|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 2, 2023 15:18:24 GMT
Labour destroyed their papers, Labour should have paid compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 2, 2023 15:19:29 GMT
Honestly, I don't know. These were British subjects who had in many cases just fought the Nazis for the British Empire so they certainly didn't object. Do you? They weren't white EU citizens. What do you think? I think they had every right to come. They were British subjects. And, we weren't flooded, the numbers who came in those days were quite low. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:20:31 GMT
But they were not in the colonies they were in Britain and as such according to you they were identical British subjects and should have had identical responsibilities as well as rights. Why would parliament exclude them from service if they did not accept in principle that British subjects were not the same and what they were depended on where they were from. Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects i think the confusion on who is regarded "british" is because the term british has changed so much and meant so many things over the decades and centuries it confuses.
Since it was invented by the romans two thousand years ago , it was almost exclusively used for p celtic language speakers , who were later classed as welsh by the english , and the scots and english didnt use the term for themselves until the elite appropriated it from the 17 th century onwards.
By the nineteenth century , it was used as you point out for anyone who was a subject of the monarch anywhere in the world , and then gradually changed as the empire faded to today being something that is used to describe citizens of the uk and its overseas territories.
I think who has the right to come and stay in your country is down the people who live there , not the labour party or its minions.
We all know labour love mass uncontrolled immigration. I would have thought after the disaster of the blair governments that this is an issue most sensible labour supporters would steer clear of sid , but clearly not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 15:25:54 GMT
The onus was upon the UK Immigration & Border Force - NO ONE should be simply picked up off the streets and told that unless you can prove you have a right to be here, we will deport you.
If a person states that they were born here, or came here as a British subject from the Caribbean, and if they can prove they have lived here ( via work, jobs, education, neighbours, friends etc ) then that should be the end of the matter.
What actually happened was a disgrace, several people who were born here were deported and died in the Caribbean, one of which had never ever been to the Caribbean, in such instances the British government should be taken to the cleaners for both an apology and compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:27:41 GMT
Honestly, I don't know. These were British subjects who had in many cases just fought the Nazis for the British Empire so they certainly didn't object. Do you? They weren't white EU citizens. What do you think? whats your point vinny? Apart from the silliness of bringing the EU into part of the debate where the second world war is being discussed , dont you realise the French as the british did , used non white colonial citizens in their armies too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 2, 2023 15:28:45 GMT
The onus was upon the UK Immigration & Border Force - NO ONE should be simply picked up off the streets and told that unless you can prove you have a right to be here, we will deport you. If a person states that they were born here, or came here as a British subject from the Caribbean, and if they can prove they have lived here ( via work, jobs, education, neighbours, friends etc ) then that should be the end of the matter. What actually happened was a disgrace, several people who were born here were deported and died in the Caribbean, one of which had never ever been to the Caribbean, in such instances the British government should be taken to the cleaners for both an apology and compensation. Bloody hell sid you make the Caribbean sound like some terrible place, I bet lots of Brits would love to die in the Caribbean. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 15:31:34 GMT
Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects i think the confusion on who is regarded "british" is because the term british has changed so much and meant so many things over the decades and centuries it confuses.
Since it was invented by the romans two thousand years ago , it was almost exclusively used for p celtic language speakers , who were later classed as welsh by the english , and the scots and english didnt use the term for themselves until the elite appropriated it from the 17 th century onwards.
By the nineteenth century , it was used as you point out for anyone who was a subject of the monarch anywhere in the world , and then gradually changed as the empire faded to today being something that is used to describe citizens of the uk and its overseas territories.
I think who has the right to come and stay in your country is down the people who live there , not the labour party or its minions.
We all know labour love mass uncontrolled immigration. I would have thought after the disaster of the blair governments that this is an issue most sensible labour supporters would steer clear of sid , but clearly not.
You dont half come out with some twaddle By far the biggest influx of migrants into the UK during Tony Blairs time was European migrants, who due to the accession of the new member states ( The EU10 ), had the right to come here to live and work. This "Right" was contained in a treaty which was negotiated, accepted, and then signed by the government of John Major, but I have been through all this before. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:32:41 GMT
The onus was upon the UK Immigration & Border Force - NO ONE should be simply picked up off the streets and told that unless you can prove you have a right to be here, we will deport you. If a person states that they were born here, or came here as a British subject from the Caribbean, and if they can prove they have lived here ( via work, jobs, education, neighbours, friends etc ) then that should be the end of the matter. What actually happened was a disgrace, several people who were born here were deported and died in the Caribbean, one of which had never ever been to the Caribbean, in such instances the British government should be taken to the cleaners for both an apology and compensation. sure but there are many different things being conflated across this thread , as we would expect during the ebb and flow of debate. However , while arguing who is legally british , if you dont know the basics ,ie using arguments like birth certificates for identity purposes when there is no british birth certificate in existence , then why should folk take you serious?
What happened may very well have been a disgrace , but you would have thought the dimwits in the labour party would have learned by now to steer clear of the hot potato of immigration after your parties disasterous record on the subject sid.
It wasnt tory voters tony blair pissed off with his mass uncontrolled immigration....it was labours own red wall voters. Your partys stupidity on the subject is a large part of the reason for brexit and the rise of ukip/brexit party .
Even now ,you just dont get it do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:36:38 GMT
i think the confusion on who is regarded "british" is because the term british has changed so much and meant so many things over the decades and centuries it confuses.
Since it was invented by the romans two thousand years ago , it was almost exclusively used for p celtic language speakers , who were later classed as welsh by the english , and the scots and english didnt use the term for themselves until the elite appropriated it from the 17 th century onwards.
By the nineteenth century , it was used as you point out for anyone who was a subject of the monarch anywhere in the world , and then gradually changed as the empire faded to today being something that is used to describe citizens of the uk and its overseas territories.
I think who has the right to come and stay in your country is down the people who live there , not the labour party or its minions.
We all know labour love mass uncontrolled immigration. I would have thought after the disaster of the blair governments that this is an issue most sensible labour supporters would steer clear of sid , but clearly not.
By far the biggest influx of migrants into the UK during Tony Blairs time was European migrants, who due to the accession of the new member states ( The EU10 ), had the right to come here to live and work. another lie from you sid. The mass uncontrolled immigration from eastern europe that pissed off your red wall voters didnt have to happen. It wasnt an eu edict. The EU gave all member states an opt out for eastern european immigration for a set number of years , and blair decided not to use this and flood the uk with eastern europeans , advertising across the east telling them to come as we know and telling uk citizens only a tiny number would arrive , as we know turned out to be new labour bullshit.
The uk under tony blair from memory was the only eu state that didnt enfore a block on eastern european migration after the new member states joined. (possibly except the republic)
The labour party re write history again , and hope people have selective amnesia.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:38:36 GMT
The onus was upon the UK Immigration & Border Force - NO ONE should be simply picked up off the streets and told that unless you can prove you have a right to be here, we will deport you. If a person states that they were born here, or came here as a British subject from the Caribbean, and if they can prove they have lived here ( via work, jobs, education, neighbours, friends etc ) then that should be the end of the matter. What actually happened was a disgrace, several people who were born here were deported and died in the Caribbean, one of which had never ever been to the Caribbean, in such instances the British government should be taken to the cleaners for both an apology and compensation. Bloody hell sid you make the Caribbean sound like some terrible place, I bet lots of Brits would love to die in the Caribbean. its just sid laying the ground for more mass uncontrolled immigration under the next prospective labour government by pretending to be furious about windrush. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 15:40:04 GMT
The onus was upon the UK Immigration & Border Force - NO ONE should be simply picked up off the streets and told that unless you can prove you have a right to be here, we will deport you. If a person states that they were born here, or came here as a British subject from the Caribbean, and if they can prove they have lived here ( via work, jobs, education, neighbours, friends etc ) then that should be the end of the matter. What actually happened was a disgrace, several people who were born here were deported and died in the Caribbean, one of which had never ever been to the Caribbean, in such instances the British government should be taken to the cleaners for both an apology and compensation. sure but there are many different things being conflated across this thread , as we would expect during the ebb and flow of debate. However , while arguing who is legally british , if you dont know the basics ,ie using arguments like birth certificates for identity purposes when there is no british birth certificate in existence , then why should folk take you serious?
What happened may very well have been a disgrace , but you would have thought the dimwits in the labour party would have learned by now to steer clear of the hot potato of immigration after your parties disasterous record on the subject sid.
It wasnt tory voters tony blair pissed off with his mass uncontrolled immigration....it was labours own red wall voters. Your partys stupidity on the subject is a large part of the reason for brexit and the rise of ukip/brexit party .
Even now ,you just dont get it do you?
A "Birth Certificate" is an official document which states who you are and where you were born, and on most UK birth certificates it also states who your parents are and their occupation. My original point was that most Jamaican people would be able to either produce or access a birth certificate, which if born between 1948 and 1962 meant that they were British. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 2, 2023 15:40:51 GMT
If you are born in NI you are a British Citizen, however if you so wish you can opt for Irish Citizenship instead Correct - and if you were born in Jamaica from the end of the Second World War until independence in 1962, you were British. So, let me return back to my original point which was ... Why should a British person, someone born British, have to prove that they are indeed British. The Windrush Scandal was a scandal which was 100% the fault of the British government I already know that , I also know it was a balls up from the very beginning by the Labour Government back in 1948 and it went down hill from there, as I stated earlier |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 2, 2023 15:43:09 GMT
Bloody hell sid you make the Caribbean sound like some terrible place, I bet lots of Brits would love to die in the Caribbean. its just sid laying the ground for more mass uncontrolled immigration under the next prospective labour government by pretending to be furious about windrush. yes the majority would give up living in the UK to go live in the Caribbean, it's the usual outraged lefty doing what they do best, being outraged. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:43:09 GMT
sure but there are many different things being conflated across this thread , as we would expect during the ebb and flow of debate. However , while arguing who is legally british , if you dont know the basics ,ie using arguments like birth certificates for identity purposes when there is no british birth certificate in existence , then why should folk take you serious?
What happened may very well have been a disgrace , but you would have thought the dimwits in the labour party would have learned by now to steer clear of the hot potato of immigration after your parties disasterous record on the subject sid.
It wasnt tory voters tony blair pissed off with his mass uncontrolled immigration....it was labours own red wall voters. Your partys stupidity on the subject is a large part of the reason for brexit and the rise of ukip/brexit party .
Even now ,you just dont get it do you?
A "Birth Certificate" is an official document which states who you are and where you were born, and on most UK birth certificates it also states who your parents are and their occupation. My original point was that most Jamaican people would be able to either produce or access a birth certificate, which if born between 1948 and 1962 meant that they were British. i know what a birth certificate says , and can you show me what a british birth certificate is (that you say it exists sid.?) Over to you. My birth certificate is scottish , it mentions scotland on the certificate , but not britian or the uk.
if you dont know this , then it shows how clueless you are and how much of what you say should be taken with a pinch of salt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 15:51:47 GMT
By far the biggest influx of migrants into the UK during Tony Blairs time was European migrants, who due to the accession of the new member states ( The EU10 ), had the right to come here to live and work. another lie from you sid. The mass uncontrolled immigration from eastern europe that pissed off your red wall voters didnt have to happen. It wasnt an eu edict. The EU gave all member states an opt out for eastern european immigration for a set number of years , and blair decided not to use this and flood the uk with eastern europeans , advertising across the east telling them to come as we know and telling uk citizens only a tiny number would arrive , as we know turned out to be new labour bullshit.
The uk under tony blair from memory was the only eu state that didnt enfore a block on eastern european migration after the new member states joined. (possibly except the republic)
The labour party re write history again , and hope people have selective amnesia.
There was a "Transition Period" yes, which Blair COULD HAVE invoked The Transition Period was up to a maximum of 7 years, which could only be applied if a member state could prove that Freedom of Movement could cause serious harm to their economy - Only one member state applied a 7 year reciprocal rule, most member states applied either No Restrictions or Two Years. So, the conclusion here is that Blair could not stop Freedom of Movement ( as agreed to by a CONSERVATIVE government ), he could, at best, delay it by five years. |
|
