J/K

'Why don't you do a liitle research on immigrant populations ...'

You're the one making the claims, so the onus is on you to do this, not me. I merely asked whether there was any substance to your assertions. That's far from me trying to prove that I'm 'clever', and for you to suggest so merely makes you appear the opposite.

That you refuse to answer, but keep threatening instead to pick up your ball and go home in a sulk ... well, that speaks volumes.

'... find out why Britain has such a high level of crime.'

But how high? And high compared to where? Once again, if you're making an assertion, let's see some hard data to back it up. Otherwise, your comments are just so much hot air.

'THIS THREAD IS CLOSED!'

As CharlesSC1 illustrates above, It's no good merely issuing a diktat in your comments. You may know what you mean, but the thread doesn't. (Even if you SHOUT it in capital letters!) If that's really what you want, you need to explicitly disable further comment against this thread.

But rather than getting shirty and storming off in a huff, why not just - gasp - leave the thread open and actually present evidence to support your position? (If you can find any, of course!)

"..why not leave the thread open...?

Ok, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like. Carry on, and don't forget that you have wandered off the original thread about the layman being over-policed and illegal immigrants being under-policed. Now you're in attack mode and I wonder whether you actually realise that a Blog is a personal statement, right or wrong.

I wonder too, whether you have your own statistics to back up your assertions. I assert that Britain's crime problems have been exascerbated by immigrants from every corner of the World (white or black). Just disprove it instead of harping on about my stand. Say to me that crime in Britain is a natural thing and is not caused by illegals, legal immigrants with low standards, housing estate drug gangs, imported prostitution, low-esteem white boys,a drug culture that is getting out of hand, and a police force that is vastly over-stretched. You do not even know what you are talking about.

So, come on, these are the problems. Can you solve them? If not,give reasons why crime in Britain is rife. You don't have an idea what I'm talking about.--you think it's a racist thing. Solve it all, clever Canary, then the UK would be perfect. And don't give aggressive answers with no substance, solve these problems!

And thanks for the points!

'I wonder whether you actually realise that a Blog is a personal statement, right or wrong.'
You would rather be wrong but unchallenged? Why post your opinions on an open thread if you don't want to hear alternative views? As I said earlier, if that's really all you want, include a disclaimer inviting copycat thinkers only to respond. And wouldn't that be stimulating (yawn)?

'I wonder too, whether you have your own statistics to back up your assertions.'
Suggest you re-read my contributions; I haven't made any assertions, other than concerning Toxocariasis, where I supplied hard data to back it up. Rather, I've asked you to provide evidence - any evidence at all, no matter how slight - to back up your claims. And you appear unable or unwilling to do so.

'And don't give aggressive answers with no substance, solve these problems!'
It's the 'problems' that have no substance, not the responses. Until and unless you can demonstrate that these are real problems and not merely your personal prejudices, this is a completely fatuous line of response. You might as well assert that backyards in the UK contain such a glut of garden gnomes it is causing the island to sink into the North Sea, and demand that I solve that 'problem' too.

First of all, you have to prove that any such 'problem' actually exists. The more reluctant you are to even attempt to justify your claims, the more people are going to assume your opinions relate to 'problems' that don't exist outside your own head.

Someone should write an article about the glut of garden gnomes causing the UK to sink into the North Sea and cite this thread, and ask people how to solve the problem.

'Someone should write an article about the glut of garden gnomes causing the UK to sink into the North Sea and cite this thread, and ask people how to solve the problem.'

Thanks for leaving the article open for me? Anyways, I have to agree with Canary here. You claimed that crime rates in Britain are up due to illegal immigrants and that enforcing illegal immigrant laws instead of minor laws such as smoking in non smoking places can reduce the crime rate so in reality we did not deviate from the topic, we were dead on if anything.

You have not provided any proof of your claims and I did a little bit of research and could not find any that suggested that high crime rates in Britain are related to the illegal immigration problem. But then I am not as good as some around here finding this stuff, but I should have found at least something, which I didn't.

I don't understand you. You are complaining that Britain is enforcing a law and punishing the law breaker with the punishment set for this crime. I have never heard of such a thing. People are constantly decrying that the laws here in the US are not being enforced all the time. Lets apply you logic here in the US.

Do you think that cops are not stopping people who break speed limit laws? I mean even though thousands of people get pulled over and fined for speed every day, I still see no change in the way people drive. They way I see it for every 1 person I see not exceeding the speed limit there are 20 cars that are. Do you think cops are not enforcing murder laws considering that murder rates are still too high in this country? What about rapist, thieves, drug dealer, etc.? All these people are arrested all the time, many are convicted, many are incarcerated, some are even sentenced to death; yet these crimes still happen, the rates are still too high. The same goes for illegal immigration except there are some laws not being enforced because they are conflicting with human right laws in the US.

Should a person be arrested for panhandling? Loitering? Driving 3 miles above the speed limit? Not using a seat belt? Not paying a ticket? Of course not, I don't think so. These are petty crimes, a fine is good enough, but there are States, Counties, Cities, Towns and countries where people are arrested for this. And if there is a law for these simply crimes with a punishment as harsh as an arrest not being enforced, how will I believe they will enforce other laws?

'You claimed that crime rates in Britain are up due to ...'

Thanks for your support, CharlesCS1, you make some salient points.

I would add only this. Before adnauseam starts postulating as to the causes of high and / or rising crime rates in the UK, he should demonstrate that this actually is the case. How high is 'high'? High compared to when and / or where? So far, he hasn't done so, which makes his argument entirely moot.

'Ok, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like.'

That's not what I suggested. What I said was this (pertinent passage underlined):

'But rather than getting shirty and storming off in a huff, why not just - gasp - leave the thread open and actually present evidence to support your position? (If you can find any, of course!)'

There is absolutely no point in our continuing to post on this thread unless you supply some corroboration for your initial position. Until you do, your arguments are entirely baseless. And unless you do, it is quite proper for me to infer that your position is based on personal prejudice and a lack of reason. So, come on adnauseam, pursue one of the three courses of action available to you:
1) Present some hard evidence to support your position;
2) Retract your claims; or
3) Admit that your position is based on personal biases, not objective data.

'Sounds to me like your problem is with black people, not smoking laws.'
Doesn't it just?

It's interesting that adnauseam has elected not to respond to my invitation to explain the basis for his position. Sometimes, to quote Murray Head, 'Silence is a strong reply'.

Let me just say that it is incredibly rude and ill-mannered to continue baiting a blogger on his own blog, especially after he has closed a thread. Whether I am right or wrong does not matter. What you are doing is contrary to Joeuser's rules and contrary to blog etiquette anywhere.

Why don't you take your incredibly arrogant attitude, your university halo and your self-opiniated grin to another JU place.

'Let me just say that it is incredibly rude and ill-mannered to continue baiting a blogger on his own blog, especially after he has closed a thread.'

For the umpteenth time, adnauseam, the thread is NOT closed. Quite apart from anything else, I refer you to what you wrote only a few contributions ago - 'Ok, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like.'

Besides, if it were closed, nobody would be able to add further comments. I cannot believe that you are incapable of working out how to disable the thread if that's what you really wanted. Consequently, that you have left it open suggests to me you secretly welcome the opportunity to demonstrate your 'outrage'.

'What you are doing is contrary to Joeuser's rules'
Just which rule have I broken? By all means, report me to Admin and have me reprimanded - otherwise, I'll take it as read that you apologise completely and unreservedly. Anyone reading this thread will see that all I have done is invited you - repeatedly - to provide some evidence, no matter how flimsy, to support your arguments. That you continue to refuse to do so leaves your position open to the kind of interpretation that Little Whip offers above.

'... your self-opiniated grin'
Even assuming you actually mean 'self-opinionated', how on earth can a facial expression think highly of itself?

'... your university halo'
I have never said anything about my education (or lack of) here. Anything you've read into my comments to that effect reflects far more upon you than me. However, I do notice that you describe yourself on another of your threads as a 'director' of a 'prestigious school'. I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students, having such an anti-education, inverted snob in a position of responsibility.

'Whether I am right or wrong does not matter.'
Now we get to the crux of the matter.

Pardon if I misquote this. It's close.

"Alcohol and tobacco kill more people every year than anything else combined, so what do we do? We ban artificial sweeteners because a rat died. And now we're talking about banning toy guns, but we're gonna keep the fuckin' REAL ones!" ~George Carlin

I'm a smoker, by the way, and highly recommend Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" episode about second hand smoke.

'The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.'
Excuse my density, LW, but you've lost me.

'Alcohol and tobacco kill more people every year than anything else combined, so what do we do? We ban artificial sweeteners because a rat died.'
Cute.

'I'm a smoker, by the way ...'
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the way smokers are treated these days. Dennis Potter once remarked (and I'm probably misquoting a little too, but the point should be clear enough), 'If you pull out a cigarette in a Los Angeles cafe, the negative reaction is usually more extreme than if you had pulled out a handgun.'

My gripe with this thread is simply that it makes claims that are unsubstantiated and / or without substance, and the author is unwilling to address either criticism.

Incidentally, I think Joe Jackson's treatise on the subject of smoking is extremely well thought out:
Link

From the "Sound Of Music":

"Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start..."

I'm enjoying this thread (again), and (having never black-listed anyone), will not do so now. After all, if you persist in going off into tangents, that's your problem. I initially stated that Britain is more concerned about petty laws when they cannot get to grips with more serious situations such as immigration shortcomings. You can call me the biggest racist under the sun but I still assert that the crime problem is exascerbated by the uncontrolled flow of immigrants into Britain. I have already stated that many immigrants from the African /Carribean region are caught up in crime, sometimes serious crime. I invite you to disprove this.

I can also tell you that British authorities are so sensitive about crimes that are caused by the Black youth that they will not publish figures. We only have to watch Sky News to see the balance. If you, as an expert on crime, expert on immigration and expert on law, feel that I am accusing the immigants, you are wrong. I am accusing the UK authorities of being incredibly lax when it comes to assessing suitability for immigration--and worse, allowing foreigners to outstay their welcome. This is hopefully being tightened up now.

It is not a question of colour. It is a question of suitability. New laws are to be introduced that will vet potential immigrants as far as language and knowledge of the UK is concerned. If you want to get into Australia, you have to be skilled, speak English and have a few quid in your pocket. That's how it should be. The UK immigration laws are long overdue for an update but I guess you have the answer.

As for LW. I note that you catch the wind according to your feelings. Keep them within reason.

'I invite you to disprove this.'
Laugh? I've had to wring my socks out!

But (semi-)seriously, let's do what you say, adnauseam, and 'start at the beginning'.

Recap - you claim, among other things:
1) That immigration into the UK is uncontrolled;
2) That this causes discrimination against smokers;
3) That most immigrant Nigerians, Somalians, Ethiopians and Zimbabweans form gangs, claim welfare, and/or deal in drugs, prostitution and theft; and
4) That there is a damning report on the racial breakdown of prison populations on www.blink.org.uk - the website, incidentally, of an organisation that promotes the interests of black Britons. (There is no such report to be found, damning or otherwise.)

The only 'evidence' you present to support your hypotheses is to claim that:
1) On the one hand, the government is keeping all relevant data hidden; but
2) On the other, that the truth of what you say is obvious to anyone who watches 'Sky News'.

And the onus is on me to disprove your ranting?

Not until you refute, rigorously and comprehensively, my equally well-founded assertion that a surfeit of garden gnomes is causing the UK to collapse into the North Sea!

Perhaps I'll finish with a little quote of my own, also from 'The Sound of Music'. Where it says 'Maria', readers should feel free to substitute the name of an appropriate blogger.

'How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!'   

'If you want to get into Australia, you have to be skilled, speak English and have a few quid in your pocket.That's how it should be.'

Oh, I missed this latest gem. But don't fret, I only have two things to add:
1) The first sentence is factually wrong. (But I'm sure you're getting used to that.)
2) The second sentence is, I think I can say without fear of contradiction (but you never know), not a fact but your opinion. And it explains many of your still unsubstantiated claims from earlier in this thread, adnauseam.

'Meet Matilda.'
Hey, my luck's changed! (I usually get the ugly one ...)   

Summer's here! Gone fishing.

Looking through my tackle box. Needs more hooks, Rapalas and sinkers. Up comes a message just as I load up the box and the boat:

" I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students --having such an anti-education inverted snob in a position of responsibility."

Whew, I thought for a while you were educated, showed moderate bias and would realise that you are blogging in the ether world. How on earth can I take you seriously now? You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end. You cannot judge me for what is essentially a blog expressing an opinion. Would you care to tell me what you do, how successful you are and whether you get on with your co-workers? I doubt you do. How do you justify such a statement as the above especially when I've been an educationist for over thirty years and regard my school, a good school, as a very important part of my life.

This is not a slur--it proves your ignorance--and I thought you were a "heavy" who would not lower himself. I'm off on holiday--thought I'd catch a cuda with my Rapala. Caught a fool instead.

I'm gonna have to assume that you were trying to insult Furry with this. To be honest it came off as ignorant and childish. You chose to insult someone who was "debating" on a blogging website rather than actually debate with him. Why did you create this article posting you opinion on an issue you felt was very important only to get upset and try to verbally close down the article because you did not like what one person or 2 had to say about your opinion? Wow and people criticize Bush for doing or saying what he wants and making himself supreme over everyone else's opinion.

You tried to point out that Britain was making more of a big deal of petty crimes such as smoking in a non smoking place instead focusing on bigger problems such as illegal immigrants. The problem is you are comparing the handling of petty crimes and immigration based on 2 smoking incidents and 1 illegal immigrant incident. As if this is enough to say that smokers are more important than illegal immigrants. But you failed to show facts that prove that there are more smokers being arrested than illegal immigrants. Where are these facts? Your word? Thats it? And then you stereotype by blaming most crimes on these illegal immigrants as if citizens and legal immigrants are somehow immune to committing crimes. This is not being "person with a sense of logical thought and a penchant for wanting 2 + 2 to equal 4", this is cherry picking 3 situations that are not related and are not handled by the same people.

I would expect a cop to give me a ticket for illegal parking, I won't get mad at him because of all the illegal immigrants he ignores. This is not the same. I would think you would be happy that they are enforcing a law instead you are mad because even though the law is in the books with a punishment to go with it you don't want lawbreakers to be punished unless the law being broken is a big one. Sounds kinda ignorant if you ask me.

BTW, I find it incredibly rude and ill-mannered to say we are debating in a closed article when you posted these exact words:



"OK, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like." Those were your words. I can't stand extremely childish people who can't even follow their own replies. Especially when no one deviated from the topic of the article. Of course from minute one all you have done is point how you are the owner of the article and how what you say goes. And then people like you criticize Bush for wanting things his way and not listening to the thoughts of others. Hypocrisy and Col gene come to mind.

Okay, a quick recap:
Furry Canary: " I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students --having such an anti-education inverted snob in a position of responsibility."
adnauseam: 'How do you justify such a statement as the above especially when I've been an educationist for over thirty years and regard my school, a good school, as a very important part of my life.'

1) 'Why don't you take your incredibly arrogant attitude, your university halo and your self-opiniated grin to another JU place.'
That certainly reads like anti-education, inverted snobbery to me, and on the basis of - gasp! - no evidence. (Now, who was it who once said, 'You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end'? Ah yes, it was you, adnauseam.)

2) My comment was not about what you think, but about what the other staff and students at the school might think. Big difference.

3) Shouldn't your sentence have finished with a question mark, Mr. 'Educationist'?

Gone fishing!

Since the moment you posted the aritcle.