This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
3
3
In reply to JLS:
> Situation Normal All F*#ked Up.
> Depressing stuff.
There is no adequate response that I can give to this, other than expressing a hope that all involved in this get caught and punished - however the fact that this even exists is a sad indictment of our times
9
In reply to subtle:
Indeed.
1
In reply to subtle:
> however the fact that this even exists is a sad indictment of our times
and the policies we vote for.
jk
14
19
In reply to jkarran:
What policy would you change ?
8
5
In reply to JLS:
How utterly awful...particularly in a world of our times where things like that should not be happening....
In reply to David Riley:
If we provided sufficient places, support and safe channels for refugees we wouldn't stop this but it would be massively reduced and the cash flows to organised criminals with it. But no, we vote for the 'hostile environment' and do everything we possibly can to force these people into the black economy.
jk
35
21
In reply to jkarran:
How many is sufficient places ?
12
20
In reply to David Riley:
Several places for each and every bomb we sell or drop on the Middle East/Africa
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/20/uk-arms-...
Post edited at 16:40
40
9
8
1
In reply to David Riley:
> How many is sufficient places ?
Do you really think this is the appropriate thread for clever dick responses like that?
Post edited at 17:09
14
28
In reply to MG:
> Do you really think this is the a appropriate thread clever dick responses like that?
The whole thread appears to be using the deaths to score points for political reasons.
30
3
In reply to FactorXXX:
> The whole thread appears to be using the deaths to score points for political reasons.
This entire forum appears to be an arena of virtue-signalling. It started with the "I don't have a TV" posts around 15 years ago and now there is virtue-signalling in about 35% of threads!
21
14
In reply to FactorXXX:
> The whole thread appears to be using the deaths to score points for political reasons.
I'm wondering how it would be possible to talk about what one thinks creates the circumstances for this kind of thing to happen, without talking about politics - to do with our immigration policies, who we sell arms to, what relations we have with other countries, any involvement we have in conflict in other countries, the things we implicitly tolerate by not making a fuss about them, and probably a few other things too?
Things like this don't 'just happen' in isolation of other things, things which UK politics influences. I'm not trying to score a point, I'm genuinely wondering how one could talk about it and have things not stray into politics. Politics affects everything.
Post edited at 17:25
32
2
In reply to Timmd:
I think it is entirely possible to discuss the politics without "point scoring" or implied indifference to people dying. You'd hope that 39 people being found frozen to death in a lorry in the UK might result in some concern across the board.
3
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
> The whole thread appears to be using the deaths to score points for political reasons.
Everytime you buy cheap fruit and veg. Every time you get a cheap car wash, or visit a nailbar or buy a bag of weed or order stuff online 'cos its way cheaper than it should be
You are voting for some poor bastard to suffocate, or freeze to death, or boil to death in a pitch black container. Politicians didn't do this.
We did. And we should be ashamed
37
16
In reply to MG:
> I think it is entirely possible to discuss the politics without "point scoring" or implied indifference to people dying. You'd hope that 39 people being found frozen to death in a lorry in the UK might result in some concern across the board.
It's my (absorbed) experience that 'point scoring' can be a subjective thing, so that if one person says 'If X party wasn't doing this...' one person would see it as point scoring, while somebody else sees it just as something which is true. It fairly often happens on Question Time or Any Questions, and on here.
Post edited at 18:24
7
1
In reply to toad: Good post.
2
5
In reply to toad:
> Everytime you buy cheap fruit and veg. Every time you get a cheap car wash, or visit a nailbar or buy a bag of weed or order stuff online 'cos its way cheaper than it should be
> You are voting for some poor bastard to suffocate, or freeze to death, or boil to death in a pitch black container. Politicians didn't do this.
> We did. And we should be ashamed
Harsh but fair. Our whole economy has been built around exploitation of the poorest, regardless of nationality.
21
1
In reply to jkarran:
I know many people who got to the Uk via a lorry. Some of their stories are horrific. I think programmes you describe (‘Gateway’, Vulnerable Syrian Resettlemt Programme) have/do exist but cannot tackle the scale of the problem - 25 million refugees globally. And a key part of the problem is that many people who try to make their way to the UK are not doing it for reasons that would grant them asylum. My view is that it is these people that smugglers often target. They know that even if their asylum claim is rejected then they can easily go underground and actually lead a better life than the one they left.
My plan to help address the problem would include: More ‘Gateway’ type programmes, fund better refugee camps that enable people to return back to their country once things have settled down, a functioning system for returning people who have been ‘fully refused’ by the home office, better education in countries of origin so they have a better idea of how shit things can be on their journey here.
5
In reply to toad:
> We did. And we should be ashamed
Very few of us are responsible for the drivers for mass migration: global economic inequality, natural disasters and foreign wars.
Just as I feel no pride in the achievements of others, I feel no shame for stuff I've had no hand in.
18
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Can’t remember the statistic (my training notes are at work), but Yemen has more people requiring humanitarian assistance than any other country 20+ million. Our arms trade is a total fekin shambolic disgrace. And because most Yemenis are from poor backgrounds, they can’t afford to travel to safe countries (I only know one, sat next to him watching footie Sunday).
On the basis of balance, worth noting Iran has more asylum seekers in UK than any other country. My experience is most fly here and claim asylum based on religious persecution( converted from Islam to Christianity and they get caught practising, in secret ‘secret’ churches in peoples houses).
5
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Very few of us are responsible for the drivers for mass migration: global economic inequality, natural disasters and foreign wars.
> Just as I feel no pride in the achievements of others, I feel no shame for stuff I've had no hand in.
On a macro scale, maybe. But as an individual, how much are you willing to pay for a cauliflower?
7
6
In reply to mick taylor:
I’m way too pessimistic to believe these partial solutions will make much of dent in the problem. That’s not a reason not to try but I fear tragedies like these will repeat regularly.
1
In reply to toad:
> On a macro scale, maybe. But as an individual, how much are you willing to pay for a cauliflower?
So everyone wealthy enough to go through life paying top dollar can pat themselves on the back, happy in the knowledge that their consumer choices render them guilt free?
Meanwhile, if you're skint and struggling you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself?
Edit: I don't even know how this would work. If everyone in the West refused to buy stuff that was cheap, how would that improve things? The people selling stuff would just say 'Ta very much' and pocket a bigger profit. Nothing would change.
Post edited at 19:18
11
7
In reply to toad:
> On a macro scale, maybe. But as an individual, how much are you willing to pay for a cauliflower?
Is there a non-illegal immigrant picked aisle that I've missed at the shop?
I'd pay a higher price if they were a higher price to be paid. Pickers should be hired and paid in accordance with UK law and I'm happy to pay the price of that, whatever that might be.
I'm not sure the consumers are reponsible for something way down the supply chain of a supermarket. If a supermarket were shipping in illegal immigrants and paying them a pound an hour I think most would stop shopping there but it's not that obvious.
If you have any concrete leads on the exploitation of people for cauliflower production I urge you to contact the police. The problem is that you don't know because it's unreasonable to expect a customer to conduct detailed research into the supply chain of every item in the shop.
For that, we have laws, regulatory bodies, and criminal enforcement. I'm about as responsible for all of that as I am the UK government deciding to drop a bomb on Syria. I didn't even vote for this government so aside from starting a bloody revolution it's outside of my control. So in conclusion I'm not sure I actually do share some of the blame.
Post edited at 19:33
17
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
You could just eat food that originates from these Isles, but then you'd probably be accused of being a 'Little Englander' for not trading with our European friends.
You can't win sometimes.
8
6
In reply to toad:
I don't think cauliflower pickers are unduly exploited are they? Low wage shitty job, sure, but hardly trafficking lorry death territory.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Very few of us are responsible for the drivers for mass migration: global economic inequality, natural disasters and foreign wars.
> Just as I feel no pride in the achievements of others, I feel no shame for stuff I've had no hand in.
Have you heard the theory that each purchase is a political decision?
Post edited at 19:47
3
6
In reply to Lusk:
> You could just eat food that originates from these Isles
I think part of the narrative that some posters above at relating, involves food originating from “these Isles” and has to do with who is doing the manual labour to get it from plant to aisle
2
In reply to FreshSlate:
Its the distance from the point of purchase that's the issue. Most reputable retailers are subject to and so rigorously apply the rules on modern slavery etc. Their tier 1 suppliers will do likewise but the regulation and so the protection gets less and less the further along the supply chain you go. As a simple trolley pushing punter it's hard to tell.
Unless you are buying your veg from a bloke at the car boot sale you will be forgiven to think all is OK?
In reply to Lusk:
> You could just eat food that originates from these Isles, but then you'd probably be accused of being a 'Little Englander' for not trading with our European friends.
> You can't win sometimes.
I wouldn't have thought so, given the trading of other goods with the EU which takes place.
Post edited at 19:55
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
> So everyone wealthy enough to go through life paying top dollar can pat themselves on the back, happy in the knowledge that their consumer choices render them guilt free?
> Meanwhile, if you're skint and struggling you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself?
Framing it like this, almost suggests that one shouldn't think about the 'back story' behind what one buys, because poorer people can't afford to? This is a spurious argument when 'people power' in the form of boycotts (among other things) has been found to work. It's about anybody who can exercise more choice doing so.
That it's an unfair world along the lines of who can afford to shop with their conscience more to the forefront of their minds doesn't mean that those who can afford to shouldn't do, because the more people who do the greater the chance there is that prices of more ethical products may come down.
Post edited at 19:58
6
3
In reply to Timmd:
> Have you heard the theory that each purchase is a political decision?
Yeah, it's bollocks. Unless you can do the weekly big shop at Tesco confident in the provenance, production and distribution of every one of the 90,000 individual items, your 'political decision' is just a big game of pin the tail on the donkey.
6
3
In reply to MG:
> I don't think cauliflower pickers are unduly exploited are they? Low wage shitty job, sure, but hardly trafficking lorry death territory.
Certainly was at one point. Several gangmaster related prosecutions in Lincs. Relating to produce
6
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Yeah, it's bollocks. Unless you can do the weekly big shop at Tesco confident in the provenance, production and distribution of every one of the 90,000 individual items, your 'political decision' is just a big game of pin the tail on the donkey.
What? It depends on the context in which one is making purchases, with some purchases being easier to access than others, meaning that it isn't bollocks as a concept. If one doesn't think about it, things will never change for the better, too.
Post edited at 20:09
2
3
In reply to JLS:
Unbelievably tragic. Terrible for the deceased and I feel for the police etc that had to deal with it.
1
In reply to toad:
Gangmaster prosecutions may not have anything to do with trafficking. I have discussed human trafficking with police etc, and farm labouring wasn’t even discussed - nail bars (sex workers) and cannabis farms/drug production by far the biggest trafficking issue. I’d take a punt that their ‘labourers’ had arrived by legitimate means and then exploited like mad. Might be wrong tho, i’m on about Greater Manchester.
In reply to Timmd:
> What? It depends on the context in which one is making purchases, with some purchases being easier to access than others, meaning that it isn't bollocks as a concept. If one doesn't think about it, things will never change for the better, too.
Think about it. For each purchase to truly be a political decision, you'd have to be completely aware of how something was produced, where, what from, conditions of the workforce, the finance, investments and tax compliance of every involved party, conditions of product development, compliance with intellectual property rights and on and on.
Try going out to buy a new kettle in a politically responsible manner, see how far you get.
3
In reply to Stichtplate: I never said that it's 'always possible' to make an informed choice, merely that 'where possible one should do' if one can afford it and find out enough about the purchase.
Post edited at 20:35
4
1
In reply to mick taylor:
Oddly enough there used to be a lot of hortic production on the edge of GM ( my family for one) but the larger scale growers in lancs and the eastern counties made it uneconomic. Its now arable or turf growing. There were some migrants on the mosses even then - late 70s/early 80s, but most of the labour was homegrown. Its a different situation now, and i think the actual growers and packers have very little to do with the work force
In reply to Stichtplate:
https://thegoodshoppingguide.com/
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/
These are helpful towards making (more) informed purchases.
Post edited at 20:40
3
1
In reply to Timmd:
> I never said that it's 'always possible' to make an informed choice, merely that 'where possible one should do' if one can afford it and find out enough about the purchase.
You didn't say either. You posted 'Have you heard the theory that each purchase is a political decision?'
To which I replied "Yeah, it's bollocks"
I try not to eat baby dolphins, I'll actively avoid the likes of Nestle and Del Monte and I'd rather wear the flayed skin of my first born than anything from Topshop, but "every purchase is a political decision"? Pure bollocks.
3
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
I agree its a nonsense claim but you can be political without full knowledge. Its nonsense because most purchases simply aren't political, they are because someone wants something!
1
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
> You didn't say either. You posted 'Have you heard the theory that each purchase is a political decision?'
> To which I replied "Yeah, it's bollocks"
> I try not to eat baby dolphins, I'll actively avoid the likes of Nestle and Del Monte and I'd rather wear the flayed skin of my first born than anything from Topshop, but "every purchase is a political decision"? Pure bollocks.
Right, so if I'd posted 'Some purchases are a political decision', you'd have not said it was bollocks. I'm sure we could have arrived at this point in a less argumentative way to be honest.
Post edited at 20:53
5
3
In reply to Timmd:
> Right, so if I'd posted 'Some purchases are a political decision' you'd have not said it was bollocks. I'm sure that we could have arrived at this point in a less argumentative way to be honest.
You're probably right but I'm on a diet, grumpy and most of all, that first post was bollocks.
3
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
> You're probably right but I'm on a diet, grumpy and most of all, that first post was bollocks.
Bollocks isn't a word which provides detail on the how and why one doesn't agree.
Post edited at 20:55
3
3
In reply to Timmd:
> Bollocks isn't a word which provides detail on the how and why one doesn't agree.
True, but it's one of my favourite words, I use it a lot and I'm determined to grasp what small pleasures I can.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
To all of you guys bickering about ethical shopping etc: start a different thread. If this was about the death of 30 climbers I doubt you would allow yourselves such a stupid digression (and I fully get the political aspect - it’s my day job dealing with this sort of stuff.)
5
3
In reply to mick taylor:
Is this a new UKC rule, no digression allowed? Bollocks
3
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
What's yer favourite owl?
6
In reply to JLS:
Horrible news
Feel for the young lad who happened to hook up to the trailer 30 minutes prior.
In reply to JLS:
This is not a new (or Tory) problem.
58 people found dead in a lorry in Dover, year 2000
3 years into Blair’s government
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/796791.stm
People jump to blame the Torys or Corbyn or whatever when actually if we all took responsibility for our own actions then eventually we might get somewhere
Start by washing your own car
9
3
In reply to toad:
> Everytime you buy cheap fruit and veg. Every time you get a cheap car wash, or visit a nailbar or buy a bag of weed or order stuff online 'cos its way cheaper than it should be
> You are voting for some poor bastard to suffocate, or freeze to death, or boil to death in a pitch black container. Politicians didn't do this.
> We did. And we should be ashamed
The people responsible for the deaths are the people who shut 39 human beings in an airtight refrigerated container.
On the causes of human trafficking, you seem to have a very one sided view..... I'd be happy to discuss it further on another thread.
4
In reply to mark s:
Do you mean the 25 year old driver? Ultinatley it is his respeonsibility to check the trailer.
I am stunned it is 39 Chinese.
I was expecting them to be from Eritrea etc.I suspect alot of other people were expecting them to be African/Syrain refugees.
In reply to neilh:
> Do you mean the 25 year old driver? Ultinatley it is his respeonsibility to check the trailer.
The containers are loaded straight onto lorries at the docks (Tillbury), drivers don't get a chance to check what is inside. The containers are usually opened at warehouses (mostly nearby), and this seems to be the case here. I would think the police are trying to establish if the driver was or was not aware of what was being done.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I am well aware of the practise, but it is still the drivers responsibility to check ( for this very reason).It will be interesting to see what happens in this regards.
I assume this is why refrigerated lorries are used...more difficult to check.
Time will tell with the driver.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
The other thing to consider is that the police have to secure the crime scene and arresting the driver on suspicion of murder may be either part of or the start of that process. Maybe Off-Duty can confirm/reject that hypothesis
In reply to neilh:
>"I am stunned it is 39 Chinese."
I can understand the need to escape a war zone or serve economic hardship in parts of Africa. Superficially, it seems harder to understand the need to "escape" modern China for life as an illegal immigrant in the UK. While I’m sure working in a factory in China isn’t exactly a bowl of cherries, is living off grid in the UK really any better? These people may turn out to be from some oppressed minority which may be their main driver, but if not, does anyone have an understanding of what drives the China to UK trafficking. Are the typical victims simply entrapped in some way by modern slavers with exaggerated promises of a better life?
Post edited at 12:09
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Its not a container its a trailer, and arrived at Purfleet. If UK lorry picked it up it would have been dropped off by continental driver who (in theory) would have returned to Europe with another trailer (empty or with load). Manifest would have been declared on paperwork so he either was part of it or was unawares... time will tell.
In reply to neilh:
As the driver his responsibility is the road worthiness and connecting air lines putting his reg plate on etc. The fridge is sealed usually and he won't have access.
3
In reply to Andy Hardy:
In so far as we know at the moment, the driver travelled from NI to collect a trailer on the other side of England and, at some point, opened it, apparently to find some paperwork, and found 39 bodies.
Ok, he's been arrested, which I expect is standard procedure in these circumstances (OffDuty?)
Where I have a problem is that, as yet, he hasn't been charged with anything, far less found guilty of anything and yet his full name, age, home address, his parent's address, pictures of the houses and various character references from his friends have already been splashed all over the news.
It seems odd that the paperwork was in a pocket on the inside of the trailer door, as claimed, but I know nothing about the fine detail of the haulage industry and maybe that's standard so it doesn't get lost?
It seems an odd place to have stopped if you were planning on letting migrants escape/putting them in other vehicles.
2
In reply to Bellie:
> Its not a container its a trailer, and arrived at Purfleet.
Ok, thanks. I've only dealt with containers so assumed it would be one of those, as the news said the driver picked it up from the docks.
In reply to JLS:
More curious is who turned the freezer unit on, a driver on the Continent who wasn't "briefed" or a port/ferry worker.
1
In reply to jimtitt:
>"More curious is who turned the freezer unit on"
Isn't having the freezer unit on part of the ruse?
In reply to jimtitt:
If it was a load into UK and not empty, then at some stage - during port handling the unit must have been seen to be on so as not to arouse suspicion. So perhaps someone forgot to turn it off.
I'm assuming the 'load' was into UK, to lessen the chances of inspection (of a supposed empty unit).
In reply to mick taylor: It is related, but you make a good point. It all came down to the use of 'bollocks' - it doesn't enlighten.
(Tongue in cheek)
Post edited at 13:37
In reply to Bellie:
> If it was a load into UK and not empty, then at some stage - during port handling the unit must have been seen to be on so as not to arouse suspicion. So perhaps someone forgot to turn it off.
> I'm assuming the 'load' was into UK, to lessen the chances of inspection (of a supposed empty unit).
My thoughts really, if it had a declared load the paperwork would give the cooling requirement so it's possible a port worker turned it on or plugged it in.
In reply to JLS:
> >"More curious is who turned the freezer unit on"
> Isn't having the freezer unit on part of the ruse?
I'm only surmising, but in the reports it doesn't refer to port authorities or officials inspecting/opening the trailer, but rather "they started receiving reports of bodies in the trailer". Its quite possible that it was the driver who reported it, and being aware of the human load he was to pick up... found the fridge unit ON when collecting, so headed straight out from Purfleet, to a nearby industrial estate so he could open the doors away from anything to discover it was all too late.
Post edited at 13:35
1
In reply to jimtitt:
I suppose what is kinda suprising is the trafficing operation isn't soffisticated enough to have then freezer unit doctored to appear working while leaving the trailer relatively warm inside.
2
In reply to Bellie:
>"found the fridge unit ON when collecting, so headed straight out from Purfleet, to a nearby industrial estate so he could open the doors away from anything to discover it was all too late."
We can speculate until the cows come home but I reckon with that senario the driver would have done a runner. Seems unlikely that he could be involved and hope to bluff his way out. But who knows, perhaps he just decided there and then to accept his fate.
Post edited at 13:45
In reply to Bellie:
I believe the trailer was fitted with a Carrier Transicold refrigeration unit. I worked with Carrier UK to design, and manufacture for them, a comprehensive printing temperature / door open recording system as a checking system that was independent of their own controls. They fitted my instrument as standard for a while. I expect the recording functionality (black box) will be on the trailer either included in the refrigeration or a separate unit. Possibly disabled. But hopefully that is intentionally difficult.
Post edited at 14:04
2
In reply to jimtitt:
On or off you die by asphixiation. Cold chain units are air-tight. Certainly tight enough that 39 folk would use up the available oxygen in no time.
In reply to Timmd:
Ironically, failure to get modern slavery statements from perfectly reputable organisations and individuals has resulted in my organisation not paying people for months on end. They themselves have noted, in exasperation, that this has effectively resulted in slavery.
Modern Slavery statements are a joke (a box-ticking exercise, embarrassing to ask for, and not worth the paper they're written on) and I don't think the drive towards them really does much at all to help anyone.
2
In reply to neilh:
> I am well aware of the practise, but it is still the drivers responsibility to check
He did, and got a very nasty surprise.
1
In reply to Pan Ron:
> Modern Slavery statements are a joke (a box-ticking exercise, embarrassing to ask for, and not worth the paper they're written on) and I don't think the drive towards them really does much at all to help anyone.
I'm thinking that their worth would depend on the actions of the people connected to them?
1
In reply to Timmd:
It's just a statement that they sign though. You could well be a white cotton farmer in the deep south "employing" hundreds of slaves, and all the form requires is a self-declaration that you don't engage in slavery.
That's all we collected and all we have the means to chase up on every time we buy a blue pen, or ream of paper. It does slow down the payment of suppliers though.
1
In reply to JLS:
I would expect the drivers not to have access to their cargoes, otherwise they could easily nick the contents and blame it on thieves. The doors will have been wired shut with customs seals I suspect.
1
In reply to JLS:
Not many Chinese claim asylum and are successful, and 'yes' they are often entrapped by modern slave gangs with a false promise of a better life. Typically 'if you pay me $x then I will get you a good job and a house' then they shove them in a cannabis factory, pay them £X a week and charge them £X for rent.
Whilst you could find figures saying.... 'on average it costs a refugee £xxx to get smuggled into the UK',.... this is not usually the case for people from places like Sudan and Eritrea. They are usually working class people with little money who sneak onto lorries to get across the channel (I know Sudanese guy who clung to the underside of a lorry!!)
The more I think about this incident, the more upset and angry I get.
2
In reply to JLS:
There is some speculation that he fainted.
In reply to mick taylor: It's truly the dark side of human nature when it's to do with things like this.
In reply to mick taylor:
I'm starting to hear a bit more about the context in which these Chinese people have found themselves travelling to the UK. I gather from something I heard on the BBC that even internal migration within China is difficult/illegal so just moving internally to a prosperous city isn't an easy option either. It seems that the economic gap in China is still the main reason for travel to the UK.
I'm not sure what to make of the comment's the Guardian have cut 'n' pasted from Chinese social media.
e.g. “Why are people still risking their lives when China is constantly improving?” one user said.
If that is a typical sentiment, it would appear that not everyone appreciates the plight of the poor within their own border.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/essex-lorry-deaths-uk-must-be...
In reply to JLS:
How would people in a country where the media is controlled and the Internet censored know otherwise?
In reply to JLS:
> I'm not sure what to make of the comment's the Guardian have cut 'n' pasted from Chinese social media.
do you mean quoted; a bit like I'v done here ^ ?
I presume the guardian woudl like to inform you of what was said. CSM have a long and proud history of muck-flinging, diversion and destraction whenever anythign might possibly reflect poorly on the state.
In reply to marsbar:
> How would people in a country where the media is controlled and the Internet censored know otherwise?
Word of mouth?
When I say, "I'm not sure what I make of", what I mean is…
a) Can I be sure this hasn't comment isn't state authored?
b) If it's a genuine comment, how typical is that view?
c) Given the question marks over a & b why has the Guardian picked it out?
Post edited at 09:43
In reply to daWalt:
>"I presume the guardian woudl like to inform you of what was said."
Am I to believe the Guardian has picked this comment out because it believes this to be a typical genuine comment expressing typical sentiment within China?
My "cut'n'paste" reference, which I've understood you to have taken umbrage with, was just me wondering how much thought had gone in to picking that comment out.
In reply to JLS:My guess is that daWalt, like me, hates the inaccuracy of the phrase "cut and paste" w.r.t. COPYING and pasting some words from an Internet article elsewhere. You haven't "cut" anything, as your action did not remove it from its original source. You may call this pedantry; you'd be wrong. It is incorrect language, it is prevalent, and it's annoying to people who care about these things.
> My "cut'n'paste" reference, which I've understood you to have taken umbrage with, was just me wondering how much thought had gone in to picking that comment out.
2
8
In reply to Blue Straggler:
>"It is incorrect language"
I doubt that is daWalt’s umbrage. Notwithstanding my understanding is that language and meanings evolve. Likes mistakes in the genome, if it’s reproduced enough then it’s no longer a mistake, it's just how it is...
In reply to JLS:
I'm not offended or annoyed; I was only poitign out the the article was simply information - this is what was said.
I thought using the phrase "cut and past" implies takign one thing, applying it elsewhere out of context, and implicitly agreeign with its new sentiments as applied. (or is that what you were meanign? if you follow.....)
In reply to marsbar:
> There is some speculation that he fainted.
Said on Radio this morning that he called 999
In reply to JLS:
> Am I to believe the Guardian has picked this comment out because it believes this to be a typical genuine comment expressing typical sentiment within China?
I sure it's not typical sentiment of the public (or "the people!" if you will), the artcle just shows the very typical response of the state media = blame the foreign govenrment(s)
In reply to Blue Straggler:
that's a bit metaphysical for me.
it's just "cut and paste" has implied meanings that "quote" doesn't
In reply to daWalt:
> I thought using the phrase "cut and past" implies takign one thing, applying it elsewhere out of context, and implicitly agreeign with its new sentiments as applied. (or is that what you were meanign? if you follow.....)
> it's just "cut and paste" has implied meanings that "quote" doesn't
That's interesting, I've usually seen it as an irrational(*) shorthand for "quoting" with no hidden extra meaning.
e.g. "I've cut-and-pasted this film review from Rotten Tomatoes"
* irrational, because "cut and pasted" is more key strokes than "quoted"
In reply to daWalt:
>"the article was simply information - this is what was said"
Fair enough. But is it enough these days to take what is said or quoted at face value without applying some critical thinking around why it has been said or quoted and what it really means.
>" is that what you were meanign?"
My interpretation of “cut ‘n’ paste” here is that you simply reproduce the words without much thought around them.
1
In reply to Blue Straggler:
>"That's interesting, I've usually seen it as an irrational(*) shorthand for "quoting" with no hidden extra meaning. "
Perhaps I'm alone, but my use does imply an element of laziest. Possibly steming from comments on student essay writing.
In reply to JLS:
Agree. Quoting --> implies brain engaged in selecting quote
Copy/Paste --> implies no further thought involved.
CB
In reply to JLS:
39 human beings dead in the back of a lorry and UKC is debating the semantics of the term ‘cut and paste’...
16
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Not even a little surprised.
3
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> 39 human beings dead in the back of a lorry and UKC is debating the semantics of the term ‘cut and paste’...
I have enough trouble understanding the world I live in most of the time. I can't even begin to imagine what the world those poor people came from must be like.
1
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> 39 human beings dead in the back of a lorry and UKC is debating the semantics of the term ‘cut and paste’...
In case this is in some part aimed at my comment about “cut-and-paste”, let it be known that I am not “UKC” and I was actually attempting to mediate what I thought was a tangential spat about semantics, in order to bring things back on topic.
2
6
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Very few of us are responsible for the drivers for mass migration: global economic inequality, natural disasters and foreign wars.
Even if that’s true we’re responsible as to how we handle the consequences of these events. Also responsible of how we vote.
2
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Even if that’s true we’re responsible as to how we handle the consequences of these events. Also responsible of how we vote.
How have you been handling the consequences of these events? How would your voting choices impact these events?
1
1
In reply to Stichtplate: perhaps not in obvious ways. Given that it's going to be a lot harder to use cheap East European labour from now on we can expect that hole in the labour market to be filled by other people .
If the UK tries to stick to hard migration targets then smuggling will go up.
If, as a result of trade deals, barriers to migration are removed it might hopefully go down. And if you want a trade deal with India f.ex., that will in arguably be part of the deal.
Post edited at 09:19
2
In reply to wbo2:
> perhaps not in obvious ways. Given that it's going to be a lot harder to use cheap East European labour from now on we can expect that hole in the labour market to be filled by other people .
> If the UK tries to stick to hard migration targets then smuggling will go up.
> If, as a result of trade deals, barriers to migration are removed it might hopefully go down. And if you want a trade deal with India f.ex., that will in arguably be part of the deal.
58 Chinese immigrants were found dead in the back of a lorry in 2000. You notice any impact?
6
In reply to RomTheBear:
> ... Also responsible of how we vote.
Your attempt at political point-scoring seems woefully out of place here.
This is an appalling and heartbreaking human tragedy. However, no country on the planet has a free-for-all immigration policy - certainly the UK never has had such a thing - and the villains here are the crooks who organize the smuggling and trafficking of humans.
11
In reply to JLS:
Reading the words of someone inside the lorry is heartbreaking.
If you are trapped in a refrigerated container, destroy the temperature sensors.
In reply to Stichtplate:cheap labour is always popular and demand isnt going to go away even if you make the supply more awkward. All you'll do is change the nationality of those doing it, and the degree of legality
In reply to wbo2:
Is it really popular.? It’s an extreme minority as it has to be seriously below the radar.
1
In reply to neilh:well the home office estimate around 20000 I believe (source radio) but other estimates are quite a bit higher.
But I would expect it to rise if you get a sudden gap in the labour market of a couple hundred thousand.
In reply to wbo2:
> perhaps not in obvious ways. Given that it's going to be a lot harder to use cheap East European labour from now on we can expect that hole in the labour market to be filled by other people .
That's one of the reasons why industries dependent on cheap labour want Brexit. The EU eastern europeans aren't cheap enough any more because the new EU states economies have been gradually converging with the rest of the EU. As EU citizens they can quit and take their labour to the highest bidder. Now the employers want access to really cheap labour from non-EU countries under restrictive visa schemes that tie them to one employer.
2
7
In reply to wbo2:
> well the home office estimate around 20000 I believe (source radio) but other estimates are quite a bit higher.
> But I would expect it to rise if you get a sudden gap in the labour market of a couple hundred thousand.
Really?
Do you honestly think legitimate businesses are going to be hiring illegal immigrants to fill their labour shortfall?!
3
In reply to Stichtplate:
> 58 Chinese immigrants were found dead in the back of a lorry in 2000. You notice any impact?
Yes, in 2004 Polish folks were allowed to freely move anywhere in the EU and over 800,000 came to our shores.
In reply to Pefa:
> Yes, in 2004 Polish folks were allowed to freely move anywhere in the EU and over 800,000 came to our shores.
Totally unrelated.
In reply to wbo2:
On a working population of around 20-30 million. It shows that it’s an extreme minority.
In reply to David Riley:
It’s a start, but won’t do much for lack of oxygen.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You seem to live in a kind of sinister underworld where you believe British employers (although you are clearly directing your anti British sentiment towards England) are gangsters hell bent on heaping exploitation and misery on their workforces. There is no such thing as a cheap employee, especially those that need to be trained, housed and closely managed and supported. I don't doubt there are rogue employers but British business doesn't purely operate around car washes, take away restaurants and cockle picking gangs.
9
In reply to David Riley:
> If you are trapped in a refrigerated container, destroy the temperature sensors.
You'd probably need some tools to get at them, and it would depend on the type of sensor. You may end up making the controller increase the cooling, rather than reducing it.
1
In reply to Pefa:
We in the UK did not adopt transitional arrangements like most other EU countries when Poland joined, hence we were essentially the only other EU country Poles could settle in in 2004.
1
In reply to marsbar:
Temperature going out of range is generally treated as a major emergency. There is a lot of money at steak (or perhaps ice cream). So there is usually an external alarm. Messages may also be transmitted to multiple recipients with gps location to send an engineer out.
In reply to Andy Hardy:
The sensors I manufacture for these vehicles are radio linked to the cab. They have an on/off switch. So it's easy. But I make more money if you destroy them.
In reply to Gone for good:
> You seem to live in a kind of sinister underworld where you believe British employers (although you are clearly directing your anti British sentiment towards England) are gangsters hell bent on heaping exploitation and misery on their workforces. There is no such thing as a cheap employee, especially those that need to be trained, housed and closely managed and supported. I don't doubt there are rogue employers but British business doesn't purely operate around car washes, take away restaurants and cockle picking gangs.
I'm basing this on a Channel 4 documentary where they interviewed an actual Tory/Brexiteer farmer explaining why he was switching to Ukrainians to pick his crop because Poles and Romanians were too expensive.
He wanted out the EU so he could get cheap labour from anywhere in the world on temporary visas tied to one employer: no swapping jobs, chucked out when you are done. That was his goal for Brexit: a f*ckton of cheap immigrants on a three month visa, kept in a hut, paid peanuts and with the Home Office rounding them up and deporting them if they went AWOL.
I didn't say the whole economy was like that or even most of the economy my point is that half the Tory MPs are married into landowning families or own land themselves and if they want cheap labour the Tories will fix it for them. To be fair, if they don't get really cheap labour after Brexit when they are on the wrong side of the EU tariff wall their businesses are going to be totally screwed.
3
7
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...