Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000 to the taxpayer

[Demi]

I only have this to say, nor will I reply to such actions from some regarding this.
I'm foreign, once was an asylum seeker because my family was being beaten, killed, in front of me. NOW, go through that and have someone tell you, that you cannot go seek refuge somewhere else.
As a human being, not a damn alien - you absolutely have no idea, self constrained and racist individual.

On par with the actual news:

He said: "I recognise that some asylum seekers are escaping from appalling situations and that may include the children arriving in Trafford. However with schools and GP surgeries full in the Sale area I question the logic of choosing this location."

I agree it is very expensive and also that location isn't perfect.
However, they are humans. Get over it.

EDIT: It is also not permanent.

[karter]

I never said a word about India though but since you really wanted to discuss then sure

About Hyderabad : Nizam of Hyderabad desired to join with Pakistan but Hyderabad being in South India could not for strategic reasons. The Princely state of Hyderabad was actually a stolen land historically a part of Telangana. The Razakars of Hyderabad were torturing and killing thousands of Hindus of Hyderabad which in fact formed an overwhelming majority of Hyderabad and were not in support of an Islamic state. Hyderabad was a landlocked country right in centre of the Indian peninsula. It's existence as a seperate state made 0 sense.

About Goa and Daman : There was a reason India had fought for over 200 hundred years for independence. The fact that they even waited more than a decade to annexe Goa surprises me.


About Sikhs - Sikhs are not treated as 'trash'. If you're referring to the riots of 1984, that was a mob retaliation for the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That was the time where Sikhs were demanding more autonomy in Punjab later giving rise to Khalistan movement.
Sikhs are one of the most prosperous communities of India today. Khalistan movement is dead (for a reason?). Current prime minister of India is Sikh. Punjab is one of the most developed state of India. You could've picked a better example because this one isn't really working and I bet men from Sikh regiments in World War I and a thousand Sikhs killed in the Amritsar massacre beg to differ. Don't force your sympathy on people who are a million times better off without your presence.

blaming the people who built the world schools, hospitals, government buildings, roads, brought you electric, built ports

Laughable. That was done for themselves

Literacy rate in India at the time of Independence was around 10%. Now it is around 75%. The disastrous and corrupt education system of India still managed to educated a billion people in India after the independence.
Healthcare in British India was a joke with millions dying in famines and diseases in Bengal, the very region where East India Company set its foot. The same region where Britishers enforced Indigo farming and the cruel Zamindari system costing the lives of millions of people.

Now of course that's not the only example

1. Bihar Famine of 1873-4
2. Bengal Famine of 1770
3. Madras Famine of 1876

Millions killed in all of them and yet no major famines after 1947. :rolleyes:

In regards to economy

1. Zamindari system and other oppressive revenue laws which resulted in starvation, malnutrition and millions of deaths across various regions of India.

2. Collapse of the Indian handicraft industry

3. Forced indigo, tobacco and opium farming

4. Free trade system

5. Prevention of industrialization to prevent competition

6. Forced Slavery


All this and not to forget the massacres in the name of expanding the kingdom and oppressive laws where Indians had no say in (where's your democracy here?) And just so you know, Indian constitution was modelled from USA, Canada, and Germany so give it a rest and don't give yourself too much credit. So thank you for like 5 schools you created and the 10 kilometres of road you built and oh how could anyone forget the railway system you built.......for yourself.

Don't fool yourself. India is not standing on what Britishers did and is a trillion times better than what it was before. British Raj was not a golden period for India, probably the images of Delhi Darbar and lovely colonial buildings of Simla please you but that's not the reality of the Raj, wake up.

India is a diverse multiethnic and multilingual state, so conflicts are naturally bound to happen. Yet it is better off and much tolerant than most of Asian countries. Most of the 'third world' citizens coming to your country are coming in hope of better economic opportunities and are mostly doctors and engineers, not those thieves and scoundrels which came to India in the 15th century

[Daltron]

I think generally as a country we've had our fair share of third world and backwards cultures being allowed into this country.

I'll enjoy my own culture thank you very much.

I think that is just plain disrespectful. I tried seeing it from your view but I would say that is borderline offensive and definitely racist. Lost respect dude.

[Kardan]

I think that is just plain disrespectful. I tried seeing it from your view but I would say that is borderline offensive and definitely racist. Lost respect dude.

I bet you a +rep Undertaker's response contains:

'Multiculturism isn't multiracism'

[karter]

and flirted with the Soviet Union?

Oh I don't know. Ever heard of Non Aligned Movement? India founded it even when it was at war with Pakistan who was sitting in America's lap begging for arms to attack India

[-:Undertaker:-]

I only have this to say, nor will I reply to such actions from some regarding this.
I'm foreign, once was an asylum seeker because my family was being beaten, killed, in front of me. NOW, go through that and have someone tell you, that you cannot go seek refuge somewhere else.
As a human being, not a damn alien - you absolutely have no idea, self constrained and racist individual.

On par with the actual news:

He said: "I recognise that some asylum seekers are escaping from appalling situations and that may include the children arriving in Trafford. However with schools and GP surgeries full in the Sale area I question the logic of choosing this location."

I agree it is very expensive and also that location isn't perfect.
However, they are humans. Get over it.

EDIT: It is also not permanent.

That's the argument of a child, to respond to genuine concerns over asylum seekers with 'every1 is a human get over it' - that's maybe something that would wash with a primary school class, but the world doesn't work like that.

I could make an argument for increasing foreign aid to 50% of our entire budget and people would surely reply with 'but what about our hospitals, this, that, x and y' and to that I could simply say 'well ur rich and every1 is a human xx get over it'.

Would that stand up in a rational debate? No, so get over it.

I never said a word about India though but since you really wanted to discuss then sure

About Hyderabad : Nizam of Hyderabad desired to join with Pakistan but Hyderabad being in South India could not for strategic reasons. The Princely state of Hyderabad was actually a stolen land historically a part of Telangana. The Razakars of Hyderabad were torturing and killing thousands of Hindus of Hyderabad which in fact formed an overwhelming majority of Hyderabad and were not in support of an Islamic state. Hyderabad was a landlocked country right in centre of the Indian peninsula. It's existence as a seperate state made 0 sense.

It is not upto you in the post-colonial world to decide who should and who shouldn't be independent. Hydrabad was an entirely legitimate state that India invaded and annexed in an act of colonialism. As for being land locked, er hello? Does that mean India should now go marching into Nepal and Bhutan and annex them both? Should Germany annex Switzerland?

How ironic that the one shooting his mouth off about imperialism is the one now making arguments for it. I've always found it funny the way that China (less so) and India can't stop whinging about colonialism yet they are some of the worst culprits in modern history for it - China with Tibet and other regions, India with Goa, Hydrabad and the dispute over Kashmir.

About Goa and Daman : There was a reason India had fought for over 200 hundred years for independence. The fact that they even waited more than a decade to annexe Goa surprises me.

Those were legitimate Portugese holdings, India had no right to take them by force anymore than Britain has the right to take Brittany (off the coast of France) on the basis that it held them several hundred years ago.

That's how international law and treaties work, see?

About Sikhs - Sikhs are not treated as 'trash'. If you're referring to the riots of 1984, that was a mob retaliation for the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That was the time where Sikhs were demanding more autonomy in Punjab later giving rise to Khalistan movement.
Sikhs are one of the most prosperous communities of India today. Khalistan movement is dead (for a reason?). Current prime minister of India is Sikh. Punjab is one of the most developed state of India. You could've picked a better example because this one isn't really working and I bet men from Sikh regiments in World War I and a thousand Sikhs killed in the Amritsar massacre beg to differ. Don't force your sympathy on people who are a million times better off without your presence.

My Sikh friend certainly thinks differently about the treatment of Sikhs in India. But i'm puzzled by the last part - you compare men who signed up to defend the Empire in WWI with those in a massacre? Have you completely lost it or what?

Laughable. That was done for themselves

Well we weren't over there for the good of our health, no. But anyone who studied colonialism knows that a big part in the imperialist movement was the concept of civilising other cultures (mostly Africa). So whilst it was done for Britain, it was also done for India.

Literacy rate in India at the time of Independence was around 10%. Now it is around 75%. The disastrous and corrupt education system of India still managed to educated a billion people in India after the independence.
Healthcare in British India was a joke with millions dying in famines and diseases in Bengal, the very region where East India Company set its foot. The same region where Britishers enforced Indigo farming and the cruel Zamindari system costing the lives of millions of people.

Hang on, since when were we arguing about education? In terms of economics, the people of India are much worse off - at least until the 1990s - than they were under British rule. Even today India still struggles to compete with China and other growing economies because of it's badly run government, corruption and the poor economic model it follows - that's not the fault of Britain, that's your own fault.

Now of course that's not the only example

1. Bihar Famine of 1873-4
2. Bengal Famine of 1770
3. Madras Famine of 1876

Millions killed in all of them and yet no major famines after 1947. :rolleyes:

In regards to economy

1. Zamindari system and other oppressive revenue laws which resulted in starvation, malnutrition and millions of deaths across various regions of India.

2. Collapse of the Indian handicraft industry

3. Forced indigo, tobacco and opium farming

Quote me where I said the Raj was infallible. I seem to have hit a nerve when all I said was that the people of India were better off per capita under the Raj than they were in the post-imperial era upto the 1990s.

I know that's hard to stomach, but just try drop the dogma and see through it.

4. Free trade system

Uh it's exactly because you haven't got a free trade system which is why you are in such a bad state today compared with regional competitors such as China. Below you complain about the block that that British put on you industrialising which is exactly the opposite of free trade.

One or the other.

5. Prevention of industrialization to prevent competition

Indeed, and that was wrong. I don't pretend the Raj was all honey and jam.

6. Forced Slavery

That's always been within India, see the Caste System.

All this and not to forget the massacres in the name of expanding the kingdom and oppressive laws where Indians had no say in (where's your democracy here?) And just so you know, Indian constitution was modelled from USA, Canada, and Germany so give it a rest and don't give yourself too much credit. So thank you for like 5 schools you created and the 10 kilometres of road you built and oh how could anyone forget the railway system you built.......for yourself.

The miracle of the British Empire was that it brought liberty and (upon leaving) democracy to all the colonies. Nobody pretends it was all fair. Nobody pretends it was all perfect. But in comparison with other Empires, it did a hell of a lot so that many places around the world now have the gift of common law, the concept of liberty, the concept of a parliamentary system, the rule of law, innocence until proven guilty and so on.

But as for the infrastructure we left behind - hey, no problem. It was bloody good infrastructure you have to admit considering that you are still using the same buildings, trains, railways, bridges, roads and tunnels today in 2013 that we left behind all those years ago. For a country so better off and advanced without the British, you sure do still rely very heavily on those creaking and old Victorian things we left you with over 70 years ago.

We've all seen the images of Indian trains - which, prior to the 1990s hadn't changed since they were first built back prior to the 1940s. So much for progress, eh?

Don't fool yourself. India is not standing on what Britishers did and is a trillion times better than what it was before. British Raj was not a golden period for India, probably the images of Delhi Darbar and lovely colonial buildings of Simla please you but that's not the reality of the Raj, wake up.

I don't fool myself, i've examined the economic data and come to a conclusion. Give it a go.

India is a diverse multiethnic and multilingual state, so conflicts are naturally bound to happen. Yet it is better off and much tolerant than most of Asian countries. Most of the 'third world' citizens coming to your country are coming in hope of better economic opportunities and are mostly doctors and engineers, not those thieves and scoundrels which came to India in the 15th century

In other words India is far more racist and backward when it comes to people's backgrounds than Britain. But you know, I asked a question towards the end and you HAVEN'T replied to it.

So let's try again and this time give me an answer - considering how the British people feel that immigration is out of control and want it limited, do they or do they not have the democratic right (like you Indians did) to limit the numbers coming here and protect their own culture?

It's a yes or no question. Look forward to a reply.

I think that is just plain disrespectful. I tried seeing it from your view but I would say that is borderline offensive and definitely racist. Lost respect dude.

What race was I offensive and racist to in what I said?

Name the racial group I slurred and i'll apologise endlessly.

I bet you a +rep Undertaker's response contains:

'Multiculturism isn't multiracism'

That's true, something Daltron needs to learn.

Oh I don't know. Ever heard of Non Aligned Movement? India founded it even when it was at war with Pakistan who was sitting in America's lap begging for arms to attack India

Well it's nice to know that India stood by the rest of the free world for the things it says it prizes so much - democracy, independence and liberty. Not.

[Daltron]

What race was I offensive and racist to in what I said?

Name the racial group I slurred and i'll apologise endlessly.

Every race which is not that of the one you identify with. You are essentially saying how dare I have to put up with people different to my race and beliefs trying to come into this country.

This will be my last post in this thread, lol. You're clearly delusional to your own BS.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Every race which is not that of the one you identify with. You are essentially saying how dare I have to put up with people different to my race and beliefs trying to come into this country.

This will be my last post in this thread, lol. You're clearly delusional to your own BS.

So I didn't mention any race.

Thought so, and yet you're the one to call me delusional. :rolleyes:

Yes, there's me the evil white racist - the one who for the past few months has been mainly warning of mass, uncontrolled immigration from white European nations and have barely touched on immigration from Africa, Arabia and Asia. You're off your rocker mate. Time to stop smoking that pot.

[ihatehash]

Regarding multiculturalism
I live in possibly one of the most multicultural cities in the world and personally I love the fact that I there are so many people from different walks of life in my society. Learning from the large number of fijian indians and pacific islanders I work with as well as people of asian descent who I go to uni with I think has personally made me better as a person. Economically I don't think my city would be better off without migrants, as there are probably more native Maori living off welfare than other cultures and also migrants come here with the desire to work.
I love multiculturalism, It's one of the greatest things about my city.

[karter]

Name the racial group I slurred and i'll apologise endlessly.

You're writing off millions of people who vary incredibly in appearance, origin and personalities by calling them 'backward' and the last time I remember, this was called being racist so start apologizing endlessly

why does that mean Britain today should be flooded with people from the Third World who we, the public, do not want?

All I read is "I'm a white supremacist and have no tolerance for any non white people who I collectively label as third world citizens and backward". You have no problem with Poles and Irish people in your country right? Why's that??

It is not upto you in the post-colonial world to decide who should and who shouldn't be independent. Hydrabad was an entirely legitimate state that India invaded and annexed in an act of colonialism. As for being land locked, er hello? Does that mean India should now go marching into Nepal and Bhutan and annex them both? Should Germany annex Switzerland?

How ironic that the one shooting his mouth off about imperialism is the one now making arguments for it. I've always found it funny the way that China (less so) and India can't stop whinging about colonialism yet they are some of the worst culprits in modern history for it - China with Tibet and other regions, India with Goa, Hydrabad and the dispute over Kashmir.

Gorkha and Bhutia people wanted independence so India never annexed Nepal and Bhutan. Same with Sikkim, until the 1960s when the monarch decided to join with India. Same with Kashmir, Tripura, Manipur. All these princely states had their distinct cultures but Hyderabad was ruled by Razakars and was in fact a land stolen from Telangana. The Razakars were not even Indians - they were of Arab and Afghani Pashtun origin so why should India treat them any different than the British?

I'm of Kashmiri origin and I believe Kashmir is an integral part of India and has been for centuries and I could really go on about Kashmir. However almost all countries either support India on the Kashmir issue or refuse to take a stand even when Pakistan begs for support. Indian Kashmir is a developed and progressing state while Pakistani side of Kashmir is a playground of Al-Qaeda

Those were legitimate Portugese holdings, India had no right to take them by force anymore than Britain has the right to take Brittany (off the coast of France) on the basis that it held them several hundred years ago.

No. Goa traditionally represents Konkan culture, not Portugese culture. I believe Portugal complained about the annexations at The Hague but the final judgement said that India had a right to deny Portugal the access to the enclaves. Not only that, Goan people voted for Goa to be a part of India.

But as for the infrastructure we left behind - hey, no problem. It was bloody good infrastructure you have to admit considering that you are still using the same buildings, trains, railways, bridges, roads and tunnels today in 2013 that we left behind all those years ago. For a country so better off and advanced without the British, you sure do still rely very heavily on those creaking and old Victorian things we left you with over 70 years ago.

We've all seen the images of Indian trains - which, prior to the 1990s hadn't changed since they were first built back prior to the 1940s. So much for progress, eh?

About half of the network of railways in India was in Pakistan, you know that right? The zoning, expansion and integration was only done in the 1950s. Colonial railways were only used to connect a few cities with ports- Bombay, Delhi, Karachi, Calcutta. Almost all units were built indigenously.

Show Hide

This is a train from Colonial times





This is what the passenger trains look like now.





This is what metro rail system looks like

So....if you're talking about the Victoria Terminus or the few stretches of Mountain Railways of India (the entire tracks for which have been changed) then the whole nation thanks you for it, really.

That's always been within India, see the Caste System.

And it has been nearly eliminated but of course in a poor country, people will rely on bonded labour and domestic servitude. But hey, let's ignore stuffing people up and then sending them to Pacific and Carribean colonies and using a system of hierarchy a country's fighting so hard to eliminate as an excuse for the horrible deeds that were done to the people in the past.

I don't fool myself, i've examined the economic data and come to a conclusion. Give it a go.

Hang on, since when were we arguing about education?

Oh yes because that's the least important thing right? You mentioned great schools the britishers built but didn't even look at the massive illiteracy figure of pre independence India

My Sikh friend certainly thinks differently about the treatment of Sikhs in India.

If your friend gives me one more example except that of 1984 then I'll happily agree