anti war
slogans will just get you on the front of the Sun. Trying in any way
to get near the head of state of any country will get you shot at by
the police. Trying to get near to George Bush will get you a hail of
bullets from Bush's body guards and at best a few nights on the
intensive care unit.
I'm praying these brain dead protestors decide to attack Bush as some
heavy payback from the police is just what these people need.
Its about time these people who constantly bring London to a stop on
the scant premise of a protest were put in their place.
24 hr media has its benefits it also has the downside of everything
being televised. The police beating someone who has chained himself to
the middle of the road doesn't do good for Police PR so they are
forced to stand around looking useless.
If these people geuninely want to protest then distrupt the lives of
the people making the decsions. Chain yourself to the gate of Downing
Street so Tony Blair can't drive out the front entrance. Bring down
the Labour party's website. Just don't cause problems for people who
are trying to get on with their lives

In
CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North wrote:

Leaving aside whether these people are actually making a protest or
just sad pathe....

I've a better idea. Try using English.


--
kedron