genie, explain why this is wrong?

@emmalush wrote:

Without saying owt meself, i’m copy pasting from the BNP website, now you tell us whats wrong with it?

“London School of Economics has revealed the true costs of immigration into the UK and how it impacts on council tax payers. The report entitled ‘Population Mobility and Service Provision’ is a damning indictment of the present lunatic immigration system.

The report states that immigrants are costing council tax payers at least £200 million a year. Costs for personal translators for immigrants are costing council tax payers at least a £1,000 per year per immigrant. In London with an estimated official growth of 100,000 immigrants per year this equates to costs of tens of millions per year out of council taxes just to teach them how to speak English.

Council tax payers are also paying millions of pounds per year in ’destitution payments’ to illegal immigrants who have just arrived in the country and who are unable to claim benefits because of government rules that require them to follow the legal asylum process.

The report details that schooling for the indigenous children of the UK is suffering and impacting adversely on the education of British children, that unbearable strain is being put on the housing and health systems, that social cohesion is being damaged by the influx of immigrants into the UK, that the council housing systems are in total crisis and that council taxes will have to rise vastly in coming years to cover the costs of the immigration crisis.

The report also reveals that in ten London boroughs, over a third of the population were born overseas with Brent a staggering 46.6%.

Brent – 46.6 %
Kensington and Chelsea – 44.6 %
Westminster – 44.5 %
Newham – 38.2 %
Ealing – 37.3 %
Haringey – 37.1 %
Camden – 36.8 %
Tower Hamlets – 34.7 %
Hackney – 34.5 %
Hammersmith and Fulham – 33.6 %

This report is political dynamite. It reveals that even we in the BNP have been conservative in our estimates of the costs of immigration to the UK. This report only provides one portion of the true picture as it reveals only the costs of immigration as burdened by local councils and not central government. The true costs of immigration to this nation are enormous and unsustainable.

This report is the smoking gun on immigration, and because it comes from the LSE which is well known as being a liberal-left institution means the report and its conclusions cannot be smeared as somehow ’racist’ or having an ’agenda’.

The report is based on official government figures as regards the estimates of numbers of immigrants entering the UK. As we all know the Labour government lies out of its back teeth about the real figures of immigrants entering the country. When the Labour government said only 30,000 Eastern European immigrants would enter the country the real figure they later revealed as nearer 300,000. Only last week the Polish Prime Minister revealed that the actual figure of Polish citizens alone who have entered the country in the last two years is nearer 600,000.

The actual numbers of immigrants in this report does not include the estimated 2-3 million illegal immigrants also in the country.

This report is a watershed moment for the UK and a wake up call to all British people.

The British people must sit up and take notice and stop believing the lies peddled to them by the media and the government and vote for the British National Party or else within a generation we will become strangers in our land.”

LSE Report.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/

The reason this pasted article is incorrect, is because it selectively cites the LSE report.
Here is the full 71 page report, read it for yourself. This report far from being specifically concerned with immigration, is actually specifically concerned with migration and mobility.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/997/LSE%20Population%20Mobility%20report%20-%20Feb%202007.pdf

I suggest reading it Emma, because the report in its entirety also includes white English people moving from one city to another and the drain on London resources when looking at the mobility from within the UK. It also concerns itself with outward migration of the English moving abroad, factors somewhat overlooked by your pasted article.

Lets just look at the executive summary of the entire report:
“This project has examined, and sought to measure, a number of the impacts of
population mobility and transience on London boroughs. It has done this by
examining (i) the scale of recent migration and other mobility affecting the capital;
(ii) existing sources of research into the costs and consequences of population
mobility; (iii) boroughs’ own experiences of mobility and the impacts this generates;
(iv) estimates of some of the costs of mobility for boroughs; (v) a description of some
of the service consequences of population movement, eg, for housing; (vi) the
implications of mobility for local government finance and (vii) evidence about the
relationship between transience and social cohesion.”

Not quite the summary, the BNP article concluded, is it? I for one, cannot see the word “immigration” in that entire summary. It is also concerned with London Boroughs and not England.

Now lets look at the key findings of the report:
Extent of mobility
􀂃 There has been a substantial increase in international migration to
London within the past decade. There is now a net increase in the
overseas-born population of about 100,000 per year. However, the
turnover of people moving in and out of the city (excluding within-
London moves) is – officially – approaching 250,000 per annum.
Unofficial (and uncounted) mobility will almost certainly add to this
number.
􀂃 London has higher levels of inter-regional mobility than most other
regions. This has long been true, though there has been some
increase in outward mobility to surrounding regions in recent years.
􀂃 London has some boroughs where population mobility is greater than
35% per annum, and where the private rented sector is the largest
tenure. This has also been true for many years. What has changed is
the nature of the population that is moving, In particular, many arrive
in the capital with significant needs for public service support. There
is powerful evidence that a number of boroughs act as an ‘escalator’
for people, investing heavily in them when they first arrive (for
example with language skills and housing) before those individuals
move on and are then replaced by new ones who require councils to
start afresh in building them into the city’s economic and social life.

Again, these findings of the actual report cited, don’t quite match your article, do they?

I could go on, but would be wasting my time, by the way, your link wasn’t to the report itself, please try better.

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

Here is the full 71 page report, read it for yourself. This report far from being specifically concerned with immigration, is actually specifically concerned with migration and mobility.
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/997/LSE%20Population%20Mobility%20report%20-%20Feb%202007.pdf

Having trouble loading it up.

I suggest reading it Emma, because the report in its entirety also includes white English people moving from one city to another and the drain on London resources when looking at the mobility from within the UK.

Isnt the point though, that the BNP are saying that we dont need mass immigration, so we dont need this problem, regardless and especially because of problems we create ourselves?

It also concerns itself with outward migration of the English moving abroad, factors somewhat overlooked by your pasted article.

What is wrong with English people moving abroad?

Again, these findings of the actual report cited, don’t quite match your article, do they?
I could go on, but would be wasting my time, by the way, your link wasn’t to the report itself, please try better.

It isnt my article. I said quite clearly that it was the BNP’s, and instead of telling everyone that i agreed with it, i asked you for your thoughts without input myself…i am neither with you or the BNP so far, i havn’t made my mind up.
The link is theirs at the end of what THEY were saying.

To access the full report, simply type the title “Population Mobility and Service Provision” into google, hope that helps.
The BNP is saying “we don’t need mass immigration”, that report isn’t though.
I don’t think there is a problem with English people moving abroad, but i don’t think their is a problem with people from abroad moving to England.
“It isnt my article. I said quite clearly that it was the BNP’s, and instead of telling everyone that i agreed with it”, this may be true however you did call this thread “genie, explain why this is wrong?”, which i think i have done. I apologise for criticising your link, i should have said something along the lines of “Trust the BNP, to try and hide linking to the actual report”.