miga

.

According to the article it's at the "tipping point". I think the way you can tell is that there at least 4 different pawn shops, and a variety of fried chicken and doner vendors (not always in the same shop).

.

.

.

Need another thread - summer, when will it end?

I blame the French.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who actually has to work hard for a living > (including the much maligned "yummy mummies") > don't have time to spend on here. Ah, blast it, the game is up.....

You're second guessing motivations that may or may not be there, with no evidence. Those people in Calais *want* to get to the UK. By your standards, for the French to show intent to deal with their own asylum seekers, they need to round up the immigrants in Calais and process them somewhere else. (Let's not get into historical precedents for people being trucked around Europe to processing centres). By simple logic, though, the fact they already take many more refugees/asylum seekers is enough to show that, at least relatively to us, they do plenty. In fact it is the UK where recently the tone of the public debate on immigration and refugees has shifted into "not my problem guv" territory (see Theresa May on the Med crisis, UKIP's calls to cut foreign aid, Cameron's and Miliband's commitment on stronger immigration controls). Please absorb what I have argued here before you snap back.

For a start - a lot of regulars in the Lounge don't live in SE22, so couldn't be taken into account :-)

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly, so they want to pass the "problem" onto > another state. It's wrong. These people are > already in France, they should be providing them > with basic sanitation and care. Leaving them in > tents like this is just a disgrace. Ah OK - so you think the French, who process twice as many asylum seekers as the UK, deliberately want to pass the problem to the UK. Interesting.

France processes twice as many asylum seekers as the UK.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And she's not too far from the truth. If not why > do asylum seekers, genuine or not, immigrants, > genuine or not, seem to have the UK as their > preferred European destination. Not sure it's *the* preferred destination - but it is *one of* the preferred destinations. http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_77922434_where_applicants_go_20140916_624.gif Also - I wouldn't equate asylum seeker with immigrant. Also - as an immigrant, I'm not sure what would make me a "genuine" immigrant, other than the choice I made to live somewhere else.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Mayor of Calais thinks it's because of our > benefits system, lack of ID cards, and ease of > finding cash-in-hand work. She also thinks that we > should open our borders and scrap border checks... What he said (failure to deal with illegal immigrants, black/grey economy) + once you're in, family visas are easier to come by than some other EU member states. But good question - I'd also been wondering why the UK seemed so relatively attractive, given that it's more difficult to get to than Germany or France.

No worries, DaveR, I didn't think you were saying that these people make up most of the Labour vote in London, FWIW. But there is something that irks me, putting this thread aside; namely that this group of Labour voters (whatever you call them) is over-observed, and their numbers over-emphasised. This is probably down to the fact that within the group of people that make the debate (columnists, writers, public figures), these people are very well represented, but also down to the fact that they make for such good targets given the dissonance of wealthy individuals shouting for wealth redistribution. All of that is neither here nor there, but I think the typical Labour voter is not one of these, and in fact the typical "one of these" (well educated, urban, wealthy, fashionable) is probably not a Labour voter. And the idea you're talking about, "false consciousness", is probably one of the harder to stomach about Marxism/socialism, because, yes, it can seem very patronising/missionary. Not that Labour is a socialist party by any stretch of the imagination....

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > every other region. It is, IMHO, a reasonable > observation that many Labour voters in London are > unrepresentative of Labour voters in other regions > - better educated, wealthier, more likely to be > drawn to so-called 'liberal' issues (it's > certainly something believed by the Labour party > itself). I was suggesting that those voters are I agree that Labour voters in London are different to the rest of the country, but for different reasons. I think the group you're talking about is probably overemphasised. For example, Lewisham East, one of the safer Labour seats in the country, is also one of the most deprived, encompassing Downham, Whitefoot and Rushey Green wards. The economic profile of these areas is similar to some of the economically dormant areas in the North. The social make-up is different in other ways (ethnic/racial composition), but Labour would always hope to win in areas like these, anywhere in the country. Even in Islington, the spiritual home of the group (I think) you allude to, I wouldn't be so sure that Labour's winning edge comes from the Manuka/champagne/gap yah socialists.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > yet still plenty of buttons are > > pushed as witnessed by the popularity of > threads > > such as this. > > It's a different sort of button in here though, is > it not? More of a pantomime bunfight by a load of > people who know each other too well. Maybe so...but some posters still engage with the content of what Louisa is saying. It's a reaction. Perhaps not so much on this thread.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and all we're > left with are these lame, manufactured ?I was in > my garden the other day drinking Lambrini? type > offerings, which read like a sixth former's first > attempt at a theatrical farce. I'm not sure if this is too much credit, or not nearly enough. And perhaps that's the rub - the conscious brain calls nonsense, yet still plenty of buttons are pushed as witnessed by the popularity of threads such as this.

I don't think Louisa is a troll in the classic sense. She seems self aware enough to play up to her image by starting threads such as this, but when the argument deepens that mask of lightheartedness seems to disappear and the 'trolling' no longer feels like deliberate baiting and antagonism for lulz, but desperate defence of a genuinely held position. In this thread, it was *Bob* who did a relatively amusing job of trolling Louisa in the classic sense. I think Louisa should be reinstated elsewhere - she needs it.

Whatever you think about Louisa's opinions, her threads are the most popular on the forum.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no, not really fabricated. I had a letter from the > council with that direction. So had mine taken > back. They were happy. The comment might have been aimed at Louisa.

Good call steveo, the right suff baby, the right stuff.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also if you play techno on car stereo it make a > you go faster. Personally, I find Hawkwind and amphetamines a quicker and more cosmic combination. Could probably do it in 40 minutes that way. Seriously, though, Google Maps reports a magical 51 minutes "without traffic" to T4.

I think leaving early is key. A trip to Heathrow (miraculously) took less than 50 minutes, leaving at 4AM a few days ago.

What about a driver's licence with a Southwark address?