Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123
What would make your local area a better place to live over the next ten years?
KingRat
#47 Posted : 22 October 2009 14:06:59(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 09/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 122


Come on BryanDicker where is the evidence?
weggis
#41 Posted : 22 October 2009 16:37:12(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
BryanDicker wrote:
They are alleged, because there are no "must" in the article Cllrs Barden and Co. says there are. I did bring this up at Cabinet meetings but of course, the silence was deafening. As for Weggis's latter comments, We know what we heard at Cabinet and Area Meetings - documentation from these meetings? Please direct me to a link that provides it , the officer whose remit this is would, I am sure, would be grateful for this. Of course the booklets that were given to the public with enthusiasm, after Cllrs were saying how they would like to see this, that and the other put up is also a good indication, as is what is released in the Ilford Recorder!

A “recommendation” is NOT a “directive”. However, when applied to local authorities by regional or central government it comes with the arm-lock of less favourable treatment for funding in other areas.

When making an allegation it is customary to make the effort to do your own research beforehand.
BryanDicker
#46 Posted : 22 October 2009 16:45:18(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
vfmctax wrote:
Bryan, when you say "migrants" can you be specific ie from the uk or from outside our border?


Yes Migrants are usually within the country, but you are also correct, immigration, from outside the UK, needs to be considered as well.
BryanDicker
#48 Posted : 23 October 2009 13:25:17(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
weggis wrote:
A “recommendation” is NOT a “directive”. However, when applied to local authorities by regional or central government it comes with the arm-lock of less favourable treatment for funding in other areas. When making an allegation it is customary to make the effort to do your own research beforehand.


you know full well how active I was in saving the allotments, with a lot of research. Ken Livingstone's vision was just that. There is no "must" in the documents that were published by the London Assembly, or any other Local/Government publications. Are you therefore saying that the council should have flogged off the allotments to build on?? If there is no space, because the areas the council wanted to flog off are in demand, how can you build on it? Yes is an easy word to say, No should be as well!!!!
weggis
#49 Posted : 23 October 2009 15:14:54(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
No one is denying that you were active in the campaign to save the allotments, Bryan.

But you have still not provided any reference or evidence for your allegation:

“This council actually wants to see more migrants into the area”

You can search the minutes of cabinet here on key words, I’m not going to do it for you because I don’t know what you will be looking for.
weggis
#52 Posted : 24 October 2009 18:28:57(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
So while we wait for the evidence to support Mr Dicker’s allegation that “This council actually wants to see more migrants into the area” we have the testimony of Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett saying that the Labour Government [supported by Ken Livingstone] has deliberately engineered mass migration to this country for “cynical” political reasons. Without giving any thought or support to the local authorities [including health] who have had to deal with the repercussions or the communities [of all persuasions] who have had to absorb the influx.

Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor Daily Telegraph wrote:
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.
Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.
On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.
In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.
"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a (word removed) up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."
The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.
"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

References and evidence, preferably with links, are the hallmark of intelligent debate.

KingRat wrote:
What we need to know is that anyone placing comments on any thread knows what they are talking about.


Note: The "(word removed)" in the first quote above has been removed by Red-i. It was (word removed)! You can have (word removed), it seems but not followed by up. Auto censorship eh!
julie bradley
#53 Posted : 26 October 2009 08:14:52(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 20/11/2007(UTC)
Posts: 349
Good morning chaps we had a good weekend in Valentines planting lots of plants that the nice manager chose for us and on sunday we had some loverly people (two in a stretch limo) to help plant some trees. Many thanks to everyone. Our park is now greener tidier and we can all enjoy our efforts.
BryanDicker
#50 Posted : 26 October 2009 11:05:04(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
weggis wrote:
No one is denying that you were active in the campaign to save the allotments, Bryan.

But you have still not provided any reference or evidence for your allegation:

“This council actually wants to see more migrants into the area”

You can search the minutes of cabinet here on key words, I’m not going to do it for you because I don’t know what you will be looking for.


With regard to your demand - What is good for you is good for me!

Having attended many meetings during the fight, I know what was said, and it does not reflect the documents published by London Assembly. The situation reminds me of when my father was told he had to admit a patient. He turned round to the doctor and asked which patient's bed he would like the new admission to share with. How can you build on land when it is fully used. I was also told by another pro allotmenteer, that at one B21 Coffee morning there was a heated debate between one "high profile" councillor and a person who was attending that event.

I alo know that public participations are not documented (apart from the "Mr X spoke about Y". Bridget Dimmond is aleading academic writer on the importance of documentation. Maybe the Council should read it and take note!
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.