An immigration policy based on an individuals ability to contribute to the country allowing them in is racist? Australia and Canada must terribly xenophobic. Strange that they're thriving in these tough economic times.

We already have an immigration policy based on exactly that and have done for years and years.

Which part of our current policy do you imagine is 'open door'? Why don't you go and look into what it actually takes to get into this country and come back with some facts?

Anyway, none of this is particularly relevant to this thread - the two men who carried out Wednesday's attack were British because although you maintain that being born in Britain doesn't make you British international law says you're wrong.

The open door part is the bit where we can't kick them back out for being illegal as it's against their European human rights and instead we have to house and feed them then let them suck some more life out of the economy and add nothing too it.
I'm all for migration - lets see how it works in say the UAE, yep that's right you do as they say or you're out. You contribute or you're out, you are sponsored by someone. There are no housing benefits, no NHS, no free schools, if you don't earn you can't live. Europe is far too soft.

The main problem there, Muzzie, is that you're making up things to be angry about. To try to address your points:

1. We have every legal right to deport illegal immigrants and do so on a regular basis. It's not always a simple matter, because some illegals surprisingly refuse to cooperate and won't, say, tell the authorities where they've come from. We can't just put them on a boat to "foreign", because the countries we're deporting them to want proof that they came from there in the first place and have a legal right of residence. Just like we do.

2. Illegal immigrants have no right to UK housing or benefits. We do put them in detention centres while we're finding out where they came from and waiting to deport them, where we do have to feed them otherwise they tend to die. Which is inconvenient, messy and expensive.

3. Some illegal immigrants claim asylum, which they're entitled to do under International Law (i.e. nothing to do with the EU or European Human Rights). Asylum seekers are generally housed in temporary accommodation and receive a small amount of benefits to live on; around £30/week, the majority of which is in the form of vouchers which can only be spent on approved items.

4. We used to have a very similar system to the one you describe in UAE, we called it "Victorian England", but we got better.

I'm not angry, you're confusing me with Brewster . I simply responded to your policy statement - real life actions are far far apart. Lets face it it's a small Island, Island meaning we should beable to control our borders efficiently and we don't / can't. Simple.

I don't believe that it's any better than Victorian England. In my mind we have technological improvements and a shed load more ineffective laws that have great potential but fall short.

As I've said above I'm not anti any race / religion and have been in most posts above on the side of ethnic minorities. You seem to be trying to give a polar opposite view of some comments, I was putting in my view and understanding as you are.

Back OT - I wish they'd stop the minute by minute break down, video clips and sesationalist reporting. A man and family have suffered a great tragidy, I find it most disrespectful plaster these images everywhere. Starting to feel like it's being done as part of the ratings war, not for information.

A bit like Boston the other week; media feeding frenzy.

Totally - it makes me sick. No respect for the injured party, instead just over sesationalising for views / reads and making everything that bit worse.

I think it's only going to become more common, in teh short term at least.

The feeding frenzy is due to Media teams competing with Twitter and other social networks. It will only get worse too

This is quite interesting

The morals of the modern media is at an all time low.

I have only scanned that article, as I am at work, but I failed to see anything wrong with it? Am I missing your point?

We're an island nation which receives thousands of flights, boats, trains and motor vehicles from all over the world every day. We also have a huge tourism industry - it makes up about 10% of the UK's economy - which is totally reliant on letting people who aren't British into Britain.

With all of that simply being surrounded by water is pretty irrelevant.



Generally when people compare Victorian and modern times availability of iPads isn't one of the metrics they use. Instead they tend to go with trivial figures like infant mortality, poverty levels (especially child poverty), life expectancy, social mobility, homelessness, levels of preventable diseases, public health risks, care of the elderly and disabled, adult literacy levels etc., etc.

We tend to kick Victorian butt on all of those things (as well as having more iPads) and they're all the consequence of the social support networks that we have in place. To suggest getting rid of them because you have a nagging feeling that filthy foreigners are taking advantage really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You and me both.

Ah yes, a return to Victorian values.

Y'know, those Victorians who wouldn't give women the vote, and *raised* the age of consent to thirteen...

I'm all for a return to Victorian values, in as much as I'm happy to pay tuppence for a pint

Yes totally missing it, but then often people on here look for wrongs or to pick fights / antagonise. I said the article was interesting, so why would there be anything wrong with it? It is interesting.

It was the bit about the morals of the modern media - I assumed that was directly related to the article.

Ipads - come on??? I was on about medicle care, cars and the like. It was a comment on society - as a society we'd be better of as Victorians, with Victorian values. (Not all I hasten to add certain ones regarding slavery and pre bra burning are not good).

Nope, it explains why Muslim nutters are nutters and why they refuse to intergrate, written by an ex muslim nutter that saw the light. It really is insightful even if it is a top level view.

You claimed that "the morals of the modern media were at an all time low".
I took that to mean you did indeed think there was something wrong with it. It's an odd turn of phrase otherwise.

Ah now I understand - The link and teh comment were unconnected, should have made that clearer. Appologies.

I have my own views on things like this, which I'll keep to myself as usual, but I just have a quick question, to which there's probably a simple answer, but:

Why, when this first happened, whether live or not, every graphic detail was shown?
Now, over the last day or two, the instruments used, the dead soldier, etc, are all being blurred out. Why, when most people now know what happened and have already seen the uncensored images and videos?