arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Sure, they are stealthily announcing their plan on their website. So sneaky.
Split Thread BBC news reporting
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
angrysoba
Philosophile
How is any of this related to the BBC?No, not fake. Its what they say they will do in the interim on the path to achieving their stated goal. I think even they are smart enough to know they aren't going to disappear borders overnight, so they would work towards disappearing them gradually... by stealth.
Its rather like the introduction of digital ID Labour politicians seem to have a hard-on for. They have ZERO mandate to do this because it wasn't in their manifesto... so no-one voted for it. At the moment, they are claiming people will be able to opt out, but anyone with a brain knows that is false in the long term... If digital ID is introduced, there must come a time in the future when you won't be able to exist in society without it. You will be shut out. Without digital ID, you won't have access to your own money in the bank, you wont be able to get a driver's license, you won't be able to get a job, or benefits if you don't have a job. You wont be able to apply for a passport. And then there are the hackers and cybersecurity breaches.
Who remembers the 2007 HMRC leak of 25 million records?
Lost in the post - 25 million at risk after data discs go missing
· Mass fraud fear as personal details of 7m families mislaid · Inland Revenue chief resigns following 'substantial failure' · Tories claim blunder is 'nail in coffin' of ID cards schemewww.theguardian.com
What about the 2023 (Met Police): 47,000 records lost thanks to a cock-up by a contractor?
Met Police investigating suspected data breach
Scotland Yard says it was been made aware of "unauthorised access" to data held by an outside company.www.bbc.com
What about the 2023 data breach relating to Afghanis working for the British military?
UK defence ministry fined for Afghan data breach during Taliban takeover
The British data regulator said on Wednesday it had fined the defence ministry for a series of email data breaches that revealed details of over 265 Afghans who were seeking relocation to Britain after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan.www.reuters.com
Do any of you here really trust your government (of ANY stripe) to keep your data safe from hackers?
It seems like there has been one long association chain where you started by saying that the BBC is a loony left organization and to prove it you showed a video of Alison Pearson talking to the Mumford and Sons banjo player about how it is a "Liberal Cult"
TM and not only that but this "liberal cult" is run by "po-faced Maoists" (as if Mao was some kind of liberal!).
Now you have some laundry list as long as your arm of right-wing grievances, starting with the trans stuff (obvs), immigration (despite it being the Tories whose idiotic policies on Brexit led to the largest wave of immigration on their watch), taxes and public services, apparently not enough references to African slavers on the BBC (that wasn't on my bingo card so points for originality, I guess).
Remember when the BBC Question Time Audience Editor was a supporter of Britain First?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I have a few comments here. First: "They said they'll exclude violent criminals and terrorists, but that totally doesn't mean they won't exclude other people too, it's just that they haven't said it, so they could totally decide to exclude people based on anything else if they want!" isn't a particularly strong argument. It's actually an extremely selective argument, as it's based solely on your own belief about the goodwill or nefariousness of whoever you're reading. You're basing your judgement on your belief in your own ability to mind read.
Second: You present this as if denying immigration for any reason the group in power desires is something you find acceptable. So presumably, if the Greens decided to deny immigration on the basis of religion or nation of origin or height or eye color or the size of the person's left nostril they could do that, and you would seemingly be okay with it because "they didn't say they wouldn't, and the government in charge can do immigration however they want".
Third: They also specified things that cannot be used to deny immigration: income and language.
Yes. There are steps to follow which essentially guarantee citizenship unless the person doesn't want to become a citizen and only wants to be there for travel or schooling. But if they change their mind, they'll be supported in attaining citizenship no matter what, unless they're a really bad criminal.
Bloodless invasion and conquest.
Let me turn this around for you. Let's pick... oh... New Zealand. Let's assume for this discussion that New Zealand adopts the same immigration approach that the Greens proposed. Now, pretty much anyone who wants to move to Nepal and become a citizen is free to do so with virtually no requirements other than don't be a criminal. So let's say that the entire populations of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas decide they want to live in New Zealand. That's around 50M immigrants, bringing Southern US culture and beliefs with them. That's more than the population of New Zealand, which is only around 5M. So now, there are more Southern US immigrants in New Zealand than there are Kiwis... and there are also now more Southern Baptists than there are Catholics, Anglicans, and Maori combined. There are now more voters in Nepal who bring US capitalist expectations along with Southern Baptist values and traditions.
How long does the culture of New Zealand continue to be the culture of New Zealand? How quickly do you think US Southern Baptists would irretrievably alter New Zealand, and do you think the citizens of NZ should just toll over and be happy about that? How many generations do you think it would be before the government of NZ has been altered to function more like the government of the US, with a nice Baptists veneer rubbed on it?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
For clarification, who do you think has said that their interim steps are fake? Certainly not me - I think they're quite clearly interim steps with the intention of ultimately getting their open border system in place.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
So you're on board with open borders then?
plague311
Great minds think...
Ugh...
No, I'm not. I'm basing it on what they said on their site and in the PDF but it isn't a comprehensive, legal document. It's a general outline of what they would like their immigration policy to be should they be in charge of immigration. All it's saying is that they would like to treat immigrants as people who are looking to become citizens rather than viewing them derogatorily. Read the PDF, they clarify why they want that process. It's because they feel the current immigration policy is confrontational to people immigrating, and just for clarification we aren't just talking about refugees here. As their document clearly states, there will be rules and regulations to get in.
No, but it's the way of the world. At least with this political party they seem to be genuinely accepting of people emigrating. I currently live under an administration that's literally pulling people out of citizenship ceremonies to deport them. I'm not going to get on my high horse about another country's immigration policy. We're the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ worst.
Don't you bitch about people putting words in your mouth all of the time? This is the worst strawman I've seen in recent memory.
Ironically though this is pretty much the policy of the US and I can't seem to find you complaining about it. So presumably you support the immigration policies of the United States? You don't actually have to answer, I'm not interested in seeing you carry water for Trump anymore.
Ok, so? Who gives a ◊◊◊◊? Why should immigration be based on those two things anyway? I don't see the problem here.
Ok, and? I guess I'm not seeing the downside to this, but I'm assuming you think there is one. I would guess that, given the document says they will still adhere to rules, that there will be a cap on the amount of people allowed in. I don't think they're sending out invitations or anything.
It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ disturbing that this is where your mind goes. Disturbing on a level I can't imagine. I am so, so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ happy that I don't live in perpetual fear of people "taking over" my country because they'd like to live there but again, I learn something new about people every day.
Ironically, you know who tried to do this in my state? A bunch of White Supremicist. They literally tried to move as many of their people, into a town in North Dakota, as they could to vote themselves as leaders into the local politics.
I'm not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ around with your stupid hypotheticals. This whole thing is about bias in BBC news reporting. It's not my job to defend a party that doesn't even exist in the United ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ States.
I, generally, agree with what they're saying. People who pay taxes in a country deserve the right to make decisions, especially locally (city, county), as to who represents them. I don't think that's insane. If you do, great. Good for you. I'll leave you to your hypotheticals. Maybe someone else here is dumb enough to indulge.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
My general position is that the government of a country should have discretion regarding who is allowed to immigrate to that country. I don't think it should be a fixed in stone position, given that circumstances will change within the country pretty regularly. Philosophically, I'm opposed to having meaningless exclusions (left nostril size), but I understand that one of the objectives of having immigration laws in the first place is to prioritize the needs of the country and the current citizens. People immigrating to a country should ultimately 1) make that country better and more stable and 2) assimilate into the culture of that country.
The problem should be pretty straightforward.
People with no incomes and no skills would be supported by taxpayers, which increases the burden on current citizens. Unless we're somehow running short of available bodies for unskilled manual labor jobs, allowing immigration of people who will use communal resources without contributing them reduces the quality of life for everyone else. If we're flush with funds, I think it's more reasonable to use that excess tax revenue to support legitimate refugees as a charitable act on behalf of our nation. But when we have a large and growing population of our own citizens who are already in poverty, and an increasing number of homeless people, and skyrocketing national debt, and the cost of housing and healthcare are so high that a substantial portion of our own citizens can't access those basic needs... I think it's irresponsible to allow immigration to compound that problem.
Immigrants should also be required to know the language. Being unable to communicate, to read street signs, to read important instructions is a clear barrier to assimilation and integration. And assimilation is paramount for having a cohesive culture and a stable nation.
Presumably you had a problem with that, yes? I would assume that any reasonable person would object to their culture and their shared values being altered via an influx of people who hold fundamentally incompatible beliefs. I would hope that you opposed having a bunch of people from somewhere else, with completely different beliefs and views, trying to take over your local politics?
Why would you not think this is an important consideration for immigration as well?
Based on this, I would have to surmise that you had no objection to a bunch of toxic white supremacists moving and and trying to materially influence who represents your locality by voting in people who share their views? After all, they pay local taxes, right?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
My country, full of right-wing, racist rednecks and Southern Baptists--- that is a terrifying prospect!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Which is exactly what is happening in the UK right now
Once you present lefties with the some idea of the consequences of their idealistic crusades, their idealism dissolves pretty rapidly.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
So anyway, BBC News: biased in favour of the left, the right or neither? Thoughts?*
*Relevant thoughts
*Relevant thoughts
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The BBC have become The Voice of the Elite Liberal Left.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Are you just snatching headlines from the Daily Mail now?
Or is it the name of a talk given at the Danube Institute featuring Brendan O'Neill and Rod Dreher?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The individuals are irrelevant, its the collective of the people the BBC employs that is the issue. Toxic workplace cultures don't always develop from the top down. No-one is questioning the individual motives within the BBC, no-one is claiming there is some overarching top-down conspiracy to create biased reporting and programme making... not even Farage is claiming this.
What has happened though, is that the BBC employs its editorial and management staff from a very selective and narrow demographic... liberal minded elites, all coming from the same backgrounds, all educated at similar types of schools, and all attending similar types of universities that are steeped in liberal culture - a culture that tries to cancel people like Professor Kathleen Stock, Professor Steven Greer, Dr Almut Gadow & Professor Jo Phoenix, all of whom were hounded out of academia by baying mobs of liberal elite students. Theses academics all won substantial settlements and court rulings that put the Universities in question firmly in their place - and yet those universities and liberal elites see themselves as having done nothing wrong... when they are shown and told they are wrong, they merely shrug their shoulders, flush the toilet and move on to the next target of their hatred!
And this is the problem with liberal elites. When she stood down, Deborah Turness (University of Bordeaux, University Of Surrey - well colour me surprised) stated that while 'mistakes occurred, allegations of institutional bias are unfounded'. This is the problem, they are so steeped in liberal culture, they can't even concieve of the possibility that they have a bias blind-spot and might be wrong.
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Definitely the right.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Huh? What? Again, this is nothing to do with the BBC, just free association.
You hear the word liberal and you fill in the rest “liberal elite University which cancels gender critical…”
Is this supposed to be analysis or something?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing changes in ten years....amirite?
plague311
Great minds think...
Per, what appears to be the desire of the thread, I'll drop this line of conversation. As even I felt it was too far off topic.. If you want to start a thread to discuss it, feel free to and I may pop in, but doubtful.
angrysoba
Philosophile
So in those ten years, the supposed “government-controlled” BBC (your claim for those keeping up) became a “liberal cult” (your claim again, voiced by Allison Pearson) run by “po-faced Maoists” (again, your claim) under a Tory government?
Do you see how maybe your analysis is about as laser-focused as explosive diarrhea?