Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Pickpocketing: another dividend of multiculturalism? Watch

    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    We're an island nation, the U.S shares a 2000 mile land border with a much poorer Mexican neighbour. I don't think your comparison is a valid one.
    We may be an island nation but the sea which surrounds us is hardly treacherous, I mean dinghies and canoes cross on a regular basis. It is also very narrow, narrower than the strait which separates Cuba from Florida for example.

    Besides we already have a ferry system which links us with mainland Europe through ports up and down the country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    On this bit, do you not see a bit problem for UKIP here? Namely that all seats of power outside of politics (the rest of the Establishment) are inhabited by people who don't particularly like UKIP or its policies and will do all they can, which is a lot, to prevent them being implemented.

    The people who make up the upper echelons of the City, the directors of FTSE 100 companies; the senior civil servants; professionals (City solicitors, Big 4 accountants, architects, barristers, doctors etc.); editors of national papers; bosses of ITV, the BBC and Sky; the judiciary; senior staff of the Armed Forces and the Police; Vice-Chancellors etc. etc. don't like them. In addition they all move within quite small social circles (often went to school or university together) and thus can easily work together to stall, delay etc. UKIP's policies. You may argue you could just replace them, but these people are highly skilled and experienced, it's not necessarily as simple as bringing your own guys in.

    From UKIP's perspective (not somewhere I normally find myself ) even if they got a big majority in the HoC they will be essentially sat in a car without the keys, they're nominally in control of it but they can't get it do anything.

    I'm not saying this as a knock on UKIP, I think it's a bad thing myself, just that as one of the first anti-Establishment parties to come within even a sniff of power in a century, it's something it probably has to start considering.
    It's an interesting point and one I hadn't given much consideration. If the ruling elites disagree with our assessment and our core beliefs then all I would like to know is - why? Why should we be part of the EU when it prevents us from protecting the borders, stops us from trading with the rest of the world, burdens us with regulation and costs us in excess of £40m per day? Don't they want the British to be self-governing and autonomous? Ok they may be powerful and influencial, but if their arguments are bunkem eventually they'll get found out and the public will lose their faith in them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    We may be an island nation but the sea which surrounds us is hardly treacherous, I mean dinghies and canoes cross on a regular basis. It is also very narrow, narrower than the strait which separates Cuba from Florida for example.

    Besides we already have a ferry system which links us with mainland Europe through ports up and down the country.
    Are nearest neighbours are Holland and France, they're hardly 3rd world nations are they?

    We're a first world nation surrounded by other first world nations, if we flood our country with 3rd world immigrants it's because The Power That Be have decided -for whatever reason- it's a good idea. The English didn't become a minority in their capital city because millions of immigrants illegally crossed the channel in rubber dinghies, they're here because someone invited them. We could easily stop inviting them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Not yet, but wait until 1st January 2014 when they can legally come over here en mass. The underground will be awash with thieves and pickpockets and there won't be a thing we can do about it, except throw yet more taxpayers' cash at it in the form of undercover policing. I honestly despair at the way this country is run sometimes.
    Please don't make sweeping generalisations. I've been to Romania and met the gypsies who everyone seems to in such a fuss about and there really is a different side to every story which is shown in the media.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    It's an interesting point and one I hadn't given much consideration. If the ruling elites disagree with our assessment and our core beliefs then all I would like to know is - why? Why should we be part of the EU when it prevents us from protecting the borders, stops us from trading with the rest of the world, burdens us with regulation and costs us in excess of £40m per day? Don't they want the British to be self-governing and autonomous? Ok they may be powerful and influencial, but if their arguments are bunkem eventually they'll get found out and the public will lose their faith in them.
    Obviously, as I'm sure you know, there are lots of ideological grounds for being in favour of the EU (belief in free trade, the value of competition, need for ever larger trading blocks in a globalised world etc.) which they may subscribe to.

    More cynically, because it benefits them. Free movement of capital and persons undoubtedly help those who are wealthy and they're not too fussed about whether Britain is or isn't self governing because they rule it and people they agree with rule Brussels (centrist social democrats).

    You're assuming these people need to make arguments to the public, but they can wield huge amounts of power from behind the scenes, why come into the public eye and risk losing it all? They know the UK can't function without a judiciary, corporations, banks, financial industries, doctors, accountants etc. so there's not a huge amount you can threaten them with. You may be able to stop their self perpetuation in the long term, but short term you can't run the country without them.

    If UKIP hopes to win power by 2020 (realistically 2015 would require some major event between now and then I think, there's only so fast you can build up the necessary apparatus to win a GE) I think it needs to think about how it would handle this issue, because if the Establishment's recalcitrance makes it very difficult for them to implement policies successfully and there isn't much change they'd be toast come the next election given the ticket they stand on. I'll admit I'm assuming they behave badly about it, but there's no guarantees they won't and they have plenty of motivation to do so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    OMG it's not that hard! Second generation immigrant means BOTH parents are foreign born. Read my post again. The Queen is British born so no, Chuck isn't a second generation immigrant.
    Those issues are related to 2nd g- immigrants, one anecdote or two won't change the fact.
    The point of the term is to show that a generation ago this family were immigrants. Your rhetoric seems to suggest that being labelled an immigrant is bad.
    Yes, he is. He'd actually be a 2.5 generation - this is because HRH Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark was a Danish/Greek immigrant/asylum seeker.

    But if one is called so-and-so generation immigrant, it tacitly denotes their status as British citizens - we even have numerous born and bred black and brown Members of Parliament who would be termed so-and-so generation immigrants; they're citizens for crying out loud. A generation ago, there was no family. When the child was born, that child was automatically a citizen. To label as so-and-so generation immigrants is negligible and irrelevant - it seems to imply that there is a possible that the child can be "sent back" to where they came from - when, in fact, the child never came from anywhere and was born and automatically became a citizen - such of this "generation immigrant" nominates simply plays into the hand of parties like the BNP. If it were to ever get into power (it won't lol), it could easily latch onto the generation-immigrant stuff and easily claim citizens as immigrants and force out citizens as high as second or third generation "immigrant" status.

    It's ridiculous. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Yes, he is. He'd actually be a 2.5 generation - this is because HRH Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark was a Danish/Greek immigrant/asylum seeker.

    But if one is called so-and-so generation immigrant, it tacitly denotes their status as British citizens - we even have numerous born and bred black and brown Members of Parliament who would be termed so-and-so generation immigrants; they're citizens for crying out loud. A generation ago, there was no family. When the child was born, that child was automatically a citizen. To label as so-and-so generation immigrants is negligible and irrelevant - it seems to imply that there is a possible that the child can be "sent back" to where they came from - when, in fact, the child never came from anywhere and was born and automatically became a citizen - such of this "generation immigrant" nominates simply plays into the hand of parties like the BNP. If it were to ever get into power (it won't lol), it could easily latch onto the generation-immigrant stuff and easily claim citizens as immigrants and force out citizens as high as second or third generation "immigrant" status.

    It's ridiculous. :rolleyes:
    I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You clearly have no idea what 'immigrant' means. I don't know how many times I've repeated this to you now; second generation immigrant usually means having BOTH (BOOOTHH!!!) parents born in another country. The fact that you relate being an immigrant or a second or a third generation immigrant to something bad is quite disappointing. There's nothing wrong with being an immigrant. Again, it has nothing to do with citizenship. It's all in your own head, you seem to have a very negative view on immigrants, bordelining on self-hate. If you're an immigrant with a citizenship, you can't be sent anywhere so your comment on 'the child being sent away' or however you phrased it, makes no sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    Obviously, as I'm sure you know, there are lots of ideological grounds for being in favour of the EU (belief in free trade, the value of competition, need for ever larger trading blocks in a globalised world etc.) which they may subscribe to.

    More cynically, because it benefits them. Free movement of capital and persons undoubtedly help those who are wealthy and they're not too fussed about whether Britain is or isn't self governing because they rule it and people they agree with rule Brussels (centrist social democrats).

    You're assuming these people need to make arguments to the public, but they can wield huge amounts of power from behind the scenes, why come into the public eye and risk losing it all? They know the UK can't function without a judiciary, corporations, banks, financial industries, doctors, accountants etc. so there's not a huge amount you can threaten them with. You may be able to stop their self perpetuation in the long term, but short term you can't run the country without them.

    If UKIP hopes to win power by 2020 (realistically 2015 would require some major event between now and then I think, there's only so fast you can build up the necessary apparatus to win a GE) I think it needs to think about how it would handle this issue, because if the Establishment's recalcitrance makes it very difficult for them to implement policies successfully and there isn't much change they'd be toast come the next election given the ticket they stand on. I'll admit I'm assuming they behave badly about it, but there's no guarantees they won't and they have plenty of motivation to do so.
    These shadowy individuals may wield an enormous amount of power behind the scenes but their pro-EU position hasn't crystallised into anything significant electorally.

    Do any of the Big Three now support our continued membership of the EU without reform and without a referendum to settle the matter? I don't think so, and this is testament to the way UKIP have altered the political map. A few years ago reform wasn't even on the agenda, indeed you'd have been written off as a crank for suggesting something as outlandish and unnecessary as a referendum. Thanks almost entirely to Farage though mainstream politicians are now tripping over themselves to prove how Septical they are! The power wielders have lost the initiative because the public mood has changed.

    What you're suggesting is the suppression of democratic will, no doubt they'll string things out for as long as they can but I don't see the EU as a viabvle institution in the long term. Even if the British don't withdraw it could very well collapse anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You clearly have no idea what 'immigrant' means. I don't know how many times I've repeated this to you now; second generation immigrant usually means having BOTH (BOOOTHH!!!) parents born in another country. The fact that you relate being an immigrant or a second or a third generation immigrant to something bad is quite disappointing. There's nothing wrong with being an immigrant. Again, it has nothing to do with citizenship. It's all in your own head, you seem to have a very negative view on immigrants, bordelining on self-hate. If you're an immigrant with a citizenship, you can't be sent anywhere so your comment on 'the child being sent away' or however you phrased it, makes no sense.
    Dictionary:

    Immigrant


    "a
    person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence."
    By definition, a child born in Britain (and therefore a citizen by birth) clearly does not fulfill the definition. It's up there for you in black and white.

    The child has not moved from anyway. He has not emigrated from somewhere. Regardless of his parents, the definition (as seen above) has not been satisfied.

    On the other hand, it would be right and correct by definition to call said child as "of foreign descent". This is both factually correct and correct by definition. But to call said child an "immigrant" is incorrect by definition.

    This is not self-hate or hate towards "immigrant" - this is a scientific and empirical analysis of the word "immigrant". To call said child immigrant would be to misread the definition of "immigrant".
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    These shadowy individuals may wield an enormous amount of power behind the scenes but their pro-EU position hasn't crystallised into anything significant electorally.

    Do any of the Big Three now support our continued membership of the EU without reform and without a referendum to settle the matter? I don't think so, and this is testament to the way UKIP have altered the political map. A few years ago reform wasn't even on the agenda, indeed you'd have been written off as a crank for suggesting something as outlandish and unnecessary as a referendum. Thanks almost entirely to Farage though mainstream politicians are now tripping over themselves to prove how Septical they are! The power wielders have lost the initiative because the public mood has changed.

    What you're suggesting is the suppression of democratic will, no doubt they'll string things out for as long as they can but I don't see the EU as a viabvle institution in the long term. Even if the British don't withdraw it could very well collapse anyway.
    Well it's helped to keep pro-EU parties, or the parties pro-EU spending how you view it, in power since the 70, I wouldn't call it insignificant.

    I'm not just talking about the EU though, as Farage likes to remind us UKIP are not a single issue party, but the rest of their suggested policies in terms of tax (can you see a simplified tax system going down well at the Big 4 HQs for example?), bringing back grammars (the public school system does them quite well thanks) etc. also have to be implemented and they need these people to help implement them.

    You're thinking that the only way these people can exercise power is through having policies they support implemented in frontline politics, I would suggest that the power they hold directly in their hands through their professions (controlling the nation's money, courts, media etc) is just as great as any influence they have on politicians.

    They may concede on the EU if they feel the tide is too strong, and I'm not sure circa 50% is, but they are more than capable of obstructing what may be the democratic will on a host of other issues if they want to.

    Given the politics of this they only have to restrain it for a period, a UKIP government would come to power promising sweeping changes, if voters don't see these changes they'll quickly turn against them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Dictionary:

    Immigrant



    By definition, a child born in Britain (and therefore a citizen by birth) clearly does not fulfill the definition. It's up there for you in black and white.

    The child has not moved from anyway. He has not emigrated from somewhere. Regardless of his parents, the definition (as seen above) has not been satisfied.

    On the other hand, it would be right and correct by definition to call said child as "of foreign descent". This is both factually correct and correct by definition. But to call said child an "immigrant" is incorrect by definition.

    This is not self-hate or hate towards "immigrant" - this is a scientific and empirical analysis of the word "immigrant". To call said child immigrant would be to misread the definition of "immigrant".
    Scientific? Where's your hypothesis and falsification attempts?
    You just proved yourself wrong with that definition (which I already used in my previous post). You are saying ''they are citizens for crying out loud'' and that being called a second generation immigrant neglects ones citizenship etc. I have being trying to convience you for the last hour or so that being an immigrant has nothing to do with citizenship. Many immigrants got citizenships. It's about where you were born, which I stated previously. The fact that you used my own definition (the definition you actually disagreed with somewhat) to try and argue that I'm wrong proves very little.

    Anyways, we were discussing second-generation immigrant and the definition of that. A child born of two immigrant parents is called a second-generation immigrant. There's your 'factual data' or whatever term you used.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    Well it's helped to keep pro-EU parties, or the parties pro-EU spending how you view it, in power since the 70, I wouldn't call it insignificant.

    I'm not just talking about the EU though, as Farage likes to remind us UKIP are not a single issue party, but the rest of their suggested policies in terms of tax (can you see a simplified tax system going down well at the Big 4 HQs for example?), bringing back grammars (the public school system does them quite well thanks) etc. also have to be implemented and they need these people to help implement them.

    You're thinking that the only way these people can exercise power is through having policies they support implemented in frontline politics, I would suggest that the power they hold directly in their hands through their professions (controlling the nation's money, courts, media etc) is just as great as any influence they have on politicians.

    They may concede on the EU if they feel the tide is too strong, and I'm not sure circa 50% is, but they are more than capable of obstructing what may be the democratic will on a host of other issues if they want to.

    Given the politics of this they only have to restrain it for a period, a UKIP government would come to power promising sweeping changes, if voters don't see these changes they'll quickly turn against them.
    Are you saying that because so many depend upon the leviathan of the state for their livelihood they won't allow a party like UKIP to implement a full programme of libertarian-esque reforms? If so I agree.

    Labour were so sucessful in building up the client state they've made it virtually impossible for anyone else to break it down. To put it another way, if there are more parasites than producers and everybody has one vote a party who comes along with a rational message along the lines of: 'lets produce more instead of stealing from one another' won't win because public morality has been corrupted. Not only that but UKIP's economic policies are wrong anyway, so we don't have the comprehensive vision needed to tempt people away from their easy loot.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Are you saying that because so many depend upon the leviathan of the state for their livelihood they won't allow a party like UKIP to implement a full programme of libertarian-esque reforms? If so I agree.

    Labour were so sucessful in building up the client state they've made it virtually impossible for anyone else to break it down. To put it another way, if there are more parasites than producers and everybody has one vote a party who comes along with a rational message along the lines of: 'lets produce more instead of stealing from one another' won't win because public morality has been corrupted. Not only that but UKIP's economic policies are wrong anyway, so we don't have the comprehensive vision needed to tempt people away from their easy loot.
    It's not so much that they depend on the state directly, just that the system of governance has been created by them and favours them.

    So for example, a tax partner at PWC does not depend on the state, he is officially self employed, but they do depend on the state maintaining a very complex system of tax which allows them to continue to exploit loopholes in it and charge clients for the privilege. Ditto a City solicitor does not depend on the state, but he does depend on the state keeping a certain legal system which he understands and other don't. A national newspaper editor again does not depend on the state, but the system as it is has seen them rise to a position of significant influence and they don't want that changed. Investment bankers rely upon government being fairly lax on regulation of their activities.

    These people are not clients of the state, more they are successful because the status quo is designed by people like them and helps them to continue to flourish, changing any significant part, of which government definitely is one, of this threatens this success.

    What I'm trying to say is they have a vested interest in the status quo, as it has served them very well, thus UKIP, or any non mainstream party, rocking the boat will be greeted with resistance in favour of the current set up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What does this have to do with multiculturalism? You seem to think that immigration = multiculturalism
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Are nearest neighbours are Holland and France, they're hardly 3rd world nations are they?

    We're a first world nation surrounded by other first world nations, if we flood our country with 3rd world immigrants it's because The Power That Be have decided -for whatever reason- it's a good idea. The English didn't become a minority in their capital city because millions of immigrants illegally crossed the channel in rubber dinghies, they're here because someone invited them. We could easily stop inviting them.
    However we aren't discussing illegal immigrants who come into the UK looking for work etc. This thread concerns eastern European criminals entering the UK purely for crime.

    My point is that closing the borders and leaving the EU won't keep these people out, they will simply find another way.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The fact that there have been pickpockets in London for hundreds of years, before we had any Eastern Europeans, clearly escapes some people.

    As someone else pointed out; London is a city which is 55% first, second or third generation immigrants. So it's not so surprising that the majority of pickpockets are immigrants too, especially when you factor in the number of them below the poverty line compared to non-immigrants.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    It's not so much that they depend on the state directly, just that the system of governance has been created by them and favours them.

    So for example, a tax partner at PWC does not depend on the state, he is officially self employed, but they do depend on the state maintaining a very complex system of tax which allows them to continue to exploit loopholes in it and charge clients for the privilege. Ditto a City solicitor does not depend on the state, but he does depend on the state keeping a certain legal system which he understands and other don't. A national newspaper editor again does not depend on the state, but the system as it is has seen them rise to a position of significant influence and they don't want that changed. Investment bankers rely upon government being fairly lax on regulation of their activities.

    These people are not clients of the state, more they are successful because the status quo is designed by people like them and helps them to continue to flourish, changing any significant part, of which government definitely is one, of this threatens this success.

    What I'm trying to say is they have a vested interest in the status quo, as it has served them very well, thus UKIP, or any non mainstream party, rocking the boat will be greeted with resistance in favour of the current set up.
    I pretty much agree with everything you say here. The phenomenon you're referring to is subsidisation. In the name of 'safety' the state dishes out incredibly lucrative subsidies to a select number of chosen professions. Take plumbing as an example. I worked in Cornwall with my dad for a few months last year and found out that he does a lot of Landlord Gas Safety Certificates, this is a legal requirement if you're renting your home out and at £50 a go for an hour's work (max!), it's a nice way to make a living. The thing is not everybody can do it though because you have to pass quite a few qualifications to become Gas Safe registered. In other words the state keep barriers to entry high and this in turn allows certificated installers to make handsome returns. I even accused him of being a Coucnil worker at one point! I think he understood what I meant.

    This model is replicated throughout all the professions you mention and more and it's bleeding the economy dry. I don't know if UKIP is trong enough to take these V.Is head on, only time will tell I guess.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    The fact that there have been pickpockets in London for hundreds of years, before we had any Eastern Europeans, clearly escapes some people.

    As someone else pointed out; London is a city which is 55% first, second or third generation immigrants. So it's not so surprising that the majority of pickpockets are immigrants too, especially when you factor in the number of them below the poverty line compared to non-immigrants.
    Anyone can go to London to pickpocket, you don't have to live in London to 'work' there. The fact is there are some 40 odd million English people in England but the London Underground is almost exclusively targeted by foreign pickpockets. This has little to do with the ethnic makeup of London and more do with traditional British values vs Eastern European ones.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    The fact that there have been pickpockets in London for hundreds of years, before we had any Eastern Europeans, clearly escapes some people.

    As someone else pointed out; London is a city which is 55% first, second or third generation immigrants. So it's not so surprising that the majority of pickpockets are immigrants too, especially when you factor in the number of them below the poverty line compared to non-immigrants.
    The programme on 4oD stated nearly all pickpockets were eastern european. What is the sense in moving to another country just to live in that country's relative poverty? Refugees its too some extent an understandable argument however in times of hard such as now, recession etc. Changes have to be made. Pickpocketing gangs are organised crime rings, that start from the original country, it has nothing to do with the person living in poverty, their purpose is to go to a country and pickpocket people, and send all the money and wealth back to wherever country they came from.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Anyone can go to London to pickpocket, you don't have to live in London to 'work' there. The fact is there are some 40 odd million English people in England but the London Underground is almost exclusively targeted by foreign pickpockets. This has little to do with the ethnic makeup of London and more do with traditional British values vs Eastern European ones.
    Traditional British Values? So a hundred years ago, when there was a LOT of pickpocketing in London and no Eastern Europeans, what do you blame for it then?
    It has nothing to do with different values in different countries, and everything to do with the ethnic make up of London, combined with the number of Eastern Europeans below the poverty line. Those who pickpocket have mostly always been people in huge financial trouble, living below the poverty line; back when it was poor British kids living on the streets it was the same. Now, because there is far more welfare available and most people born in this country don't need to pickpocket, it is mostly people from other countries that do so because they are the ones who are disadvantaged.

    If you go to an Eastern European country you aren't going to be pickpocketed all of the time, so it's a ridiculous assumption to make that it's somehow a cultural thing form that part of the world.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 23, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.