Why the moral panic?

Post!

Chestnut

Just for the record, in the 1980s about 4-6% of prisoners were foreign born nationals. Today it's 12% of prisoners are foreign born nationals. It may not sound a lot but that's 1 in 10 prisoners. That's a total of 10,500 prisoners who were not even born in the UK. And here we are releasing dangerous offenders back into the community.

I’m not clear what the last sentence has to do with the first part of your pist

LemonJam

Ipsos also found 20% of Britons polled on 17/2/26 thought that the total number of people coming into the UK was "a bit too low".

Did Ipsos therefore find that 80% of Britons polled thought the total number to be too high??

Missed out British

But these are also victims ( well prob most of them) . But I was just giving an example of how this isn’t an issue easily solved

Tuliptree

The government are well aware of this and it is one of the categories being looked at. However again it is a complex issue. I also heard a minister the other day say that some victims do not want their perpetrator freed to go elsewhere -they’d rather they served their sentences here . But in any case not a quick fix

Well none of the British victims want their perpetrators freed either, but they have to put up with it. Many of them are scared to death. Why should we detain foreign criminals and release British ones?

The government are well aware of this and it is one of the categories being looked at. However again it is a complex issue. I also heard a minister the other day say that some victims do not want their perpetrator freed to go elsewhere -they’d rather they served their sentences here . But in any case not a quick fix

Just for the record, in the 1980s about 4-6% of prisoners were foreign born nationals. Today it's 12% of prisoners are foreign born nationals. It may not sound a lot but that's 1 in 10 prisoners. That's a total of 10,500 prisoners who were not even born in the UK. And here we are releasing dangerous offenders back into the community.

What a meandering thread, with the usual pile on when anyone tries to express their concern or worries about immigration.

And plenty of whataboutery when criminal activity is mentioned, deflecting from the bad immigrants over to our bad white Brits. Yes, we know they are just as bad, but we are stuck with them, what we don't want is even more criminals entering the country.

Chestnut

LemonJam

Ipsos also found 20% of Britons polled on 17/2/26 thought that the total number of people coming into the UK was "a bit too low".

And I wonder who that 20% are. 🤔

😂

DaisyAnneReturns

Oreo

That’s what tolerance gets you.

I'm not hearing a great deal of tolerance.

Then you’re not listening .

LemonJam

Ipsos also found 20% of Britons polled on 17/2/26 thought that the total number of people coming into the UK was "a bit too low".

And I wonder who that 20% are. 🤔

Ipsos also found 20% of Britons polled on 17/2/26 thought that the total number of people coming into the UK was "a bit too low".

There's a great deal of interest in people arriving on a countries shores or borders in a great many countries around the world, including Australia, the US, EU countries etc- the UK is not exceptional.

I read the Lowy Institute poll in Australia shows a record 55% of Australians feel the current level of immigration intake is too high. According to Ipsos on 17/2/26 in the UK, roughly 46% to 47% of Britons state that immigration levels are "much too high" and 26% "a bit too high" so the level of concern is lower in the UK compared to Australia.

The concern regarding asylum seekers in all countries is generally a bit higher than regular immigration- distinguishing between the 2 in the majority of countries around the world.

Absolutely no one as far as I'm aware on this post has stated the situation in of those seeking asylum or those making a regular immigration applications is a 'minor event' or that it doesn't affect people either.

sundowngirl

And out comes the “racist” card again.
God forbid we express our concerns.

We have seen "concern" expressed by the anecdotes presented as evidence - but a person can accumulate hundreds of anecdotes and still never answer whether something is common, rare, increasing, decreasing, or what its actual causes are.

What do you call these unevidenced attacks? Admittedly, not all hostility towards people described as "illegal immigrants" is necessarily racism, because immigration status is not a race. However, it can definitely overlap with racism in some contexts.

There is obviously a great deal of interest amongst gransnetters in people arriving on your shores, pro or anti , despite those saying it is just a very minor event and doesn’t affect very many people. Funny that.

Why, express them all you like: it's an open forum, but you do not need to resort to "Othering" other human beings because of gross cultural assumptions.

Trying to silence by saying, oh but you are playing a card is in my opinion so widely discredited now it's not really worth the discussion:

We have been there so many times in GN.

It doesn't work: again, it labels many people with huge cultural and social backgrounds as the same. It does not reflect realities.

However if you want to revisit it,

please google "why is playing the race or mental health card inaccurate"

You have aa whole number of points to read:

starts with:

"The terms "playing the race card" or "playing the mental health card" are inaccurate because they reduce complex, systemic, or medical realities into a strategic game or manipulative excuse.
Labelling real experiences this way acts as a dismissal, implying that a person's background or health struggle is just a false tactic used to win an argument"

"Trivializes reality:

It frames historic and modern discrimination as a game piece rather than a lived, pervasive environment.

Silences valid concerns:

Accusing someone of playing this "card" is often a rhetorical device used to shut down uncomfortable discussions about bias.

Ignores visibility: Race is not an accessory that can be tucked away and pulled out at convenience; it affects how a person is perceived constantly.

And out comes the “racist” card again.
God forbid we express our concerns.

I thought Whitewavemark was trying to give a picture of how different invaders and settlers have arrived in these Isles for centuries and how different cultures have, over time, coagulated and adjusted.

I thought that was the thrust of her post. A generally positive view of immigration over time.

I thought it was ironic that the groups she identified were probably some of the worst she could have picked, given that they were all set on acquisition and domination.

It gave me a moment of wry amusement that I should probably have just kept to myself.

I think sometimes its more a case of simply trying to see incomers in human terms, not make assumptions of all based on the small very bad examples, and being realistic about the proportion of incomers who are actually irregular, which is very small.

Tedious repeating it, but I cant be doing with this sort of borderline racism -

"one ghastly murder = "They" must be all like this, we are all at Terrible Risk All the Time"

Who was "supporting the present wave of immigration and presumably trying to reassure.- Lathyrus3?

For goodness sake, it was pretty rough when Vikings arrived, as in pillaging, raping et al: England wasn't exactly nice to Scotland and Wales.

The analysis of the Romans in Briton is accurate. Grim at the onset: a long settled period followed as basically the peoples of what were constantly warring tribes in England decided it was better to go along to get along by and large.

Of course it was different in different parts of the Roman Empire even then, the Romans were pretty successful at getting leaders to do deals and accept their rule: when this didn't work, the brutal crack downs: especially by the pretty mad last Emperors, or first contact.

In England - lots of mini deals, trade offs, and a certain amount of putting down of minor uprisings, but basically it was a far more stable period than before or after the Romans.

If you want fictional pictures of what life was like a great one is the series, recognised as being historically very accurate by historians, by Ruth Downie, the "Ruso" series.

Oreo

That’s what tolerance gets you.

I'm not hearing a great deal of tolerance.

Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans were all groups that came to other peoples lands and seized them for their own, imposing their own cultures upon the existing population

These were the Groups that were given as examples in a thread about Immigration by someone who was supporting the present wave of immigration and presumably trying to reassure.

Am I the only person who sees the ironic humour in that😬

Whitewavemark2

Lathyrus3

They integrated the tribes, mostly Southern tribes, who accepted and changed to embrace Roman culture.

The tribes that resisted either fled westwards or waged war and were wiped out as far as possible, with a number enslaved if useful.

Romans acted ruthlessly to those who opposed them and benignly to those who accepted conquest with little or no resistance. As a tactic of conquest it was very effective. Often it enabled them to take lands with a minimum of force.

The lesson was Do not resist

🙄. It doesn’t sound as though you have read much of Mary Beard.

I can’t help feeling that the brutal episodes Lathyrus instances comprised a relatively minor part of the 1,000 years. That between these periods of fairly radical change the population of our islands led a relatively mundane, if arduous, life. With no more violent exchanges than territorial/tribal disputes.

I don’t think that DAR”s picture of integration of different cultures and peoples over a long period of time is completely negated by these episodes.