Lady on Question Time last night should have been more robustly challenged by all

[Unacceptable111]

AIBU to think that the Question Time panel should all have come out in condemnation of this woman’s hate filled and ignorant rant (instead of just Ash Sarkar) and that Fiona Bruce should also have challenged her?

Can’t think of the amount of damage leaving such televised opinions unchallenged does .

mobile.twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1230625055803133953

I used to assume that people being pro or anti immigration was a matter of degree. So if 10% of people in U.K. having parents from another country or 20%, 60% etc was seen as the appropriate limit.

But now people (including some of my own family members) are saying there should be no border restrictions whatsoever.

I’m not sure cultural diversity is really the point either. Otherwise we’d be encouraging immigrants from cultures that are currently poorly represented in the U.K.

If Eastern Europeans are "too culturally different" to be allowed in, in large numbers, then how do the xenophobes feel about non-EU immigrants. Coz they mostly won't be nice white Aussies & Canadians. The non-white far away world are the majority of immigrants to UK now & will continue to be, in high numbers, in near future.

"People knew what they were voting for", right?

Anyone remember when Caroline Farrow said that same sex couples shouldn't adopt on QT? She was (rightly) booed, and referres to as 'that bigoted woman on QT'. Shame the response to this similarly bigoted woman is so different.

QT has descended from a robust political debate programme

That's not how I found it. To me it was a platform for politicians to spout the party manifesto and never about their own views hence I stopped watching it.
I was only interesting if non politicians (with real lives) were on.

One fact that has only recently been high-lighted is that low paid workers like care workers are below the tax level so although they are doing important work everyone else's tax is covering their health, education etc costs.

One fact that has only recently been high-lighted is that low paid workers like care workers are below the tax level so although they are doing important work everyone else's tax is covering their health, education etc costs.

So the only solution is to pay them more. Although this will mean you will pay more for care.

Rather than having a sensible debate agreeing there are good and bad things about increasing our population so quickly.

Define quickly Helga , the UK population has been rising at a fairly steady rate since the early 90's, there has never been any suggestion that this growth would plateau or reduce, so governments have had 30 years to plan for it. I think one of the main issues is governments are not very good at long term planning and are happy for people to suffer from a lack of infrastructure for as long as they can get away with it. They have also been very good at blaming that lack of infrastructure on others

One fact that has only recently been high-lighted is that low paid workers like care workers are below the tax level so although they are doing important work everyone else's tax is covering their health, education etc costs.

You're wrong.

42hrs a week on current minimum wage is £17076.

There would be £1928 tax paid on this, leaving a take home pay of £15147.

The £1928 deducted is made up of £915 tax and £1013 National Insurance contributions.

One fact that has only recently been high-lighted is that low paid workers like care workers are below the tax level so although they are doing important work everyone else's tax is covering their health, education etc costs

Statistically the immigrant population contributes more than it takes out. If you looked at the indigenous population at an individual level there are a lot of non contributors. That’s a very poor argument.

lljkk
Your chart is distorted by the very large number of international students included in the figures - (120,000 Chinese students in the UK alone) - who pay exorbitant fees to study at UK universities and who also have big fat credit card balances to spend on other UK goods and services.

The immigration which took place in the 50s and 60s was a direct result of this country’s colonialism.

Yes I understand that, my point was more that colonialism was not the fault of the general British population. They had no say in it and did not benefit from it.

@Flaxmeadow I massively disagree that British people haven't benefitted from colonialism. Vast swathes of this country were built from the profits of slavery.

Liverpool and Bristol were built on slavery. The wealth from colonialism created jobs in the UK even if many of them were menial and low paid compared to what the richest people were making.

A lot of people were employed in industries built using raw materials taken from the colonies.

Just registering my view of how scummy it is that 22% [currently] of this vote is YABU.

Just who are those 'people'. Its not enough to be the only cause of Brexit votes but its very disappointingly high.

22% is probably an accurate assessment of the level of racists in England. It's unfortunate but that's the country I live in.

@showmethegin
I massively disagree that British people haven't benefitted from colonialism. Vast swathes of this country were built from the profits of slavery.

In what way did agricultural labourers, coal miners and industrial mill labourers benefit from colonialism and slavery? The vast majority of British people were working class. What did they gain?

@Tellmetruth4
Liverpool and Bristol were built on slavery.

As were Edinburgh and Glasgow, infact a disproportionately high number of slave owners were Scots, but what did working class people in those cities gain from it?

The wealth from colonialism created jobs in the UK even if many of them were menial and low paid compared to what the richest people were making.

Which jobs?

A lot of people were employed in industries built using raw materials taken from the colonies.

Such as?
The raw material that fueled industrialisation were from Britian, coal and iron ore. Industrial textile mills used raw wool, flax, again Britain's own resources. Raw cotton was imported from the USA, not a British colony at the time of industrialisation

They had no say in it and did not benefit from it.

Of course they benefitted. British history really needs to be taught more - and properly - in this country.

Of course they benefitted. British history really needs to be taught more - and properly - in this country.

But in what way? How did a coal miner and his family, all working 16 hours a day in a pit, living in 2 room house in Derbyshire, or wherever, benefit?

How did a child chimney sweep, or overworked dock labourer in London benefit?

How did a an industrial textile mill labourer, living in an overcrowded rat infested slum in Bradford benefit?

How did a family living in a staw floor covered one room cottage and who picked turnips in field for a living in East Anglia benefit?

@Hoik Yes and many care workers do even longer hours than that. Everyone also pays VAT of course.

Exactly buttermilkwaffles, it is nigh on impossible to contribute nothing to the economy.

@flaxmeadow

I have to agree.

I'm sure the empire benefited the rich landowners and possibly others but most of my ancestors were impoverished working in fields and industry. They were exploited too and had poor housing.

I'm sure some of the other nation's more wealthier citizens did well out of the empire too. It's so one sided

The workers in Britain had jobs due to the goods such as raw materials from the colonies or building steam engines, machinery to ship to the colonies. I would imagine in those days if you didn't have work you starved so even if you worked down a mine at least you had a job. If you had a large family the DCs would all also work.

Ash Sarkar is a hypocrite. She defended two racists who defaced the memorial to Jews killed in the Warsaw ghetto. Apparently graffitiing the memorial to Jews who perished in the Warsaw ghetto is fair game because Israel exists.

The workers in Britain had jobs due to the goods such as raw materials from the colonies or building steam engines, machinery to ship to the colonies.

Coal, iron, steel, wool, flax, pottery, bricks etc were not produced from raw materials from the colonies, they were raw materials from Britain and extracted or manufactured by a British workforce, who had no say in any aspect of colonialism or trade. Raw cotton wasnt from the colonies either. It was imported from the USA (not a British colony post 1770s)

I would imagine in those days if you didn't have work you starved so even if you worked down a mine at least you had a job. If you had a large family the DCs would all also work

Not always had a job. During times of manufacturing distress and high unemployment people did starve in Britain. They either starved or became an 'inmate' in prison like conditions in a parish, or later a union workhouse. Or forced to sign themselves, and their children, into a paupers indenture contract.

Very few British industrialists, mill owners or colliery owners etc, owned slaves (in the West Indies), unless you count their British workforce as slaves, which they weren't far off being in some cases in the early 19th century

Tobacco too.