I'm struggling...

[Glyn_Wigley]

You really are a deeply unpleasant person aren't you?

Not really. If you get wound up so easily, it'll increase the chances of a heart-attack.

And you appear to get wound up very easily.

How about you 'get over it' and 'move on' then?

[IDM]

I won't show any empathy for folk who've got no respect for democracy and other people's views.

You just have no respect for other peoples' views, period!!

If you're talking about me, I respect democracy and I certainly respect that folks have different views.  I might not agree, but I respect their rights.

BUT, I DO NOT respect the lies and hypocrisy shown by politicians - of all sides - but in particularly the shambles of the brexit campaign.

Note that I said " C A M P A I G N " , and not " V O T E "..

See, I spelled it out for you - perhaps you get it now???

Would you be squawking half as much if 'Remain' had won?

I would respond to posts on the forum as I saw fit, as I do with the football discussions etc.

If remain had won I would have been relieved more than anything else..  Thing is, remain means keeping the status quo - so if nowt changes then nowt changes, regardless of any political spin the remain campaign may have made.

But to leave is to make changes and to choose uncertainty.  To me that is a more risky option which has been amplified by the dishonest campaign.

Oh, and please get off your "life is short" pedestal.. We know this, I would expect a huge proportion of forum users have suffered from loved ones passing too young, so I won't say about my experience there.

Oh, and stop being deliberately provocative by using words like "squawking".. I'm presenting my arguments quite clearly I think, so not "squawking" but hey, you can't or choose not to read my views properly, so what's the f**king point??

[Bentley Bullet]

It makes you wonder why 600,000 unemployed foreign immigrants find the country such an attractive option doesn't it?

No, it makes me wonder where that spurious number has sprung from when the Government don't even know the figures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10361971/Britain-admits-it-has-no-figures-on-EU-welfare-tourist-numbers.html

I got that figure from the 2013 link below, and although perhaps my use of the word 'unemployed' was inappropriate, for which I am man enough to offer my abject apology (unlike some), the figure of 600.000 is quoted as all immigrants in the UK, some of whom are not seeking JSA.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzmOrb-ujNAhVrK8AKHZkXA3sQFggjMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffullfact.org%2Feurope%2Fare-there-600000-unemployed-eu-migrants-uk%2F&usg=AFQjCNEE9oUUraTbIY70Ra7ND-Lbekr0oA&sig2=SJN3-tGp-7BxV3x36qgxkA

It still makes you wonder why 600,000 unemployed foreign immigrants find the country such an attractive option though doesn't it?

[Lipsy]

I dunno. I just think that some people like to live in other places, or retire to warmer/different climes...

[Glyn_Wigley]

I dunno. I just think that some people like to live in other places, or retire to warmer/different climes...

Makes you wonder why the UK is so bad they wa

It makes you wonder why 600,000 unemployed foreign immigrants find the country such an attractive option doesn't it?

No, it makes me wonder where that spurious number has sprung from when the Government don't even know the figures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10361971/Britain-admits-it-has-no-figures-on-EU-welfare-tourist-numbers.html

I got that figure from the 2013 link below, and although perhaps my use of the word 'unemployed' was inappropriate, for which I am man enough to offer my abject apology (unlike some), the figure of 600.000 is quoted as all immigrants in the UK, some of whom are not seeking JSA.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzmOrb-ujNAhVrK8AKHZkXA3sQFggjMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffullfact.org%2Feurope%2Fare-there-600000-unemployed-eu-migrants-uk%2F&usg=AFQjCNEE9oUUraTbIY70Ra7ND-Lbekr0oA&sig2=SJN3-tGp-7BxV3x36qgxkA

It still makes you wonder why 600,000 unemployed foreign immigrants find the country such an attractive option though doesn't it?

Do you normally just grab headlines from websites without reading what's underneath them?

As for the 600,000...as the article says, they come here to study, to retire (like Brits do all over Europe too), and on top of that I would expect a sizable number to be married to a UK citizen...

[Lipsy]

That - right there - is why the Leave vote won, Glyn...

[Bentley Bullet]

That - right there - is why the Leave vote won, Glyn...

The leave vote more likely won not because of the opposition to immigrants here to retire, or study, or marry a UK citizen, but because of the criminal and/or illegal element.

[Lipsy]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I was suggesting that reading headlines (after a 20-year+ anti-EU campaign) and not bothering to read what followed or check your facts is why Leave won.

[Bentley Bullet]

Are you suggesting I just read the headline and never read the article?

[Lipsy]

Only you know the answer to that. I was making a general comment on the Leave vote, that's all. What you did or didn't do didn't feature in my thinking at all.

[Bentley Bullet]

So you're suggesting that all referendum headlines supported leave, and what was underneath them supported remain?

[Lipsy]

82+% of all the referendum headlines were anti-EU. If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I actually said this to further qualify my point: "not bothering to read what followed or check your facts is why Leave won."

Though the YOUR was entirely unnecessary.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Are you suggesting I just read the headline and never read the article?

That's the impression I got.

[Bentley Bullet]

So let me get this straight. 82+% of all the referendum headlines were anti-EU. So are you saying that what was underneath those headlines supported remain, and if people (like me) had read the whole article, they would have voted remain?

[Bentley Bullet]

Are you suggesting I just read the headline and never read the article?

That's the impression I got.

Well, making a good impression isn't one of your strong points is it??

[Lipsy]

No, I am not saying that the headlines were anti-EU but the text was pro-Remain - what kind of fricked up logic is that? I was suggesting that some people only read the headlines, whilst others - who bothered to read the text - didn't bother to check their facts and swallowed the rest of the text's anti-EU stance.

Given that a number of the Sun's headlines and text and the Daily Mail's headlines and text were shown to be utter garbage (and they both had to post tiny, hidden away retractions), I don't think my assertion is way off the mark.

Hope that helps.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Are you suggesting I just read the headline and never read the article?

That's the impression I got.

Well, making a good impression isn't one of your strong points is it??

So you're saying that you read the text under the headline on the site you linked to and STILL said that there were 600,000 EU immigrants? Or did you just read the headline and post it?

[Bentley Bullet]

I read 600,000 EU immigrants, yes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bentley

Stop dicking about and think for a minute.

You have just proved the whole point in this thread.

You have subliminally picked up the editorial message that the papers wanted you to pick up.

You have re-quoted a figure of there being 600,000 unemployed EU immigrants in this country.

That figure had obviously got lodged in your mind. But it was wrong. You had been deliberately and brazenly misinformed by newspapers with a very definite axe to grind.

Whether or not you would have voted differently if those headlines hadn't been printed is not the issue. The issue is that wealthy, powerful forces who control most of the media have been doing this for many, many years, to the point that much of the population knows, just KNOWS these "facts" about immigration that turn out to be not remotely true.

Which brings us neatly back to the point behind my OP on this thread...

[BillyStubbsTears]

I read 600,000 EU immigrants, yes.

You posted "600,000 UNEMPLOYED immigrants".

[Bentley Bullet]

The article said there are 600,000 EU immigrants not working in the UK. I put unemployed in the sense that they were not employed, and realizing the mistake apologised for it.

Your turn?.............

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bentley

Stop for a moment and listen.

I'm not BLAMING you here. I'm neither looking for nor anticipating, nor requiring an apology.

But your mistake catches the problem right on the chin. The misunderstand that you made is PRECISELY what the papers want you to make.

That is the whole point. If you're genuinely interested in this discussion, you could address that point, instead of dicking around into irrelevant tangents.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST

I'll tell you what point I want to address on here, and it's not about taking sides,it's about the patronising way you and your cronies treat people who oppose you.

It wasn't a misunderstanding that I wrote unemployed instead of not employed. It was mistake, and one that has been taken completely out of context so as to deflect the direction of the argument.

So to get back to the point, if you and the other Righteous brother will allow, let's get back to the original point.

The point I was making was that it makes you wonder why 600,000 not employed foreign immigrants find the country such an attractive option doesn't it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

I am really, REALLY sorry if you've found me patronising.

If I've misunderstood you, then I apologise profusely.

Only, it's not the first time that you quoted or repeated stuff like this that turns out to be shite on a brief examination. I thought that maybe you needed nudging towards a bit of self reflection.

Anyway, as to why there are so many economically inactive EU immigrants in the UK, as I said before (and you ignored) many of them will be students making use of (and paying handsomely for) our world-leading higher education system. Many of them will be spouses of people who go out to work. Some of them will be retired.

Here's a couple of questions for you. Why is it that EU immigrants in this country have a higher EMPLOYMENT ratio than UK born nationals? Why do they pay more in taxes than they take out in public services? And how many newspaper headlines do you read screaming those facts?

[BillyStubbsTears]

But there's something nagging me...

Oh aye. That's it.

BB

You got the information about the 600,000 immigrants from a website which was specifically written to point out that the claim that they were "unemployed" was incorrect and should not be repeated.

Then you repeated it. By accident.

At the risk of sounding patronising (and I'm really not being) maybe you should check a bit more before you hit "Post" next time? It'd save an awful lot of misunderstanding.

[Bentley Bullet]

I read the article about an hour before I posted. I mistakenly recollected the taboo word to be 'jobless', so instead use the term 'unemployed'. After re-reading the article prior to posting it I realised that BOTH of the terms were not PC, so I then apologised, before posting the article.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

Right. Easy mistake to make.

[Bentley Bullet]

Anyway, my personal opinion is irrelevant really, considering my contribution to this thread isn't about what I think, it's about trying to discover the reasons why people voted leave.

From my conversations it seems the leave voters won not because of their opposition to immigrants here in retirement, or here to study, or marry a UK citizen, but because of the criminal and/or illegal element.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. So not only did you introduce a factually incorrect issue into the discussion, you don't even think it matters.

Happy days...

[wilts rover]

BST

I'll tell you what point I want to address on here, and it's not about taking sides,it's about the patronising way you and your cronies treat people who oppose you.

It wasn't a misunderstanding that I wrote unemployed instead of not employed. It was mistake, and one that has been taken completely out of context so as to deflect the direction of the argument.

So to get back to the point, if you and the other Righteous brother will allow, let's get back to the original point.

The point I was making was that it makes you wonder why 600,000 not employed foreign immigrants find the country such an attractive option doesn't it?

Well thereyou go - that might have been the point you wanted to make, but instead the point you did make was one you brought up yourself - why are people so keen to pick up on negative points and ignore the positives?

Until YOU provide some context to these figures you have produced on these 600 000 people, then how can we comment? What are these people doing? Are they the families of multi-million £ footballers who are spending some of their sons/cousins/nephews money in our shops? Are they the billionaire owners of these football clubs? Maybe athletes in a training programme? Certainly there will be students paying a lot of money to be at school/college/university here? Will they then go onto teach/work as doctors/open a business here? I dont know - I didn't just randomly bring them into this discussion.