moonraker

Wow, I do not recognise the term in any practical sense. You have invented, opp’s borrowed, an emotive meaningless term which has sadly become some sort of reality in your pea sized brain. I do not know how you define mass, normally when one refers to the mass of a given population they are refereeing to the majority. So lets test your assertion of Mass Immigration. Firstly the current number of UK citizens who adhere to the Islamic Religion is 4.7% of they population, so not the mass, secondly 47% of those were born here so not immigrants, of the other 53% approximately 30% are recent immigrant (post 1990 for the purposes of this analysis), or 18% of the total in real numbers that’s a little under 500,000 or an average of 25000 a year, hey they would all fit into St Marys with room to spare for the bigots to act as the away fans. So when compared to the total population of the UK the totality of Islamic Immigration does not support your claim. Now it gets interesting as you set the benchmark of Islamic Immigration we have to use the Global Islamic Population to get an understanding of how many individuals, could by the normal interpretation of population mass, be considered the Immigrant Islamic Mass to the UK there are circa 2.2 million Muslims in the world. Using the figures above it works out that 0.0067% of all Muslims have emigrated to the UK in the past 60 years or so and UK Muslims make up 0.12% of the Global Muslim adherents, so while you like the emotion your meaningless term might generate it is neither factually or literally within a thousand light years of the truth.

Another great irony, you rebut being called racist and then deduce that anyone who disagrees with your ridiculous position is happy to have their communities over run by Islam. You really are thick or the biggest WUM ever.

Well if the only rapists and terrorist were Muslims you might be on to something. More Europeans have been killed by non Muslim Terrorists. As to the rape charge a certain non-Muslim Australian immigrant, a well loved (by some) celebrity, children’s homes staff and countless other non Muslim perpetrators would suggest that religion is not a key factor, the one thing the vast majority have in common is they are all men. I might deduce that you are a closet extreme feminist plotting the downfall of the male gender. But then I wake up and realise that you just an intolerant racist, incapable of processing information and evidence to arrive at a rational understanding of anything remotely complex. One day it will be very lonely in your cave.

It cant possibly Sour Mash as Islam is not a race.

Within the political context of the time most people supported the NSDAP because their lives were blighted by Versailles and they wanted something to believe in. However a not insignificant number of Germans actively opposed the regime throughout its tenure, in fact over 77,000 German citizens were executed following a trial due to their resistance. Additionally it has been estimated that tens of thousands of suspected opponents of the regime (not Jews) were sent to Concentration Camps without trial and subsequently died. It should not be forgotten that throughout the rise to power of the NSDAP Western Governments continually appeased them. Whilst there are many factors that created the conditions to allow such an extreme and inhumane administration to lead a major European Country, lack of effective international law, treaties, unions and agreements was a major factor, far more significant than the acquiescence of the beleaguered German people.

You are so contradictory, you are correct Islam is not a race yet you use it to characterise immigration, the normal convention is by race not religion. What is difficult to deduce from your tediously repetitive question is whether you believe that ‘limited Islamic immigration is acceptable’. I will answer your question on a personal level, my life is much fuller and richer because I live in a tolerant and divers society. Oh and don’t forget, Indian Restaurants and Takeaways have added immensely to our lives and therefore I assert we would be worse of without them, you can add kebab shops, corner shops and Harrods, taxi drivers.

Not sure he can read beyond Janet and John. How would Western Europe be worse of without him and his obviously odious views.

Fair enough, so what is the right proportion of armed police to unarmed, and how will you ensure it is only ever an armed officer in the vicinity of a terrorist?

One thing that is not different is they both kill innocent people indiscriminately. Please can you expand on the differences and why those difference are relevant, they are all scum.

So what do we do about the 90% plus of terrorism attributed deaths in Europe that have been perpetrated by non Islamic home grown terrorists.

Not sure, French and Belgium police are armed, are you saying the death tolls would have been higher? My concern is that selecting and training armed police is very specialised, if we lower the standard, which surly must to train all 130000 + officers, we must accept a greater risk that more innocent civilians will be killed by the police, would these be collateral damage. The critical element in fighting crime of any sort, terrorism included, is intelligence.

We can decide, national parliaments must be consulted before any new legislation can be made. If objections or amendments are raised they must be addressed. It is possible to stop an EU recommendation becoming Law

Well as any one who can be bothered to find out would know that is plain wrong. The power vested in the EU is enshrined in successive treaties agreed between national Governments e.g Maastricht , Lisbon. Whilst I am sure you will dismiss the fact, it is a fact that treaties can be changed, indeed to achieve your vision of hell, the US Europe, would require a treaty change. The principles behind joint EU law-making make a lot of sense, commonality of law makes cross border trading easier. The current system is founded, as I am sure you are aware, on the principle of Subsidiarity, in practice this means that the vast majority of laws are made at national, not EU, level. Making law at EU level makes sense in certain circumstances E.G. due to scale, trans border factors.

But surely this can't be true as the E U make all the laws!

I recognise that Bath is not as imapcted by immigartion as larger cities, however I have lived in Southampton (Well Park Gate) and that other place down the road, I have claose family in Peterborough so I am not ignorant of the different impacts immigration has across the country. Just for the record Bath has an immigrant population (not counting students) of 10%.

I was not aware that your place of residence imposed some sort of superiority on your opinion or made it more informed, I have the exactly the same number of votes as you. What I cannot take seriously is people who bandy about claims and numbers and then continually modify their reasoning. You said soon, not this year, you used 75 million without any context. The one thing you have got right is you are wasting your breath, no amount of scaremongering about immigration, European super states, loss of sovereignty or any off the other negatives you perceive will change my view. Leaving the EU is a regressive step, backward looking that will not improve the quality of life for the vast majority of UK residents. It is the out campaign that cannot or should not be taken seriously I still have not read anything that presents a coherent and believable case for Brexit.

Here we go again, Turkey is no where near meeting the requirements for EU membership, so to say they will join soon is just more scaremongering. And why would the whole population of Turkey come to th UK? The hypocrosy in your statements beggars believe the whole out campaign is founded on fear based on untruths and plain stupid statements.

Well spotted, no more than history shows a United States of Europe is inevitable. You are learning.

History suggests that we are better off in the EU than out.

Read it, i was refreing to the EU super state, I deal with the migration issue in part 2!

Why would one need a strategy to deal with a problem that only exists in the minds of the deluded, a European Super State (project Fear Mk II), this may be the vision of a few Eurocrats and Politicos, but it would require all EU member states and their electorates to approve it. To the best of my knowledge this is not currently a real project, therefore the timeline for such a thing to happen is tens of years at best. The sooner Brexit start dealing with real issues and stop making things up the better. As for immigration how does leaving the EU change anything, and don’t say border control we already have that, and free movement is the most likely outcome of a trade deal.

It is precisely the lack of a strategy of Brexit post a leave vote that means they have had to invent ‘Project Fear’ from what is actually ‘Project Reality’. Multiple campaigns led by the desperate, disparate and dispossessed, supported by the delusional, deprived and dull and incapable of agreeing on and presenting a coherent plan, if that is not the biggest risk to our nations future I do not know what is.

So what did you think of the most famous border control of all The Berlin Wall?

Why is it bizarre, political campaigns have long been dominated by personalities, people vote for a cocktail of reasons; natural political leaning, specific issues, trust in individuals, least worst option, least impact on the individual etc. not bizarre just normal, what I find bizarre is people advocating we should vote to leave based on “We have no idea how it will work but we think most things will stay the same, except something will change in our favour because, erm we have to believe that otherwise, erm……….”.

do you actually read anything or just regurgitate crap. The bulk of net immigration is not from the EU therefore leaving will not solve the problem you perceive. What is your answer?