Bob FM

So what figure would you like. I have taken a mean average of the various figures from official sources. I did not include per sey ethnic groups, because there are many more ethnic groups who have been here for generations. The 1 in 7 quoted refers to 'migrants' not settled and long standing British citizens. It is you who seeks to mislead. Home office figures distinguish between these groups. Amazing how you seek to make an issue of my use of the word New. Rather sums up my point about phobes etc. By the way my father's family were immigrants.

chikrodah

Let's have the sources you rely on, then, Bob - that way we can make our own decisions based on the evidence.

Bett Nwar

When you are using statistics to support your point you should not take 'mean average', but present the precise statistic or use a generalisation that can't be picked up on. Some posters go straight to the news item that has the figure they wish to quote, which is not a bad way of doing things.

I know that the 'type' that commits disprortionately more crime is the younger male and I know that young males are traditionally the larger group of migrants, but I haven't given the exact figures since I don't have them to hand and I don't think the government does either.

I have seen various figures for the number of mainly Eastern Europeans from the new EU countries that exceed your 1% on their own. There are large numbers of migrants from the old EU who have arrived recently. There are still migrants arriving from the Commonwealth as well as from the Americas (I was surprised recently to be told by someone that his lady friend was one of 100,000 Colombians recently arrived here).

I don't know what you mean by 'new', but would suspect that more than 1% have arrived in the last 2 years alone. The figures of migrants in prison are for all of those born outside the UK, subjects or not, and not just for the last 2 years. They include Jamaicans who are, IIRC, the largest group of migrants in prison by citizenship.

I'm not calling anyone a 'phobe, but you have admitted your statistic was made up. In order to arrive at a 'mean average' (I think the mathematicians might have something to say about that). You must have used figures higher than 1% and figures lower than 1%. What are the sources for the figures you used to arrive at the conclusion that 'new migrants' constitute only 1% of our population?

What do you mean by 'new'?

Internationalist

As I said on another thread, UKIP and the BNP are very different on a number of areas (e.g., economic policy) but UKIP's language and policy on immigration - and the prominence given to it - does concern me.

Here is what might make people believe that UKIP is just BNP-Lite:

- An undue obsession with immigration which suggests that it is not 'just another policy' but one of the main reasons for UKIP's existence. This includes the claim that immigration is the most important issue facing the country, the idea that we must leave the EU in order to 'regain control of our borders' and the fact that the immigration issue appears near the top of any list of reasons why we must leave the EU.

- A five-year 'moratorium' on immigration, a policy which amounts to a ban. This is not simply sensible management of migration but a retreat into a closed society. This one policy is enough to put me off voting for UKIP.

- An asylum policy which is little more than a clever way of saying that we would not accept asylum seekers. (By the way, asylum procedures were slack a few years ago but they have been massively tightened. If you fail to recognise that you lack credibility in this debate.)

- A proposal to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, a proposal that sends exactly the wrong signal to anyone worried that UKIP might be treading the same path as the BNP.

- The use of statistics out of context to suggest that the crime problem is a problem of immigration. Could it not also be (for example) a problem of inner cities, a problem of young males or a problem of poverty? You cannot suggest that immigrants have a higher propensity for crime unless immigration status proves to be statistically significant after allowing for all other factors.

- Language and rhetoric which suggests that "Europe" is the problem rather than the EU, sadly all too frequent among UKIP supporters here. Also, phrases like "getting our country back" which mean one thing when applied to EU membership but quite another when applied to immigration.

To those who would argue that UKIP's policy is non-racist, I would concede that they may be technically correct. However, you could parse the collected speeches of Enoch Powell and you would struggle to find a sentence that could be definitely shown to be racist, yet he evoked images and used rhetoric in a way that fed racism and made it mainstream. People could read into Powell's words an acknowledgement of their own fears and prejudices. Powell's use of shocking anecdotes - anecdotes that proved difficult to verify, as it happens - helped to shape a climate in which racism became acceptable.

So it matters little whether the UKIP constitution defines UKIP as a non-racist party, nor even whether the immigration policy is technically racist. It is whether the rhetoric and the profile given to this issue helps to shape a climate that feeds racism and blames immigrants for our current state of affairs.

HULKMAN

I always said I would never post on this forum ( I do read the posts and find some of them very good) but after reading recent posts I felt I had to.


Why is it that some people in this party always take a delight in having a pop at those who try to do something for this party? Both West and Hudson should be congratulated for putting on that conference. They should also be thanked for having the guts to tackle the problems this country faces. And that includes uncontrolled immigration. Why don't the critics get off their backsides and do something to promote UKIP rather than take shots at those who do. Some of the posters on here are not even UKIP members. Some left years ago so why bother about what UKIP is doing now?

As far as I am concerned Nigel Farage should be thanked for allowing West and Hudson to do this. Paul Nuttall, Gerard Batten, Rob Burberry and the rest should also be thanked for supporting the meeting. They are all a credit to the party.

I think that many of the attacks on here are connected to the Euro selection.
I doubt if they would have bothered if the likes of Batten, Nuttall, West and Hudson were not seeking selection.

There are far too many liberal wets on this forum. Perhaps they should all join the Liberal Party. Lets support those in UKIP who want to make this country great again. In my book the more conferences the better.

Nigel, John, Gerard, Paul, Chris, you a credit to UKIP. God bless you!

chikrodah

Oh lord.

HULKMAN, this is not a UKIP forum. Anybody who posts here is entitled to post on any and all sub-fora including UKIP General Issues.

West, Hudson, et al have all been congratulated for organising, speaking at and attending this conference. I note you weren't vociferous re previous conferences, their speakers and attendees. I wonder why not?

If UKIP genuinely wants nothing but Yes-men who slavishly support the party regardless, could the hierarchy please issue a statement to that effect?

That way, those of us who have already left can stop wondering if UKIP will ever change into the sort of party we'd consider rejoining and those who have stuck with UKIP in the hope of reforming parts of it can give up and leave with good grace, leaving the rest of you to enjoy life.

Many of those who are ex-UKIP have lingering loyalties to the party they thought they'd joined, as opposed to the party that UKIP has shown itself to be. All members of this forum are entitled to express their opinions re UKIP's policies. No UKIP member has the right to want those opinions stifled.

Why on earth does UKIP attract a statistically improbable number of members who cannot cope with even slight cognitive dissonance?

Yet again, we've got the accusation that, somehow, prospective MEPs are being targetted and attacked! Anybody would think you're best friends with fordtit, Legin, Star et al. Really, you're not that important. UKIP MEPs will not attain the success of the 2004 election based on UKIP's current progress. UKIP's unlikely to get even 1 MEP in several of the regions. Members of this forum don't need to do a single thing to make that scenario happen - UKIP's already managed to start itself down that path, much to the distress and shame of a number of ex-UKIPpers.

If people can't cope with debate as a party member, they shouldn't join a political party. Don't come onto a general forum and demand that we discuss things your way or not at all. Find a different hobby, one that doesn't involve interacting with people with differing opinions to your own.

Alternatively, join in the debate. Defend your corner, not with spin and vague generalities but with supporting links to the references and statistics you rely upon. That way you earn both yourself and your party some respect.

HM

You are right. My definition of xenophobia from Oxford is "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" which is why I don't think UKIP as a whole is a xenophobic party and it has no xenophobic constitution or policies. But any local organisers behaving like fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists need binning ASAP so they can go join their racist BNP mates in the inner city.

__________________

• Respice post te; hominem te esse memento!

Bob FM

Do any of you prolific posters actually have a job.

chikrodah

Yes. Do you?

Bett Nwar

Going to a meeting in 15 minutes. 2 hours followed by a management funded soiree. Do you have a job?