Comments by "sandgrownun66" (@sandgrownun66) on "An update on the ethnicity of those mourning the Queen outside Buckingham Palace" video.

Do all the million plus Eastern European migrants now resident in the UK, feel the same way as you do? Or are they too busy benefitting from all the infrastructure built by the native British people?
8
@davidsmart8594 One cuckoo doesn't make a summer. Here's a rhetorical answer. Why bitterness? Did you expect them all to go back to Eastern Europe, once the UK voted to leave the EU? It was obvious that they wouldn't!
6
@markb3915 And who did all those jobs previously? Who mined the coal? Who made the steel? Who worked in the cotton mills? Who taught the children? Who cared for the sick? Who drove the buses? Who kept the trains running? Who built the buildings?
5
@irenedavo3768 A lot of it goes to paying some of its many staff large salaries. Comic Relief surprisingly, is a charity separate to the BBC. Something highlighted by Alex Belfield. So A B did help with something.
4
@davidsmart8594 The twenty-first. The UK had large mining and textile industries until late in the twentieth century. Or weren't you aware of that fact?
4
@vanpallandt5799 "those industries were not closed by Eastern Europeans, were they?" Of course not. And what has that got to do with the fact that we never needed migrants in the past, for UK to function?
4
@vanpallandt5799 "Is a Brit in Spain answerable for the crims and yobs who go there?" We were taking about people migrating from poorer countries, in order to benefit from what Brits have built.
4
@stephendaedalus6192 Probably, but imagine the influx of a quarter of a million people every year, starting in 2004? It's obvious that this put a strain on housing, health and education. Most of which had to financed by indigenous Brits, for the benefit of migrants.
4
Remember Norman Tebbit's "Cricket Test"?
4
@davidsmart8594 And how did you arrive at the figure of 80-90%? Or did you just make it up? EU migration has fluctuated over time. The first major peak in EU immigration occurred shortly after the 2004 EU enlargement and ended following the financial crisis in 2008. In the 2013-15 period before the UK’s EU referendum, the UK saw another increase in net migration from EU citizens—peaking at over 280,000 in the year ending March 2016. After the June 2016 referendum, long-term EU migration dropped even before any new policies restricting it came into force. Even during this period, however, net migration continued to be positive, according to ONS estimates. By the year ending 6 April 2020, net migration of EU citizens had fallen to an estimated 119,000. This was down 58% on its 2016 peak.
3
@narcisioelmurza882 Although most Romanians are law-abiding residents of the UK. There are several cases, where Romanian migrants have been responsible for serious crimes. Simon has talked about these in several videos. Just search for "Romanian" in this channel. One is titled, "How ruthless foreigners are deliberately destroying England’s cultural heritage", and another is, You couldn’t make it up; a typical incident in modern Britain". Also, "Britain’s imported crime wave." and, "How the Big Issue, founded to help homeless people, became a business opportunity for foreigners." The problem was that because of freedom of movement, the UK could not stop the entry, or deport any criminal, whilst it was a member of the EU. This is still the case, due to existing Human Rights legislation.
3
@oyaami1874 And often doing a sub-standard job.
3
@santa2911 Not being a supporter of the monarchy, does not automatically mean that a British person is not patriotic towards the UK.
2
@nigelsmith2457 "We've invaded nearly every country in the world at some point, and abandoned them once we've removed all of their wealth." Britain never removed "all" of the wealth of the countries it "invaded". She took some of what could be extracted. Which otherwise would have been left in the ground by the locals. These resources could then be made into useful products, improving people's quality of life.
2
@oneeyedgirl617 "Loyalty"to what exactly. Maybe to the country that allows them to live a comfortable life, and also the generations of Britons who built it, so it could offer those things, for others to take advantage of.
2
@oneeyedgirl617 mmmm.... “ country “ is its land, sea and air. Err. It's whatever you want it to mean. It's probably better to consult the OED like Simon would, and see what that defines a country as. "What generations do you speak of that “built it”." That's an interesting question. A good moment would be the end of the Medieval period. Which was followed by a flowering of thought in the Enlightenment. Finally culminating in the Industrial Revolution. Where Britain through rapid invention and innovation, almost single-handedly created the Modern World, that we all know and enjoy today. No other country has had the positive impact on the globe as Britain. If it's global trade, the rule of law, the spreading of democracy, respect for the individual, education, or the ending of global slavery, simply because it was immoral. Britain was responsible for all these achievements. Of course, any erosion of freedom anywhere, is a threat to human dignity and needs to be resisted by peaceful means. Just being aware and not asleep or distracted of any forces pushing in the wrong direction is important too.
2
@oneeyedgirl617 "all those indigenous populations must have been grateful that the British came, killed a lot of them." More would have died from disease anyway, if the British hadn't shared its inventions and innovations such as modern healthcare, medicine, sanitation, education, better housing, and brought order, so tribes were stopped from killing and enslaving each other. "As for praising the British for ending slavery." The owning of other human beings as property, was outlawed in the British Isles, as far back as the eleventh century. The British spent the modern equivalent of one trillion pounds, and the death of many British sailors, in ending the global trade in humans, once and for all. A practice, which all cultures had engaged in since the dawn of time. Some Britain's abroad, did engage in this trade, in the last couple of centuries of this vile activity. However, the most important fact is that Britain didn't start slavery, but through its global reach and resources, was able to end it for good. This act is probably the most selfless achievement in the history of humankind. Done at great cost in blood and treasure, and for no other reason, except to right a great wrong.
2
@oneeyedgirl617 British exceptionalism, only because Britain WAS exceptional! Especially, in her achievements in creating the modern world. What facts presented do you dispute? Your lack of knowledge of, or even worse wilful blindness to history is the issue. Sometimes the truth hurts. But running away from it hurts even more. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic. Especially if you know your ancestors had a role in building so much.
2
@paulmerchant4416 Well. If those four countries want it "back". They're going to have to cut it into pieces, so they all get an equal share. Only then, the parts be worth a fraction of what it was whole. Anyway, the stone never belonged to a country. It was the sole possession of an individual, and changed hands legally, by the then practices of the time.
2
@gillps5130 Yeah. And that way an issue never gets explored.
2
@vanpallandt5799 "Do most British ppl in Spain care about the Royals there?" Probably not.
2
Remember Norman Tebbit's "Cricket Test"?
2
@paulmerchant4416 So every diamond sold or given as a gift, belongs to the country it was mined in? Are you bonkers or something? As for slavery. You obviously are ignorant of the fact, that there were more slaves in India, before the Britain came, than were in the rest of the World combined. Luckily for those in bondage, one of the first steps the British did, was to end the owning of people as property. Unless you think that the practice is moral, or something? The Indians, at the time, had no qualms about the practice. The same as all other cultures had in the past.
1
@paulmerchant4416 "The Indians had qualms they just kept their mouth shut". Wrong! Indians accepted it as part of their culture for thousands of years, and it might have still been going on there today, if the British had not had the morality and power to stop it. You do realize that slavery had been banned in Britain in the eleventh century by William the First, and that it was illegal for any person to be owned as property in the British Isles. "and like you said diamonds belongs to the countries it was mind in". I never said that, but quite the opposite. Diamonds DO NOT belong to the country where they were mined. They belong to whomever legally owns them. Typically an individual who either bought or was gifted them. The same applies to other precious commodities. In fact, anything which can be bought and sold.
1
@paulmerchant4416 "Europeans began to drain African natural resources including palm oil, ivory, rubber, gold, diamonds, metals, and cotton." Much of these resources were not being used by the locals. New plantations were created, which provided jobs and better living conditions. Also infrastructure, such as road, railways and ports for trade were built. The Africans benefitted from the modern innovations and inventions that were brought. There were negatives, but these were outweighed by the positives. If you asked any African whether the quality of life is better now, than before the Europeans arrived. What do you think the answer would be? The populations of Africa and Asia are exploding, due to Western medicine and technology.
1
@paulmerchant4416 "The report reveals the degree to which British companies now control Africa’s key mineral resources, notably gold, platinum, diamonds, copper, oil, gas and coal." Again. All these resources would never have been used, unless the West, extracted them. If a company spends millions, or even billions in capital investment, then it has the right to any profits received. Or maybe, you prefer the Communist models, where everybody is poor. Countries outside the developed world, are known for their corruption, which is endemic. The poor only get poorer, and the rich only get richer. And as these countries are now, all independent, sovereign states. What business do ex-colonizers, have in telling them, how to run their countries? You can't have it both ways.
1
@paulmerchant4416 "Africa should be extracting their own minerals selling it". They didn't in the past. And it was only the arrival of Europeans, with the technology they brought, that started the process. They are still reliant on outside technology and expertise to this today. Also, do you expect the foreign companies to simply walk away from their investment. The Africans could of course, nationalise these companies, but due to the resulting bad management, they'd probably end up as other countries who did so. Take the old USSR, which collapsed economically, and Venezuela, which squandered it's oil wealth and suffered the same fate, including hyperinflation. You really need to educate yourself on these subjects. I can't do it for you, by keep answering your questions.
1
@paulmerchant4416 "Also it's revealed that white people born in Britain have the same taste of opinions like for the foreigners saying the same things about the history and loyalty they just being honest" What you wrote is unintelligible. So let's leave it at that.
1
@paulmerchant4416 Yeah, and learn how to write a sentence correctly in English, before you start lecturing others.
1
@paulmerchant4416 "I'm a white English man born in the uk so I would know how to write a sentence or could be ignorant". Except that you can't write sentences which are grammatically correct, and more importantly intelligible. Somebody else in this thread, also said the same. Maybe you have a reason for this. However, it's not my concern. It's just too difficult to converse with you in a meaningful way.
1
@davidsmart8594 "Those Eastern Europeans who have remained in the UK, DESPITE Brexit." And just why have they remained in the UK after Brexit? Could it be that they prefer what the British have built, over what their own countries have? Surely a pro-British statement, if ever there was one?
1
@vanpallandt5799 What question? Do you even know?
1
@vanpallandt5799 Yes. Unless you're frightened of challenging the statements of others?
1
@vanpallandt5799 "your question was what did 1m other Eastern Europeans thought. What do my 3m fellow Taffs think?" Maybe you should ask them? However, is the view of one migrant a statistically significant sample size?
1
@vanpallandt5799 Maybe, but one opinion does not constitute a consensus.
1
Does anybody remember Norman Tebbit's "Cricket Test"? It seems rather apposite here.
1
@vanpallandt5799 Usually by which nation's sport's team you support. Or did old Norm get that metric wrong?
1
@WeeMac538 If the replacement has spread to Scotland. Then it looks like it's game over. The womb is more potent than violence.
1