Immigration street - TV show set in Southampton

Channel 4s follow up to Benefit street is to be filmed on Derby road in Southampton............sounds like a BNP wet dream

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-28263171

Southampton's turn to get labelled a city of ne'er do wells and scroungers.

Could be worse. Could be this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmuHI1REeEw

Interesting blog piece.

http://southamptonantifa.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/immigration-street-coming-to-southampton-or-is-it-2/

it was alleged that Kieran and his goons had been doorstepping people outside a community day centre, targeting vulnerable residents and had also been seen interviewing a man with National Front tattoos. Kieran didn’t think any of this could cause tension in the area though, we were all being silly.

This'll end well....

Interesting blog piece.

 

http://southamptonantifa.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/immigration-street-coming-to-southampton-or-is-it-2/

 

 

 

This'll end well....

F*****g hell, is that link serious?

Series cut short following protests.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/immigration-street-cut-short-after-locals-protest-against-channel-4s-benefit-street-spinoff-10018864.html

Good.

So this hits our screens tonight.

Don't really think we're going to able to file this under responsible broadcasting. Spoke to one person who was interviewed for the show. Got the impression that he may have said too much, and is expecting a bit of fallout. Could be a lot of that.

Will certainly be interesting to watch !

Brilliant, a program to raise tensions against immigrants, just what we need 3 months before a ****ing election.

I don't have a problem with it, can't tread on eggshells around this issue.

Brilliant, a program to raise tensions against immigrants, just what we need 3 months before a ****ing election.

It's the most important issue. Although it's a few years too late to do much about it now.

Brilliant, a program to raise tensions against immigrants, just what we need 3 months before a ****ing election.

why tread on egg shells about it. benefit street and the like are fair game

It's the most important issue. Although it's a few years too late to do much about it now.

I really don't get why it is though? Stupid.

The single most important issue is the economy. This is what feeds down to affect pretty much all other policies.

why tread on egg shells about it. benefit street and the like are fair game

Because it's not a true representation. They are edited in a way to create controversy.

Edited or not the footage is real, they can't edit whats not there

I really don't get why it is though? Stupid.

 

The single most important issue is the economy. This is what feeds down to affect pretty much all other policies.

Yup, closely followed by Health & Education.

Even if you see Immigration as an important issue - a show like this is not going to spark any sensible debate.

Yup, closely followed by Health & Education.

 

Even if you see Immigration as an important issue - a show like this is not going to spark any sensible debate.

Exactly this.

Immigration is such a hot topic yet I see it as positive for this country, which you wouldnt think given my general political viewpoint.

However, this country would be in a far worse state if we couldn't 'import' a lot of our areas of need, ie doctors.

The issue isnt immigration, it's the claiming of benefits by immigrants.

Exactly this.

 

Immigration is such a hot topic yet I see it as positive for this country, which you wouldnt think given my general political viewpoint.

 

However, this country would be in a far worse state if we couldn't 'import' a lot of our areas of need, ie doctors.

 

The issue isnt immigration, it's the claiming of benefits by immigrants.

Hmmm, as a % immigrants are still less likely to claim than us Brits.

Frankly, I'd rather talk about how much money we let millionaires wrangle out of paying in tax dodging, far in excess of the 'benefit scroungers' or 'parasitic immigrants' these shows try to demonise people as. But that's a separate issue.

Hmmm, as a % immigrants are still less likely to claim than us Brits.

 

Frankly, I'd rather talk about how much money we let millionaires wrangle out of paying in tax dodging, far in excess of the 'benefit scroungers' or 'parasitic immigrants' these shows try to demonise people as. But that's a separate issue.

I completely agree they claim less, but that is why immigration is a hot topic. It's got nothing to do with stealing jobs as that doesn't happen.

Agree about millionaire tax evaders/avoiders.

I really don't get why it is though? Stupid.

 

The single most important issue is the economy. This is what feeds down to affect pretty much all other policies.

There's also quality of life. This island is horrendously overcrowded and our social and physical infrastructure is strugling to cope. Just increasing the headline figures doesn't improve the bottom line.

I usually like Channel 4 documentaries, they usually give a different view on things.

This just appears to be sensationalist rage-bait.

I really don't get why it is though? Stupid.

 

The single most important issue is the economy. This is what feeds down to affect pretty much all other policies.

More complicated than that. Aren't they interdependent, immigration also an economic issue, a pillar of our labour markets with consequence for wage levels for different groups.

In turn, very few people care about the economy or economic growth in the abstract; rather they care about how rewards are distributed and effects on living standards or quality of life, the provision of public goods and the sustainability of it all.

In one sense, you're just repeating the fallacies of the Blair years - that as long as the economy was growing, everything else would take care of itself. We now know that's false. So while immigration and globalisation may have grown the overall pie, it didn't mean that everyone gained from these processes - indeed some groups may have lost out. In subsequent years, those chickens have come home to roost.

More complicated than that. Aren't they interdependent, immigration also an economic issue, a pillar of our labour markets with consequence for wage levels for different groups.

 

In turn, very few people care about the economy or economic growth in the abstract; rather they care about how rewards are distributed and effects on living standards or quality of life, the provision of public goods and the sustainability of it all.

 

In one sense, you're just repeating the fallacies of the Blair years - that as long as the economy was growing, everything else would take care of itself. We now know that's false. So while immigration and globalisation may have grown the overall pie, it didn't mean that everyone gained from these processes - indeed some groups may have lost out. In subsequent years, those chickens have come home to roost.

I think the living standards and quality of life part is the most important point here, and it is all about distribution of wealth and fairness within those bounds.

However, we won't see an increase in quality of life with a faltering economy, they are intrinsically linked. If the economy grows it's very unlikely that quality of life will diminish, although the distribution will obviously change dependant on political party.

It's one of those situations where you don't know whether to upset the apple cart, vote left (not really anymore but you get my point) for more equality but the potential for bigger borrowing and a chance for a return to an unstable economy, or vote right for more inequality, with the chance to carry on growing the economy.

Tough choices ahead. Either way, immigration is always a far bigger topic than it needs to be in social and economic terms.

I think the living standards and quality of life part is the most important point here, and it is all about distribution of wealth and fairness within those bounds.

 

However, we won't see an increase in quality of life with a faltering economy, they are intrinsically linked. If the economy grows it's very unlikely that quality of life will diminish, although the distribution will obviously change dependant on political party.

 

It's one of those situations where you don't know whether to upset the apple cart, vote left (not really anymore but you get my point) for more equality but the potential for bigger borrowing and a chance for a return to an unstable economy, or vote right for more inequality, with the chance to carry on growing the economy.

 

Tough choices ahead. Either way, immigration is always a far bigger topic than it needs to be in social and economic terms.

But it is fundamental to the economic returns. There's no point having a growing economy if the GDP per person is reduced andThe quality of life is deteriorating because of overcrowding. Money isn't everything.

But it is fundamental to the economic returns. There's no point having a growing economy if the GDP per person is reduced andThe quality of life is deteriorating because of overcrowding. Money isn't everything.

It's a very small percentage of the overall economy though, that's the point. Very small.

Of course money isn't everything, but to see an increase in quality of life and living standards they are of course linked, certainly in this country.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/235

Impact of Immigration on GDP per Head

The gross domestic product of a country divided by the number of its citizens is regarded as the standard measure of the prosperity of the inhabitants of a country. In 2010, the UK’s GDP per head was ranked 21st in the world at around £21,500.

Ideally, in assessing the benefits of immigration, it is the GDP per head of the ‘resident’ population of the UK which should be the focus.

3.1 House of Lords Report

In 2008 the report of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords concluded (Para. 62) (Click here):

“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impacts of immigration in other countries including the US.”

Because it's not a true representation. They are edited in a way to create controversy.

Or maybe a true representation which some people won't like to see?

It's a very small percentage of the overall economy though, that's the point. Very small.

 

Of course money isn't everything, but to see an increase in quality of life and living standards they are of course linked, certainly in this country.

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/235

 

Impact of Immigration on GDP per Head

 

The gross domestic product of a country divided by the number of its citizens is regarded as the standard measure of the prosperity of the inhabitants of a country. In 2010, the UK’s GDP per head was ranked 21st in the world at around £21,500.

 

Ideally, in assessing the benefits of immigration, it is the GDP per head of the ‘resident’ population of the UK which should be the focus.

 

3.1 House of Lords Report

 

In 2008 the report of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords concluded (Para. 62) (Click here):

 

“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impacts of immigration in other countries including the US.”

But if you can't find somewhere to live, get around, get a doctor's appointment, take longer to get to work...?

Surely having studied economics, you should know that such numbers can be extremely deceptive - that means such as GDP per capita smooth over how outcomes are distributed. Are they distributed tightly around the mean or are they spread out? With immigration, there are clear losers as well as winners, casting doubt on the wisdom of using simple per capita measures.

But if you can't find somewhere to live, get around, get a doctor's appointment, take longer to get to work...?

Edit: Read back through and understand what you're getting at...

As far as net migration statistics go, they are far higher than we want them to be, but are people really struggling to find places to live due to immigration? Be interested to see if it's true or a fallacy. Obviously the Tories have failed in trying to reduce it to 100,000 or les. Do we just shut our borders? That just won't happen happen.

Surely having studied economics, you should know that such numbers can be extremely deceptive - that medians such as GDP per capita smooth over how outcomes are distributed. Are they distributed tightly around the median or are they spread out? With immigration, there are clear losers as well as winners, casting doubt on the wisdom of using simple per capita measures.

What are we arguing here? Can someone enlighten me please? Have I completely missed something? My point is that immigration is such a small proportion of the overall economy that it shouldn't be viewed as anywhere near the issue it is, and that it is in fact one of the smallest issues in relation to the wellbeing of this country and those that live within it

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you talking about immigration or living standards?

Both, the one impacts on the other is exactly the point I'm making.

What are we arguing here? Can someone enlighten me please? Have I completely missed something? My point is that immigration is such a small proportion of the overall economy that it shouldn't be viewed as anywhere near the issue it is, and that it is in fact one of the smallest issues in relation to the wellbeing of this country and those that live within it

I think it depends on where you live. Those in London, for example, may not have noticed any negative effects from the increased population whereas those in the provinces don't like the overcrowding.

Both, the one impacts on the other is exactly the point I'm making.

But not in an economic way is your point?

Fine, perhaps, although as it's such an intangible thing it's hard to see day to day issues with it.

Do you live in an area of high immigrants then? Personally i don't think I do although I couldn't really tell you.

But not in an economic way is your point.

 

Fine, perhaps, although as it's such an intangible thing it's hard to see day to day issues with it.

 

Do you live in an area of high immigrants then? Personally i don't think I do although I couldn't really tell you.

I live in Chandlers Ford and the changes over the last 10 years have had a drastic effecf on the way we live. It's impossible to get a parking space anywhere in the early morning and late afternoon. Our doctors' surgery has a waiting time of over three weeks. The roads are locked solid for large parts of the day. It never used to be like this, there are just too many people in the country.

This is from 2007:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html

If you put in figures around 80 million for the true population size you'll find that there are no economic benefits. Anyway, what is the point of a larger economy if you can't do anything with the extra money? It's more than gone on extra housing costs alone.

What are we arguing here? Can someone enlighten me please? Have I completely missed something? My point is that immigration is such a small proportion of the overall economy that it shouldn't be viewed as anywhere near the issue it is, and that it is in fact one of the smallest issues in relation to the wellbeing of this country and those that live within it

I'm not saying it is. Just saying that some have lost while others have gained from immigration, so for those affected most severely, it will matter a lot, even if the overall effects are benign. Parroting numbers (mean effects) which you don't seem to understand the limitations of doesn't help in this regard.

Is it set in Buckingham Palace?

Is Chandlers Ford particularly awash with immigrants then, or is it just that as a reasonably pleasant suburb of a major city, coupled with recent major housing developments (e.g. Knightwood Park) it has experienced significant growth in that 10 year period?

Or are you saying that the immigrants have pushed all the "natives" out of the city and in to the 'burbs?

I'm not saying it is. Just saying that some have lost while others have gained from immigration, so for those affected most severely, it will matter a lot, even if the overall effects are benign. Parroting numbers (mean effects) which you don't seem to understand the limitations of doesn't help in this regard.

So your point is that it affects some people negatively and some positively? Wow, with that sort of insight you should be doing something far more important than writing on a forum.

I do understand the use of mean statistics and the general irrelevance of it for small sample sizes, the point was Whitey was quoting GDP per head so thought that was the best way to present the information back to him? Is that OK with you?

For some it is important, but it is nowhere near of the importance of having a stable economy, come on?

I will repeat my stance. The single most important issue is to do with having a stable or growing economy, and immigration should not be treated with anywhere near the importance that it is.

I expect the reason immigration comes up time and time again, like benefits, where the economic importance is actually very small, is because people love something to complain about, especially when Johnny Foreigner is involved. I bet if we deported a large number of immigrants, we would see very little difference in our day to day lives, apart from not being able to get to see a doctor.

I live in Chandlers Ford and the changes over the last 10 years have had a drastic effecf on the way we live. It's impossible to get a parking space anywhere in the early morning and late afternoon. Our doctors' surgery has a waiting time of over three weeks. The roads are locked solid for large parts of the day. It never used to be like this, there are just too many people in the country.

 

This is from 2007:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html

 

If you put in figures around 80 million for the true population size you'll find that there are no economic benefits. Anyway, what is the point of a larger economy if you can't do anything with the extra money? It's more than gone on extra housing costs alone.

It's mainly about keeping people in work though, creating enough work for those that live here. Net immigration needs to reduce, but this is very much secondary to having an economy that is not stagnating or deflating.

It's mainly about keeping people in work though, creating enough work for those that live here. Net immigration needs to reduce, but this is very much secondary to having an economy that is not stagnating or deflating.

It's not an either or thing though is it. Immigration is a big issue to people in certain areas because it effects them more than others.

It has effected me personally because my mrs had to go through unnecessary pain thanks to an overstretched NHS whilst giving birth to my daughter. We were palmed off with useless students whist the place was packed with Polish and Romanians making full use of the service I have paid for with my tax. It has effected me more than the state of the FTSE.

Is Chandlers Ford particularly awash with immigrants then, or is it just that as a reasonably pleasant suburb of a major city, coupled with recent major housing developments (e.g. Knightwood Park) it has experienced significant growth in that 10 year period?

 

Or are you saying that the immigrants have pushed all the "natives" out of the city and in to the 'burbs?

Plus compared to 10-20 years ago almost every adult has a car rather than one to a family.

Is Chandlers Ford particularly awash with immigrants then, or is it just that as a reasonably pleasant suburb of a major city, coupled with recent major housing developments (e.g. Knightwood Park) it has experienced significant growth in that 10 year period?

 

Or are you saying that the immigrants have pushed all the "natives" out of the city and in to the 'burbs?

Secondary effects mainly. Big cities like London remain the same whilst sucking in people from all over the world and then those who were already there gradually spread out to areas where housing and the other costs of living are more affordable.

It's not an either or thing though is it. Immigration is a big issue to people in certain areas because it effects them more than others.

 

It has effected me personally because my mrs had to go through unnecessary pain thanks to an overstretched NHS whilst giving birth to my daughter. We were palmed off with useless students whist the place was packed with Polish and Romanians making full use of the service I have paid for with my tax. It has effected me more than the state of the FTSE.

A quarter of all doctors and nurses in the UK are immigrants because we have a shortage of the necessary skills. So you'd be in the same situation really.

If you were out of work for a year, which would you be more worried about?

A quarter of all doctors and nurses in the UK are immigrants because we have a shortage of the necessary skills. So you'd be in the same situation really.

 

If you were out of work for a year, which would you be more worried about?

The doctor who finally sorted us out was an African fella and he was fantastic. Which is why UKIP's immigration policy would make sense - control who we let in and get the skills we need.

Healthcare is very expensive, we were the only English speaking people in our ward.

I see the Farmhouse is a NF hotbed

Shame really, could have been a decent series, seemed to be a decent community spirt there and could well have reflected well on immigration. The paranoid lunatics screaming racism ruined it.

The stupid thing is that all those idiots including the MP and Labour councillors by stopping the program are yet again stifling free speech. If you don't have a reasonable discussion about immigration then it gets taken over by bigots. The 1st 30mins of the program was very good and showed just how good the area is culturally. Its the bigots that ended up causing trouble, strange the people the program was trying to defend ended up just giving ammo to the far right and other anti immigration groups. I do think the name of the program was wrong

Where was the real show? Instead, we got an hour of cutting-room floor filler in a self-serving attempt by Love Productions to portray itself as responsible film-makers who would have made a truthful, balanced and tantalisingly celebratory documentary if only it hadn't been thwarted by hysterical, bullying 'outsiders', whether other residents, the press or the liberal elite. In other words, nothing like Benefit Street's stitch up. Cross my heart and all that.

Nice try, fellas. Already see there are mugs buying the spin.

They might as well not have broadcasted it at all, just a bit of a non-show. At least St Mary's looked good on it. I think we saw parts which would suggest it would have made a decent series, some good characters. but whatever.

As someone put it on another forum

In the end it was a bunch of utter c*nts, protesting that they didn't want to be made to look utter c*nts by acting like utter c*nts.