Good article, immigration. Fear ye not...

[Hondo]

Actually a good read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/7231568/Immigration-a-plan-to-alter-the-nations-soul.html

[Eki]

The writer looks scary:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01252/PUFFjanet_daley_1252502a.jpg

If I were an immigrant and she was greeting me at the customs, I'd have second thoughts and might just turn around.

[BDunnell]

No, it isn't a good read. It's a typically bonkers, paranoid read by a bonkers, paranoid columnist.

May I suggest to those North Americans who deign to comment on British affairs that they widen the horizons of their reading a little beyond the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph?

[anthonyvop]

No, it isn't a good read. It's a typically bonkers, paranoid read by a bonkers, paranoid columnist.

May I suggest to those North Americans who deign to comment on British affairs that they widen the horizons of their reading a little beyond the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph?

Aside from insults can you refute anything in the article.

It is common knowledge in the US that the Democratic party favors amnesty for illegal immigrants because it means 30 million new democrat voters.

[BDunnell]

Aside from insults can you refute anything in the article.

It is common knowledge in the US that the Democratic party favors amnesty for illegal immigrants because it means 30 million new democrat voters.

Common knowledge amongst whom? People like you? Find me some unequivocal written or spoken proof that this is the case and I might believe you, rather than believing it to be another one of your delusions.

For a start, referring to the [Telegraph[/i] article, you will note that it merely makes reference to a report which allegedly states that immigration has been encouraged for social reasons. But where are the direct quotes from this report? We are told that it makes this statement 'unequivocally'. Without seeing the 'unequivocal' statement for oneself, surely one cannot do anything else but either reserve judgment or assume that the statement is not quite as 'unequivocal' as it's made out to be?

[janvanvurpa]

Common knowledge amongst whom? People like you? Find me some unequivocal written or spoken proof that this is the case and I might believe you, rather than believing it to be another one of your delusions.

For a start, referring to the [Telegraph[/i] article, you will note that it merely makes reference to a report which allegedly states that immigration has been encouraged for social reasons. But where are the direct quotes from this report? We are told that it makes this statement 'unequivocally'. Without seeing the 'unequivocal' statement for oneself, surely one cannot do anything else but either reserve judgment or assume that the statement is not quite as 'unequivocal' as it's made out to be?


Well the Opinion piece did in fact appear under "

1. Home
2. Comment
3. Columnists
4."

Comments, or simply put an opinion piece.
As such need it make references to anything?

If the thing was mistakenly read as "news' or heaven forbid a "factual" piece, they of course its just near insane ranting and raving.

But it's just "comments"---why bother with facts, and links, or copy of the paper referred to, when the writer knows the intended audience never does either......

[BDunnell]

Comments, or simply put an opinion piece.
As such need it make references to anything?

Yes, it ought, for the document to which it refers will not have had a wide audience since its release — I was certainly unaware of it — and therefore is not something on which an opinion can be formed without reference to it. Unfortunately, far too many people nowadays form their opinions on the basis of other opinions rather than fact.

[janvanvurpa]

Yes, it ought, for the document to which it refers will not have had a wide audience since its release — I was certainly unaware of it — and therefore is not something on which an opinion can be formed without reference to it. Unfortunately, far too many people nowadays form their opinions on the basis of other opinions rather than fact.


I was, of course, being my normal slightly sarcastic self...

And agree that there is some enormous compulsion in many to have solid opinion on everything, heaven forfend should one actually hold in abeyance forming a solid opinion based merely on a sound byte.

It seems the concept or idea of somebody saying, "I don't know....I'll have to check into that a bit before i can say" is gone, kaput, passé.

[BDunnell]

It seems the concept or idea of somebody saying, "I don't know....I'll have to check into that a bit before i can say" is gone, kaput, passé.

I couldn't agree more. Sadly, the internet and the abundance of outlandish 'comment' that passes for journalism now makes a lot of people believe themselves to be knowledgable on subjects about which they know very, very little.

[veeten]

It seems the concept or idea of somebody saying, "I don't know....I'll have to check into that a bit before i can say" is gone, kaput, passé.

That's because one expects that the audience isn't willing to do some fact finding for themselves, usually citing that '... I don't know where to look... it takes too long. ... I can't be bothered to do all that work'.

If one is hoping that you have such an audience, then you will have no worries about what is written and whom it is directed to.

[Rollo]

Aside from insults can you refute anything in the article.

Yes. Namely this:
The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit.

There was no White Paper published on the subject in the year 2000.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hors2000.html
The only thing which comes close is the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which is an Act of Parliament and not a White Paper.


Yes, it ought, for the document to which it refers will not have had a wide audience since its release — I was certainly unaware of it — and therefore is not something on which an opinion can be formed without reference to it. Unfortunately, far too many people nowadays form their opinions on the basis of other opinions rather than fact.

:up: hear hear

An unpublished policy document poses two questions:
1) Does it exist?
2) If it does, why then does Ms Daley have access to it?

Also, an unpublished policy document can not be held to be the "government's policy", by virtue that it is in fact unpublished.

[Hondo]

No, it isn't a good read. It's a typically bonkers, paranoid read by a bonkers, paranoid columnist.

May I suggest to those North Americans who deign to comment on British affairs that they widen the horizons of their reading a little beyond the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph?

I read the guardian too Ben.

[Hondo]

Yes, it ought, for the document to which it refers will not have had a wide audience since its release — I was certainly unaware of it — and therefore is not something on which an opinion can be formed without reference to it. Unfortunately, far too many people nowadays form their opinions on the basis of other opinions rather than fact.

I thought the link made it clear it was from the comment section, which to me, is similar to editorial, which is opinion.

I was also correct in my unspoken opinion, about which side would have the most negative reaction. The state would fix things like that to protect the public from such commentary.

[Hondo]

The writer looks scary:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01252/PUFFjanet_daley_1252502a.jpg

If I were an immigrant and she was greeting me at the customs, I'd have second thoughts and might just turn around.

She does look kind of Finnish now that you mention it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, it isn't a good read. It's a typically bonkers, paranoid read by a bonkers, paranoid columnist.

May I suggest to those North Americans who deign to comment on British affairs that they widen the horizons of their reading a little beyond the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph?

I will fall over if you agreed with ANYTHING in the Mail or Telegraph. They could say the sky is blue Ben and you would find fault with it.....

Attacking the messenger is weak, and I know you can do better.

[Daniel]

She does look kind of Finnish now that you mention it.
Nah, Finns never smile THAT much :p

[Daniel]

I will fall over if you agreed with ANYTHING in the Mail or Telegraph. They could say the sky is blue Ben and you would find fault with it.....

Attacking the messenger is weak, and I know you can do better.
he's right though, the Daily Hate or Daily Moan as some call it is full of crap.

[Eki]

She does look kind of Finnish now that you mention it.
All the Finnish women thank you. If they didn't look that scary and angry before, they do now.

[BeansBeansBeans]

the abundance of outlandish 'comment' that passes for journalism.

Trollumnists.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Immagents! I knew it was them! Even when it was the Bears I knew it was them!

[BDunnell]

I thought the link made it clear it was from the comment section, which to me, is similar to editorial, which is opinion.

I was also correct in my unspoken opinion, about which side would have the most negative reaction. The state would fix things like that to protect the public from such commentary.

You say that without any proof. The article states that this document was released under the FoI Act. Why not quote from it to back up one's assertions? The reader is instead invited to take the comments about its alleged contents at face value. Given that the document has not been widely disseminated, I feel this is shoddy journalism even in a comment section.

[BDunnell]

Trollumnists.

Whose work also now passes for humour in many of today's newspapers. The likes of Alan Coren are thus all the more sorely missed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

he's right though, the Daily Hate or Daily Moan as some call it is full of crap.

The thing is Daniel, I say the same thing about the Toronto Star, a rather earnest lefty paper but I still read articles from it, and always find columnists or stories that if I am honest make good points.

I have read enough of British papers to know the Guardian is about as left at the Daily Mail is to the right, so really, all they are doing is catering to an audience. Both papers can make good points the other side could accept, but choose to slant their news. What bothers me is when "straight" news is slanted....whether it be from a paper of the left or the right.....

[Hondo]

I just thought it was an iteresting editorial.

[V12]

As I read this article I found myself subconsciously nodding and agreeing.

BUT: Nu-Labour got in power in 1997, Britain has been an open door since pretty much the end of WWII.

Most people of "non-British" descent are children, or even grandchildren of immigrants, rather than immigrants themselves. And a significant portion of the increase in these populations comes from higher birth rates as well as actual immigration.

I guess an argument could be made however that in the past immigration actually has been for genuine economic or humanitarian reasons, and if this information has been released and is there in black and white...

[Dave B]

I will fall over if you agreed with ANYTHING in the Mail or Telegraph. They could say the sky is blue Ben and you would find fault with it.....

Attacking the messenger is weak, and I know you can do better.
Weak, possibly, but valid after decades of experience. The Mail wouldn't say the sky is blue, that's the point.

It might run a column by Jan Moir or Richard Littlejohn saying that SHOCK new figures leaked by a government source (un-named, natch) suggest (not prove, you'll notice) that the sky MAY (no proof, of course) be about to turn blue thanks to decades of government neglect, and PROBABLY due to an influx of Polish immigrants who IT IS BELIEVED want to claim benefits for changing the colour of said sky - which would have a direct effect on your house prices.

[BDunnell]

Weak, possibly, but valid after decades of experience. The Mail wouldn't say the sky is blue, that's the point.

No, it would say on one page that the sky causes cancer, and on the next that it cures it.

[Rollo]

No, it would say on one page that the sky causes cancer, and on the next that it cures it.

It's funny that you should mention this. There is a website called the
The Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project , which exclusively looks at things which are supposed to cause cancer as reported by The Daily Mail.

Clicky web link:
http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.c om/

It's a bit dead now though. I bet the authors must have gotten cancer or something.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Weak, possibly, but valid after decades of experience. The Mail wouldn't say the sky is blue, that's the point.

It might run a column by Jan Moir or Richard Littlejohn saying that SHOCK new figures leaked by a government source (un-named, natch) suggest (not prove, you'll notice) that the sky MAY (no proof, of course) be about to turn blue thanks to decades of government neglect, and PROBABLY due to an influx of Polish immigrants who IT IS BELIEVED want to claim benefits for changing the colour of said sky - which would have a direct effect on your house prices.

That is one of the funniest justifications for not liking a paper I have ever read. It is like me reading the Toronto Star before I put it in the bottom of the bird cage....