|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 4, 2024 14:43:04 GMT
Not sure what the relevance of the Just Stop Oil protestors is but they were jailed because they had previous, no contrition and refused to commit to not breaking the Law again. What were you expecting the Judge to do? So if these rioters also demonstrate those same traits it would be OK to jail them all - for far longer sentences than usually apply to their offences? All The Best Well that is what normally happens - why do you think it would not be the case this time? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 4, 2024 14:49:05 GMT
Not sure what the relevance of the Just Stop Oil protestors is but they were jailed because they had previous, no contrition and refused to commit to not breaking the Law again. What were you expecting the Judge to do? So if these rioters also demonstrate those same traits it would be OK to jail them all - for far longer sentences than usually apply to their offences? All The Best Well wait and see, if these rioters are arrested and charged or cautioned, then they do it again, and again, with total disregard for the law, then yes we would expect the rioters just like JSO to get stiffer sentences for contravene the law. ... absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 4, 2024 14:49:22 GMT
That’s why they are second generation immigrants and not first . If you can’t see the difference then you are just thick .…. You and the other leftie can whine and pout as much as you like but this is reality .. “Asecond-generation immigrant is a person who was born in a country where at least one of their parents was previously a migrant. The term can also refer to the second generation of a family to live in a country, but the first to be born there native. A person who was born in and is residing in a country that at least one of their parents previously entered as a migrant . The term "second-generation" extends the concept of first-generation by one generation. As such, the term exhibits the same type of ambiguity as "first-generation," as well as additional ones. Like "first-generation immigrant", the term "second-generation" can refer to a member of either: The second generation of a family to inhabit, but the first natively born in, a country, or The second generation born in a country (i.e. "third generation" in the above definition) wiki. Dont be a little bitch to the messenger. Am I mistaken here, is it not you that sometimes ridicules people who use Wiki as a source? All The Best Yes,. You are mistaken . I’ve often used and accepted wiki. However second-generation migrant Definition(s) A person who was born in and is residing in a country that at least one of their parents previously entered as a migrant. home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossary/second-generation-migrant_en#:~:text=Definition(s),previously%20entered%20as%20a%20migrant%20. A ‘first-generation immigrant ’ is a person born in a country other than her/his country of residence and whose residence period in the host country is, or is expected to be, at least 12 months. A ‘second-generation immigrant’ is a native-born person with at least one foreign-born parent. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=First_and_second-generation_immigrants_-_obstacles_to_work&oldid=328077#:~:text=A%20'second%2Dgeneration%20immigrant',background'%20if%20it%20is%20not. Second generation ethnic minority immigrants tend to be better educated than their parents’ generation, www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/Ethn_2gen_revision_C1.pdfpeople born abroad (‘first generation’ immigrants) people with at least one parent born abroad (‘second generation’) second generation immigrants of some ethnic minority groups perform better than white British people when looking at unemployment and economic inactivity www.gov.uk/government/publications/outcomes-in-labour-market-for-ethnic-minorities-by-immigrant-generation-status. I hope you and the other leftie accept reality eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 4, 2024 15:03:11 GMT
It's impossible to view the postings of Farage, without utter revulsion.
He masquerades as a " reasoned commentator" on what he claims to be a national crisis linked to immigrants while claiming he deplores any lawlessness. Then he hints at more lawlessness if his warnings are not heeded.
The reality is that his entire political future is dependent on fomenting confrontation and division. It is by creating a climate of crisis that he has got where he has.
And some of my former Conservative colleagues have argued the Conservatives should be linking up with Reform! Perhaps this shameful episode will open their eyes to his malevolence.
3:26 pm · 3 Aug 2024
·
869.9K
Views DOMINIC GREAVE
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 4, 2024 15:08:51 GMT
It's impossible to view the postings of Farage, without utter revulsion.He masquerades as a " reasoned commentator" on what he claims to be a national crisis linked to immigrants while claiming he deplores any lawlessness. Then he hints at more lawlessness if his warnings are not heeded. The reality is that his entire political future is dependent on fomenting confrontation and division. It is by creating a climate of crisis that he has got where he has. And some of my former Conservative colleagues have argued the Conservatives should be linking up with Reform! Perhaps this shameful episode will open their eyes to his malevolence. 3:26 pm · 3 Aug 2024 · 869.9K Views DOMINIC GREAVE I feel the same with some of the leftie’s posts on here . |
|
|
|
Post by vlk on Aug 4, 2024 15:12:03 GMT
Rioting is idiotic behaviour but if there had to be a riot the rightful target would have been the HQs of both the Tories and Labour. Both have ruined Britain and even purposefully so.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 15:20:44 GMT
Well, as I have said numerous times before what you call something, how you define it is largely pointless if that definition fails to take into account the reality of the situation. I could define a Banana as a Hammer, but if it can't knock nails in, it is not a fucking hammer, is it? Because the definition of a Hammer is " a tool with a heavy metal head mounted at right angles at the end of a handle, used for jobs such as breaking things and driving in nails." An Immigrant is, by definition: " a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." Source
As someone who was born in country X has not "come to permanently live in a foreign country" then I would suggest that linguistically the very definition of "2nd Generation Immigrant" is fundamentally flawed. I get that by convention it has come to be used in that manner; however, it manifestly does not accurately describe what it purports to describe. However, if we look at the definition of Native we find: " a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." SourceIf someone was born in country X surely that is the correct definition to use. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 18:13:23 GMT
Well, as I have said numerous times before what you call something, how you define it is largely pointless if that definition fails to take into account the reality of the situation. I could define a Banana as a Hammer, but if it can't knock nails in, it is not a fucking hammer, is it? Because the definition of a Hammer is " a tool with a heavy metal head mounted at right angles at the end of a handle, used for jobs such as breaking things and driving in nails." An Immigrant is, by definition: " a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." Source
As someone who was born in country X has not "come to permanently live in a foreign country" then I would suggest that linguistically the very definition of "2nd Generation Immigrant" is fundamentally flawed. I get that by convention it has come to be used in that manner; however, it manifestly does not accurately describe what it purports to describe. However, if we look at the definition of Native we find: " a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." SourceIf someone was born in country X surely that is the correct definition to use. All The Best So let us be clear all persons born in Britain are native Britons in your eyes. Would you apply the same criteria which would allow all born in the US to be Native Americans. The problem with that is Native Americans would object strongly. So perhaps a different definition should be sought |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 18:43:32 GMT
Well, as I have said numerous times before what you call something, how you define it is largely pointless if that definition fails to take into account the reality of the situation. I could define a Banana as a Hammer, but if it can't knock nails in, it is not a fucking hammer, is it? Because the definition of a Hammer is " a tool with a heavy metal head mounted at right angles at the end of a handle, used for jobs such as breaking things and driving in nails." An Immigrant is, by definition: " a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." Source
As someone who was born in country X has not "come to permanently live in a foreign country" then I would suggest that linguistically the very definition of "2nd Generation Immigrant" is fundamentally flawed. I get that by convention it has come to be used in that manner; however, it manifestly does not accurately describe what it purports to describe. However, if we look at the definition of Native we find: " a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." SourceIf someone was born in country X surely that is the correct definition to use. All The Best So let us be clear all persons born in Britain are native Britons in your eyes. Would you apply the same criteria which would allow all born in the US to be Native Americans. The problem with that is Native Americans would object strongly. So perhaps a different definition should be sought Well, again, that is an issue of the function of the language. Canadian "native americans" have removed this ambiguity by asking to be called "First Nations". However, the simple and obvious way to avoid this deliberately manufactured problem is to call anyone born in America an "American Citizen". I would call anyone born in Britain a "British Citizen". Now, I understand this cold lead to ambiguity because of people not born in Britain being granted British Citizenship, but we already have a recognised solution to that, they are called "Naturalised Citizens". So, there already are clear and discrete definitions available to use, that can be so used without creating ambiguity. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 19:33:29 GMT
So let us be clear all persons born in Britain are native Britons in your eyes. Would you apply the same criteria which would allow all born in the US to be Native Americans. The problem with that is Native Americans would object strongly. So perhaps a different definition should be sought Well, again, that is an issue of the function of the language. Canadian "native americans" have removed this ambiguity by asking to be called "First Nations". However, the simple and obvious way to avoid this deliberately manufactured problem is to call anyone born in America an "American Citizen". I would call anyone born in Britain a "British Citizen". Now, I understand this cold lead to ambiguity because of people not born in Britain being granted British Citizenship, but we already have a recognised solution to that, they are called "Naturalised Citizens". So, there already are clear and discrete definitions available to use, that can be so used without creating ambiguity. All The Best Which is why it is strange to continually quote definitions at people as though that is solving the problem and highlighting errors. In general you could get to the bottom of what is meant without resort to pedantry of definition. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:45:38 GMT
Well, again, that is an issue of the function of the language. Canadian "native americans" have removed this ambiguity by asking to be called "First Nations". However, the simple and obvious way to avoid this deliberately manufactured problem is to call anyone born in America an "American Citizen". I would call anyone born in Britain a "British Citizen". Now, I understand this cold lead to ambiguity because of people not born in Britain being granted British Citizenship, but we already have a recognised solution to that, they are called "Naturalised Citizens". So, there already are clear and discrete definitions available to use, that can be so used without creating ambiguity. All The Best Which is why it is strange to continually quote definitions at people as though that is solving the problem and highlighting errors. In general you could get to the bottom of what is meant without resort to pedantry of definition. But it wasn't me saying someone born in Wales is not Welsh. I am clearly not the one with problems understanding basic definitions. I wasn't quoting them for me, but to try and help the idiots who think someone born in Wales isn't actually Welsh. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 20:18:57 GMT
Which is why it is strange to continually quote definitions at people as though that is solving the problem and highlighting errors. In general you could get to the bottom of what is meant without resort to pedantry of definition. But it wasn't me saying someone born in Wales is not Welsh. I am clearly not the one with problems understanding basic definitions. I wasn't quoting them for me, but to try and help the idiots who think someone born in Wales isn't actually Welsh. All The Best Because you are not covering ethnicity. A person born in Wales is in your eyes Welsh but as in the case of teh Southport stabber he is also an ethnic minority which means he is something either in addition to being Welsh or that takes from his Welshness |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 4, 2024 20:23:44 GMT
Well, as I have said numerous times before what you call something, how you define it is largely pointless if that definition fails to take into account the reality of the situation. I could define a Banana as a Hammer, but if it can't knock nails in, it is not a fucking hammer, is it? Because the definition of a Hammer is " a tool with a heavy metal head mounted at right angles at the end of a handle, used for jobs such as breaking things and driving in nails." An Immigrant is, by definition: " a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." Source
As someone who was born in country X has not "come to permanently live in a foreign country" then I would suggest that linguistically the very definition of "2nd Generation Immigrant" is fundamentally flawed. I get that by convention it has come to be used in that manner; however, it manifestly does not accurately describe what it purports to describe. However, if we look at the definition of Native we find: " a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." SourceIf someone was born in country X surely that is the correct definition to use. All The Best Blah, blah, blah. You have been sent the term official sources but you are still posting shit, obfuscation and waffle to deviate . That’s because you dont have the balls to admit that you are wrong . The black murderer who butchered 3 white children was a second generation immigrant . None of the crap that you posted refutes it . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 20:26:03 GMT
But it wasn't me saying someone born in Wales is not Welsh. I am clearly not the one with problems understanding basic definitions. I wasn't quoting them for me, but to try and help the idiots who think someone born in Wales isn't actually Welsh. All The Best Because you are not covering ethnicity. A person born in Wales is in your eyes Welsh but as in the case of teh Southport stabber he is also an ethnic minority which means he is something either in addition to being Welsh or that takes from his Welshness So you ARE in fact saying that colour of ones' skin is a determinant factor in ones' nationality? I just want to be clear here. So what might it be about his ethnicity that "takes from his Welshness"? Can you be specific. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 20:45:34 GMT
Because you are not covering ethnicity. A person born in Wales is in your eyes Welsh but as in the case of teh Southport stabber he is also an ethnic minority which means he is something either in addition to being Welsh or that takes from his Welshness So you ARE in fact saying that colour of ones' skin is a determinant factor in ones' nationality? I just want to be clear here. So what might it be about his ethnicity that "takes from his Welshness"? Can you be specific. All The Best The colour of his skin may determine his ethnic minority status. The ethnic group in Wales is the Welsh, the Southport stabber was ethnically not Welsh. Blame the race laws on that I always believed that Shirley Bassey was Welsh but overnight in 1968 she became an ethnic minority, not her choice, not the choice of most other people but forced upon her by law. Nationality is different from ethnicity. |
|
