# Immigrant Workers: Police Harrasment in Cardiff



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 2, 2007)

_On Friday, the police sealed off both ends of Caroline Street (popularly known as Chip Alley) shutting down the street for half-an-hour as immigration and border authorities raided local fast food outlets. Newspaper Report: 
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...objectid=19383797&siteid=50082-name_page.html _

Socialists in Cardiff have reacted with disgust and anger to the news that fellow workers are being harrased by the home office and demand the immediate release and right to work of 5 arrested immigrant workers described as "illegal". 

They bullied and harrased workers in the late night kebab and chip shops demanding passports and proof of status. 5 workers were taken away. 

Adam Johannes, a clerical worker and member of Roath RESPECT who saw the operation first hand commented: 

"Why should it be classified as illegal to come to Cardiff from another country to find work and seek a better life? 

The UK state and their media demonise asylum seekers and economic refugees, but surely the real enemy of working people is the top 10% of the population who own two-thirds of the wealth in this country and are making us work the longest hours for the worst pay in Western Europe? 

The wealthy will move to which ever country gives them the biggest tax break, but workers face discrimination and imprisonment. 

It is vital that trade unionists, anti-capitalists and the organised labour movement defend immigrant workers and challenge racism head-on: No one is illegal". 

For more info. on this story and other grassroots resistance, see: www.cardiffrespect.blogspot.com or email: respect_yourself_cardiff@hotmail.co.uk


----------



## llantwit (Jul 2, 2007)

Nice quotes from a concerned clerical worker there Udo!
Seriously, though. Do you know how often this kind of thing happens in Cardiff?
I've got no idea.
Shit as, though.


----------



## lewislewis (Jul 2, 2007)

Too right. I think there will be alot of support for these people from the public. How come it's ok to go and buy property in Spain or France and contribute fuck all (whilst helping eradicate local culture), but it's not acceptable for people to come and work hard here?


----------



## llantwit (Jul 2, 2007)

What are RESPECT organising around this Udo?
Are there still people being detained in Cardiff?


----------



## lewislewis (Jul 2, 2007)

So what is the status of the workers at the moment? Are they in custody? Do you think they have access to legal advice/solicitors etc?


----------



## jæd (Jul 2, 2007)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> It is vital that trade unionists, anti-capitalists and the organised labour movement defend immigrant workers and challenge racism head-on: No one is illegal".



Yes they... They're "illegal" because they are working illegally. Do you get in a tizzy about the word "criminal" and "terrorist" for people who break the law or bomb things...


----------



## llantwit (Jul 2, 2007)

Not quite. And you can shove those fuckin' rolleys up yer arse.
You don't hear about illegal burglars, do you.
Sowly, just for you, it's the act, the thing a person does, that's ilegal, and not the person herself.


----------



## jæd (Jul 2, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Not quite. And you can shove those fuckin' rolleys up yer arse.
> You don't hear about illegal burglars, do you.
> Sowly, just for you, it's the act, the thing a person does, that's ilegal, and not the person herself.



Ever heard the phrase "a figure of speech"...? These people are working illegal. They are therefore illegal workers. And this known colloquially as being "illegal"... Though you don't seem to have much vocabulary apart for swearing...!


----------



## llantwit (Jul 2, 2007)

Haven't you considered that the people who disagree with the use of that 'figure of speech' do so because despite the fact it is indeed a 'figure of speech', it's one with extremely negative connotations that dehumanises people.
There you go - a sentence without swearing just for you. Fuckwit.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 2, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Ever heard the phrase "a figure of speech"...?


'Black bastard', 'darkie', dozy mare', 'bent as a butcher's hook'...
Figures of speech all - but ones that thankfully are not acceptable any more in general usage because they serve to dehumanise and denigrate the subjects to which they refer. 
Nobody is illegal is a great slogan because highlights an unjust use of language in popular discourse about refugees, asylum seekers (to those with a modicum of intelligence and understanding).


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 2, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Yes they... They're "illegal" because they are working illegally. Do you get in a tizzy about the word "criminal" and "terrorist" for people who break the law or bomb things...



Quite... genuine asylum seekers, legit economic migrants.... no problem whatsoever.
Illegal immigrants.( that is those indivduals here illegally- their presence being illegal and their working in breach of employment legislation).. operation to find and remove them 
Fine by me.
I hope they throw the book at the employers though..people who are probably exploiting these people rather than paying proper wages and evading taxes
Its not even an interesting or controversial political issue is it? Unless you genuinely believe we should have completely open borders and anyone who wishes to come here should be allowed to live and work as they please?


----------



## lewislewis (Jul 2, 2007)

I just think it's a bit harsh mistreating these people.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 3, 2007)

Wheres any evidence 'these people' have been mistreated?
They arent supposed to be here, they arent supposed to be working here and the employers they work for arent supposed to be employing them ( or exploiting them- which is far more likely) all their actions are against the law.

Respect have an agenda to push here and labelling the police action harrassment is just the start. I find it abhorent actually.
Whats next Udo? defending all criminal acts carried out by immigrants? How far do you and yours wish to push your ridiculous race agenda?


----------



## jæd (Jul 3, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Its not even an interesting or controversial political issue is it? Unless you genuinely believe we should have completely open borders and anyone who wishes to come here should be allowed to live and work as they please?



Just seems an excuse for Ilantwit and his ilk to get worked up over nothing to look wadical.  Btw, if someone starts swearing and getting aggresive for no reason there's very little chance of people taking them seriously...


----------



## llantwit (Jul 3, 2007)

I and my ilk take offense at your decision not to take me seriously!!! 
Actually, no, on reflection, I couldn't give a fuck.
And it was hardly for no reason - if come over all condescending and rolleyes, what do you expect?


----------



## llantwit (Jul 3, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Quite... genuine asylum seekers, legit economic migrants.... no problem whatsoever.
> Illegal immigrants.( that is those indivduals here illegally- their presence being illegal and their working in breach of employment legislation).. operation to find and remove them
> Fine by me.


But that's not really what I was arguing against - I was arguing against the specific use of the term 'illegal' to describe a person, as in the Sun's constant and documented description of all refugees and foreign incomers into this country as 'illegals' (for which they've been reprimanded by the press complaints commission a number of times). Jaed seems to think that the use of the term 'illegal' to describe a person and not his/her actions is OK. I find that abhorrent.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 3, 2007)

On the wider point, and to keep it separate, I am against border controls. I think it's disgusting that the rich and their vast pots of money are free to move around at will and the poor are forced into extremely dangerous situations if they want to move accross borders, or forced to stay put in countries where we benefit from their cheap labour.
More info on my general positions at the No Borders website:


> The no border network is a tool for all groups and grass root organizations who work on the questions of migrants and asylum seekers in order to struggle alongside with them for freedom of movement, for the freedom for all to stay in the place which they have chosen, against repression and and the many controls which multiply the borders everywhere in all countries.


http://www.noborder.org/


----------



## llantwit (Jul 3, 2007)




----------



## lewislewis (Jul 3, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Wheres any evidence 'these people' have been mistreated?
> They arent supposed to be here, they arent supposed to be working here and the employers they work for arent supposed to be employing them ( or exploiting them- which is far more likely) all their actions are against the law.
> 
> Respect have an agenda to push here and labelling the police action harrassment is just the start. I find it abhorent actually.
> Whats next Udo? defending all criminal acts carried out by immigrants? How far do you and yours wish to push your ridiculous race agenda?



Of course Udo has an agenda to push!

I've just got a soft spot for people cos i'm nice like that. That's why i'm against deportations, especially of younger people, it's really cruel just to kick someone out of our country, especially if they're doing an honest job.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 3, 2007)

You don't have to be part of Respect's dodgy politics to be against anti-immigrant repression and deportations/detention centres.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 3, 2007)

only just reading this topic and I really cant believe that anyone can argue that the police did anything wrong.  As has already been said (and the people subsequently dismissed) the workers are illegal as they are not registered, therego probably don’t pay tax, national insurance etc… Similairly, the employers of these people will be making vast amounts of money by paying the workers peanuts.  The employers will also not be paying tax or national insurance and thereby becoming the rich 10% to which you seem to object so much to.  What should be done then? – let them work illegally so the owners of the premises become that 10% that you don’t like.  This whole thread just seems like an excuse to have a go at the police and is so thinly veiled its pathetic.


----------



## jæd (Jul 3, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> The employers will also not be paying tax or national insurance and thereby becoming the rich 10% to which you seem to object so much to.  What should be done then? – let them work illegally so the owners of the premises become that 10% that you don’t like.  This whole thread just seems like an excuse to have a go at the police and is so thinly veiled its pathetic.



Not to mention the lack of health + safety compliance and the exploitation of the workers... (Long hours, no rights, etc...)


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 3, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Not to mention the lack of health + safety compliance and the exploitation of the workers... (Long hours, no rights, etc...)



i know - oh "ive got food poisoining from that kebab / curry i had down caroline st last i think ill make a complaiint so noone else catches anything in the future" - the reponse from authorities would be interesting, something along the lines of "thats impossible, no one is actually employed at that establishent so you couldnt possibly have got food poisoning! now on your way and stop moaning!"


----------



## Dic Penderyn (Jul 3, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> if someone starts swearing and getting aggresive for no reason there's very little chance of people taking them seriously...



CUNT OFF YOU CUNTING CUNT*

As if anyone takes forums seriously...




* best phrase ever.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 3, 2007)

ww ya drip why don't ya f**off back to shrieking for help and only coming on here to take free advice  
ta


----------



## jæd (Jul 3, 2007)

Dic Penderyn said:
			
		

> CUNT OFF YOU CUNTING CUNT*



Your mum must be so proud...!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 3, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> ww ya drip why don't ya f**off back to shrieking for help and only coming on here to take free advice
> ta


i wondered how long it would take for you to crawl out from under your stone.  if you want me to get personal ill look back at your previous threads and list the advice that you have asked for! - no wait, only people with no lives do that surely?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 3, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> i wondered how long it would take for you to crawl out from under your stone.  if you want me to get personal ill look back at your previous threads and list the advice that you have asked for! - no wait, only people with no lives do that surely?


i didn't look at your previous threads just noticed another 'heeelp heeeelp me' one in general  
don't strain yer fragile brain with all that wondering now!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 3, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> i didn't look at your previous threads just noticed another 'heeelp heeeelp me' one in general
> don't strain yer fragile brain with all that wondering now!


how is your bedsit today? - opps sorry i mean 'studio' dahling!

and werent you the one posting threads asking why the dope had dried up in cardiff?? - and asking for advice on loading images to websites?? - sorry i must be confused as you obviously never post any threads asking for help. you pathetic excuse for a human being! 

as an aside - i notice that lil missy hissy fit disagreed with op's stance - but yet you managed to refrain from personally attacking her. what are you the playground bully picking on the person with the lowest post count on the thread? - truly pathetic!


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 3, 2007)

A few issues have been raised, so a few random instances.

1) I don't believe the police are the chief problem in this instance, rather the UK state and the media who demonise working people who want to come to this country.  More important than attacking the police is to attack what lies behind them - a century of racist legislation against fellow working people who want to live and work in this country that is more about the divide-and-rule strategy of our rulers - better that workers blame immigrants for the state of the NHS, poor housing, the destruction of communities, crime etc - is their logic.

2) I believe in open borders.  Immigration controls are racist - full stop.  All the evidence suggests that all immigration controls have been introduced due to racist agitation and the whipping up of unfounded hysteria by right wing elements in society and for no other reason.

For example, some of the first immigration controls were introduced specifically against Jews in 1905 by one AJ Balfour (incidentally this anti-semite was the author of the "Balfour declaration" that began the process of creating the State of Israel).  At the time their was much hysteria against Jews (similar to Islamophobia today) who were described by the popular press as dirty, unclean, terrorists, communists, anarchists, subversives etc.)

Around the 60s, the second wave of racist immigration controls were introduced in response to an unfounded hysteria about commonwealth immigrants rather than confront racism head-on the Labour Party did what Labour always does and capitulated (despite senior figures in the party admitting in private that they thought the hysteria was unfounded).  

At that time the UK operated "open borders" for anyone from a commonwealth country.  Contrary to popular myths about what would happen if we opened our borders, people from all over the world didn't all flood into Britain.  For example, in the West Indies people would come over to the UK when there were jobs available and if there weren't they didn't.

Also, we need to oppose immigration controls in order to expose the hypocrisy of our government who impose neo-liberal policies on poor countries and bomb other countries and then lock up people fleeing them.  The UK government also props up some of the most vile dictatorships on the planet.



> What should be done then? – let them work illegally so the owners of the premises become that 10% that you don’t like.



3) Firstly illegal immigrant workers actually play a key role in the UK economy.  The best way to end exploitation is to legalise the status of all illegal immigrants in this country.  In the words of the Asian Dub Foundation, "There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, there is however such a thing as an illegal government" - that sums up my thinking.

Can LMHF and others explain why they have a problem with someone who wants to work in a take-away in Cardiff?  It doesn't bother me at all.  And can LMHF explain why she finds it "abbhorent" that I expressed opposition to people being deported?  Personally, I find thinks like fascism, racism, imperialism etc. abbhorent, not saying that someone who seems to be working here and not causing anyone any harm being dragged away from his place of wok by cops and immigration authorities - personally when I read about what happened in the Echo to a fellow human being and worker - I was angry and disgusted.

4) What to do concretely.  In the absence of a mass anti-racist movement in Cardiff (something that needs to be rectified) there is very little that can be done in terms of concrete solidarity for the workers in Caroline Street, and much of the statement above was rhetorical.  For example, we are not in the position to physically stop deportations or prevent these raids.

  One thing, we can and need to do is carry out an ideological struggle and challenge the _common sense _position (even displayed on this thread) that it is okay for illegal immigrants to be deported with the _good sense_ of the anti-capitalist movement that fellow workers trying to make a better life for themselves are not our enemies.  The right wing carries out mass agitation against immigrants, we need to find out ways to carry out mass agitation in defence of immigrants.

For example, I wrote a letter to the Echo yesterday which carried the report on the raid.  Why? Because I was aware that most people would read the report and think that what happened was perfectly acceptable.  I believe that when racist ideas are put forward they always need to be contested.  I doubt if my letter is published I will change many people's minds, but at least having this dissonant voice might persuade some people to think a little more deeply about the issues and challenge the "common sense" perception.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 3, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> You don't have to be part of Respect's dodgy politics to be against anti-immigrant repression and deportations/detention centres.



I have nothing against genuine immigrants.
Those who shouldnt be here know the risks they are running. If they still choose to be here then they know what fate awaits them if they get caught.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 3, 2007)

I find it abhorent that you accuse the police of harrassment for doing their job
You cant make the laws of this country, you cant decide which laws you believe people should follow and which you dont and therefore the police are harrassing people.People who are here illegally....
do the police harrass somali burglars for instance when they arrest them?? over to you


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 3, 2007)

I'm glad you have nothing against "genuine" immigrants (whatever the hell that means) as I come from a whole family of them!  My father came from India and his parents from Burma and India, and I am of Irish extraction on my mothers side.  Glad to know that we have your blessing to stay here!

I should note that due to racist legislation brought in under the Tories.  My younger brothers and sister now have to have my fathers "naturalisiation" number on their passport and other legal documents despite his having moved to this country 50 years ago and his children born and bred in the UK.

The question is how do you define genuine immigrants?

For example, it is well known that 10 years ago many people would be considered genuine asylum seekers who are now deemed illegal.

Also, the goverment is trying to make it harder and harder to claim asylum or legal status.  For example, if an asylum seeker doesn't immediately apply for legal status on the _day_ they arrive in the UK they can now be deemed illegal.

LMHF has singularly failed to answer the key question.  Why should it be illegal for someone to work here if they want to?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 3, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> I find it abhorent that you accuse the police of harrassment for doing their job
> You cant make the laws of this country, you cant decide which laws you believe people should follow and which you dont and therefore the police are harrassing people.People who are here illegally....
> do the police harrass somali burglars for instance when they arrest them?? over to you



"You can't decide which laws you believe people should follow and which you don't" 

Well, actually there are many laws that I don't believe people should follow.

For example, the law against demonstrating in Parliament Square.  I believe people should defy it.  I also supported non-payment of the Poll Tax.  

Also, I don't regard the law as sacrosant, in a society in which democracy is skewered in the interests of the wealthy and powerful it is likely that the law is the same.  The question is who makes the laws? In whose interests? Whose justice?

The police also aply the law selectively.  It is more likely that a working class person will be penalised than a middle class person when committing the same crime.

Also, you mention burglary.  Now, I have nothing against action being taken against burglary.  But corporate theft and fraud often commit even bigger crimes but get away scot-free. 

The owner of Farepak ruined thousands of peoples lives when he swindled them out of their savings - but the law can't and doesn't want to touch him?

Why is it that someone who dodges paying a train fare gets fined, but the rich get to move to tax havens in order to dodge paying tax


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 3, 2007)

Thats still a complete non argument...
You havent answered the question at all...youve just waffled on about unjust laws yadda yadda...Like you always do.. never answer the question, just spout "what I believe"
Im not really sure many of us are terribly interested in your long waffling inane speeches about your political opinions you know.However you make an accusation/allegation, as you have, be ready to be challenged. You have been and have been unable to answer the question.

The law is the law.. you may not like it but it doesnt make the police 'harrassing' anyone if they have been ordered to go and raid a particular premises by the imigration bods...


----------



## ddraig (Jul 3, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> how is your bedsit today? - opps sorry i mean 'studio' dahling!
> 
> and werent you the one posting threads asking why the dope had dried up in cardiff?? - and asking for advice on loading images to websites?? - sorry i must be confused as you obviously never post any threads asking for help. you pathetic excuse for a human being!
> 
> as an aside - i notice that lil missy hissy fit disagreed with op's stance - but yet you managed to refrain from personally attacking her. what are you the playground bully picking on the person with the lowest post count on the thread? - truly pathetic!


awwww, poor dab


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 3, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> awwww, poor dab


was that the gobby ddraig not responding to a point made against him?!

would you like me to quote any more thread that you have started asking for help on these forums? - or have you decided to shut the fuck up gracefully?

and for the record and for your cronies on here please note it was you who derailed this thread first and started the personal abuse. now fuck off back to bedsit land you sad prick.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 3, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> was that the gobby ddraig not responding to a point made against him?!
> 
> would you like me to quote any more thread that you have started asking for help on these forums? - or have you decided to shut the fuck up gracefully?
> 
> and for the record and for your cronies on here please note it was you who derailed this thread first and started the personal abuse. now fuck off back to bedsit land you sad prick.



ok this should be funny 
there are 4 or 5 inacuracies in your post before this one so go ahead...
and what point do you want me to answer again?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 4, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> ok this should be funny
> there are 4 or 5 inacuracies in your post before this one so go ahead...
> and what point do you want me to answer again?


id quite like you to answer the point of my fist with your head!  but i cant be arsed to drive around all the bedsits in Cardiff to do it!


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 4, 2007)

boys now now stop willy waving...


----------



## llantwit (Jul 4, 2007)

But Ddraig doesn't live in a bedsit?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 4, 2007)

Thats right, he's the new occupyer of twitches cage at Chez Haylz


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 4, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> But Ddraig doesn't live in a bedsit?




No he fucking dont.....  and that ass wants to watch what he says


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 4, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> id quite like you to answer the point of my fist with your head!  but i cant be arsed to drive around all the bedsits in Cardiff to do it!



Fucking hell your sad mate


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 4, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Thats right, he's the new occupyer of twitches cage at Chez Haylz




Its still untouched with food in bowl/////


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 4, 2007)

Ddraig lives in a swanky hotel. I saw him and a mysterious lady emerging from the lobby on Monday.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 4, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> Its still untouched with food in bowl/////


awww 
You need a new occupant and soon


----------



## llantwit (Jul 4, 2007)

So to sum up the thread so far:

Some shops in Cardiff were raided by the cops looking for people working illegally.

5 People got nicked and are (presumably) still in detention.
No real information on the action apart from that.

Some of us think it's wrong that people get nicked for going about their jobs jus cos thay ain't from this country.

Some of us think it's wrong to call someone 'illegal', which might seem like a pedantic point about language use, but to us it isn't just that, it's about dehumanisation, etc.

Jaed doesn't like swearing, and thinks it's childish.

Dic Penderyn and Llantwit like swearing.

Some of us think that 'genuine' asylum seekers and refugees are OK, and shouldn't be arrested, but that those who are here ilegally should expect to be posecuted for breaking the law, locked up, and eventually sent home.

Some of us think that ilegally employing people who aren't allowed to work is bad, leads to tax-evasion, poor working conditions, and unscrupulous employers getting rich by exploiting said workers.

Waterloowelshy thinks Ddraig lives in a bedsit (which is untrue) and is (presumably) to be mocked for living in said (imaginary) bedsit.

Ddraig thinks Waterloowelshy asks for help and advice too much on the boards and is an overall stinker.

Haylz is up for a scrap over bedsit (and related) remarks about Ddraig.

Good thread.


----------



## Dic Penderyn (Jul 4, 2007)

Also _"CUNT OFF YOU CUNTING CUNT"_ *is* the best phrase ever.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> id quite like you to answer the point of my fist with your head!  but i cant be arsed to drive around all the bedsits in Cardiff to do it!


hmmm, so should i report ya for personal threats? or just let you dwell in that big cesspit hole u dug for yourself? hmmm


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> No he fucking dont.....  and that ass wants to watch what he says


hehe, ta mate 

has twitch exited this dirty planet? 
is young haylz ok?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2007)

King Biscuit Time said:
			
		

> Ddraig lives in a swanky hotel. I saw him and a mysterious lady emerging from the lobby on Monday.



sshhhhh, don't let cockboy know, he works very near to it   i iz scared!!1!


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> So to sum up the thread so far:
> 
> Some shops in Cardiff were raided by the cops looking for people working illegally.
> 
> ...


i agree with all the above boldy bits and am now just waiting for ww to say we're all "wiberal powlice bashing pc obswessed dirty cwusties" or some such non-reactionary drivel


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 4, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> hehe, ta mate
> 
> has twitch exited this dirty planet?
> is young haylz ok?




Yes 

She is fine mate, just wondering what pet we are to have next


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> hmmm, so should i report ya for personal threats? or just let you dwell in that big cesspit hole u dug for yourself? hmmm


i see no hole ddraig.  apart from the great big one that constitues your life.  as i have said numerous times i posted a response to the op on this thread with no personal slaggin off what so ever.  its another example of you turning personal when someone disagrees with you.  and as per usual you get your equally messed up mates to fight your battles with you. truly pathetic. if you wanted to argue about the facts of the thread that would have been fine but you had to turn it into a personal vendetta again! 

yes i post on here for advice - but, the facts speak for themselves that so do you!! - so stop being a hypocrit.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> This whole thread just seems like an excuse to have a go at the police and is so thinly veiled its pathetic.


It's not just an excuse to get at the police - but that is one of it's functions, yeah. And there's no thin veil at all - it's quite explicitly having a go at the police. Problem?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> It's not just an excuse to get at the police - but that is one of it's functions, yeah. And there's no thin veil at all - it's quite explicitly having a go at the police. Problem?


yes problem. as lmh as said they are just following orders. they dont make the law. they enforce it. simple really.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> Fucking hell your sad mate


coming from you ill take that as a compliment.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> coming from you ill take that as a compliment.



You can take it anyway you like mate, im not the one threatening physical violence on here......tosser


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> You can take it anyway you like mate, im not the one threatening physical violence on here......tosser


such a charming young lady.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> i see no hole ddraig.  *apart from the great big one that constitues your life*.  as i have said numerous times i posted a response to the op on this thread with no personal slaggin off what so ever.  its another example of you turning personal when someone disagrees with you.  *and as per usual you get your equally messed up mates to fight your battles with you. truly pathetic*. if you wanted to argue about the facts of the thread that would have been fine but you had to turn it into a personal vendetta again!
> 
> yes i post on here for advice - but, *the facts speak for themselves *that so do you!! - so stop being a hypocrit.



so you are not being personal then?  
1)you don't know me right
2)i didn't get anyone to fight any battles. and any posters i know irl off here are certainly not messed up. why start your conclusion jumping on them?
3)what facts speak for themselves?
where are these threads btw? show me the one where i asked how to load images on a website as claimed by yourself?   seeing as i've built a few sites then i should know really and have helped people on here to do the same.
i am occassionally a hypocrite, yes, but at least i have the gumption to admit it and not froth at the mouth, lash out and then edit my silly posts afterwards as you often do.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> such a charming young lady.


 
the very same


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> yes problem. as lmh as said they are just following orders. they dont make the law. they enforce it. simple really.


they're just following orders!!  can you seriously not spot what could be wrong with such a statement?  
that was the nazi's/concentration guards excuse mate, pathetic!


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> coming from you ill take that as a compliment.


  
playground thataway>>>>


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> so you are not being personal then?
> 1)you don't know me right
> 2)i didn't get anyone to fight any battles. and any posters i know irl off here are certainly not messed up. why start your conclusion jumping on them?
> 3)what facts speak for themselves?
> ...


here you go. maybe the drugs have ruined your memory:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=174906


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=172126

would you like me to continue? i can supply the tumble weed for you if you would like?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=164881

sorry - i forgot you never posted threads asking for advice.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> here you go. maybe the drugs have ruined your memory:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=174906


well bloody hell you're right about something!!  that i will give ya, even if it was a year ago  

ok then so how many times have you answered a thread that wasn't
a) your own plea for heeeelp
b) to lash out in a tory style unthinking and childish fashion
?
and have you actually helped any posters on here, like, EVER?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

but my personal favourite...

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=159177


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> but my personal favourite...
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=159177


#

fuck me you got these all bookmarked?? 


sad


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2007)

okok, u can use the search function! clever boy.
i do ask q's yes, where did i say i didn't

my initial point was that *imo* you *tend* to only come on here to *ask* stuff when you're having a crisis and don't *tend* to give other posters the same courtesy. i know you'll never agree with that but hey, it's rather obvious you dullard.
thanks for your extensive 'research' btw  
what u mean tumbleweed? at least i answer points put to me and don't lurk frothingly.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> well bloody hell you're right about something!!  that i will give ya, even if it was a year ago
> 
> ok then so how many times have you answered a thread that wasn't
> a) your own plea for heeeelp
> ...



a) plenty
b)plenty

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=202651

would you like me to paste some more from the search thread?

and for the record i dont lurk throthingly.  i post on different parts of the site to you. i.e suburban as i have no interest in drugs and anarchy like yourself.  this may be a revelation but people have different tastes to you ddraig.  i am not going to be the poster to offer you advice on why there is a drought of dope in the diff! - or how to dry coke! - i have no interest and therefore wont be posting any help on those topics. that does not mean i dont post on other topics that you have no interest in.  hard to belive i know - but the world does not revolve around you.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> a) plenty
> b)pleanty
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=202651
> ...


awww, didums, go on then post more...
i missed the froth you edited out but the above shows you as the misguided judgmental sap that you are, watch that blood pressure now!


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> awww, didums, go on then post more...
> i missed the froth you edited out but the above shows you as the misguided judgmental sap that you are, watch that blood pressure now!


misguided and judjemental? - just because i dont take drugs presumably? - touche, touche! my blood pressure is fine mate.  things are good for me, but thanks for your concern.

just for you ddraig

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=176723


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> would you like me to paste some more from the search thread?
> 
> .



why mate?

you have proved your point


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> yes problem. as lmh as said they are just following orders. they dont make the law. they enforce it. simple really.


The criticism isn't of the individual plod who did the arresting, but the senior cop who gave the orders and organised the strategy. As you know the law is applied very unevenly in this country, and ilegal work is largely ignored because it is an integral part of the economy. When this particular law is aplied it is usually done for political/symbolic reasons and is accompanied by a flurry of press attention.

Oh, and, btw - there's another utterly unveiled cop-bashing thread in the Wales forum just for you to mindlessly and unquestioningly dismiss if you feel like.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

Oh, and just to say thanks for the bun fight folks - I'm sure you can keep it going. I love it when Waters gets a head of steam up. Haven't had one like this since the cricket.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> The criticism isn't of the individual plod who did the arresting, but the senior cop who gave the orders and organised the strategy. As you know the law is applied very unevenly in this country, and ilegal work is largely ignored because it is an integral part of the economy. When this particular law is aplied it is usually done for political/symbolic reasons and is accompanied by a flurry of press attention.
> 
> Oh, and, btw - there's another utterly unveiled cop-bashing thread in the Wales forum just for you to mindlessly and unquestioningly dismiss if you feel like.


there's not a lot of point really.  you arent exactly in danger of changing the world now are you.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> why mate?
> 
> you have proved your point



mate? - id be worried if i had the misfortune to fall into that category.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> mate? - id be worried if i had the misfortune to fall into that category.



I tend to avoid the passive agressive immature kind, so no fear........MATE!!


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> there's not a lot of point really.  you arent exactly in danger of changing the world now are you.


First up against the wall when I do, etc.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> I tend to avoid the passive agressive immature kind, so no fear........MATE!!


i dread to think what your kind would be.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> First up against the wall when I do, etc.


  keep dreaming


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> i dread to think what your kind would be.




How old are you?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> How old are you?


What has age got to do with anything? - arent you the one that just put two smileys in response to my one? would putting three smileys therefore make me younger than you or older? i am confused.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> keep dreaming


I was joking.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> What has age got to do with anything? - arent you the one that just put two smileys in response to my one? would putting three smileys therefore make me younger than you or older? i am confused.


You're an odd guy WW.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> You're an odd guy WW.


again, coming from you i find that a good thing. id be worried if 'you' considered me 'normal'.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> What has age got to do with anything? - arent you the one that just put two smileys in response to my one? would putting three smileys therefore make me younger than you or older? i am confused.



 

i meant.....grow the fuck up!!!!!


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

You just carry on being normal, then, dude.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> i meant.....grow the fuck up!!!!!


you need to make yourself clearer? - funny, as i always believed that childish people resorted to swearing.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 5, 2007)

You are a piss poor troll!!!!!!!!!!

clear enough for you........?

You can have the last word on me, make sure its a goodun ...


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> You are a piss poor troll!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> clear enough for you........?
> 
> You can have the last word on me, make sure its a goodun ...


i very much doubt if any one gets the last word around you my dear.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

Can I have the last word?
Or maybe we could talk about detention of immigrants?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Can I have the last word?
> Or maybe we could talk about detention of immigrants?


that would be 'illegal' immigrants would it not?!


----------



## llantwit (Jul 5, 2007)

Actually, we don't know if they were here illegally yet. That information hasn't been released.
It's equally likely at this point that the workers who got detained were assylum seekers who were waiting for a decision to be made on their cases.
Absurdly, it's illegal for them to work while they're here too, so they have to exist on (paltry) handouts from the state/taxpayer or work illegally.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 5, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Actually, we don't know if they were here illegally yet. That information hasn't been released.
> It's equally likely at this point that the workers who got detained were assylum seekers who were waiting for a decision to be made on their cases.
> Absurdly, it's illegal for them to work while they're here too, so they have to exist on (paltry) handouts from the state/taxpayer or work illegally.


but they would still be defined as 'illegal' in the eyes of the law. as i have said many times the police are merely carrying out orders and working within the laws that govern these situations. they are not allowed to turn a blind eye if instructed to go ahead.  so the thread title 'police harrasment' is hardly true is it.


----------



## nwnm (Jul 5, 2007)

if you got banged up i think you'd feel a bit harrassed


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 6, 2007)

nwnm said:
			
		

> if you got banged up i think you'd feel a bit harrassed


if i got banged up for doing something illegal id probably feel caught! - ass opposed to harrased.  there is a massive difference.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

You're not familiar with the concept of empathy, are you waters?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 6, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> You're not familiar with the concept of empathy, are you waters?


it depends on the context and situation.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

Here's an article that uses some of the quotes in Echo article and sums up what I feel about this (it's gonna go in _Gagged!_, the South Wales anarchist newsletter):


> Cardiff Immigration Raids: Nobody is illegal
> 
> A Kebab-house was closed and five takeaway workers arrested after Cardiff cops and immigration bureaucrats raided chip shops in Cardiff’s Caroline Street (Chip Lane) at the beginning of July. Chaos ensued as officials closed the street down and harassed people for hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 6, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Here's an article that uses some of the quotes in Echo article and sums up what I feel about this (it's gonna go in _Gagged!_, the South Wales anarchist newsletter):


you still havent answered the point about the owners of these places exploiting workers and not paying taxes / national insurance and therby becoming rich off the back of the illegal immigrants.

doesnt this benefit to the business owners totally contradict with your stance?


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> it depends on the context and situation.


Could you empathise with someone in this situation:



> You are a professional living in a smalll flat with your family in the Al A'Zamiyah area of Baghdad working at a local teacher training college. A US bomb kills your parents (they live near a now-destroyed water treatment works in the Al Mulla Alwan district a few miles north of where your flat is) just before the coalition of the willing enter Baghdad. You stay put with your family, and grieve for your loss thinking that all willl become a bit more stable after the americans come. It doesn't.
> 
> The security situation worsens, and as you live in a Sunni area and your wife is a Shia, you send your wife and kids to stay in the UK with family and seek asyllum. You use the little savings you have left to buy air fares to Britain because you fear that if they tay they will be killed by one of the militias. You stay behind. You're job doesn't exist any more, and you haven't been payed for months because the state institutions have broken down. But you are earning a little working for your cousin making deliveries for his grocery store that is still open and trading. It's dangerous work, but at least you're making ends meet.
> 
> ...


Apologies for the melodrama, but this is an entirely plausible situation. Every single 'ilegal' has a human story and often these stories are gut-wrenchingly sad and difficult to hear. The point I'm making is that the mere fact they're 'breaking the law' doesn't mean that the law is right, or that they should be dismissed as criminals. Undoubtedly my 'no borders' position could be labelled idealist, but what's the alternative? 'Pragmatism' is so often the refuge of the self-interested and the apathetic.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> you still havent answered the point about the owners of these places exploiting workers and not paying taxes / national insurance and therby becoming rich off the back of the illegal immigrants.
> 
> doesnt this benefit to the business owners totally contradict with your stance?


My point is clearly not in support of the owners of businesses who employ people who work illegally. It's about the fact that their work should not be illegal in the first place. Clearly many such employers are exploitative, but it's the social, legal, and economic context that forces these workers into illegal work that should be changed. The iniquities of the employers are a symptom of, not the root cause of a corrupt and unjust system.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 6, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> My point is clearly not in support of the owners of businesses who employ people who work illegally. It's about the fact that their work should not be illegal in the first place. Clearly many such employers are exploitative, but it's the social, legal, and economic context that forces these workers into illegal work that should be changed. The iniquities of the employers are a symptom of, not the root cause of a corrupt and unjust system.


But if the police do not make these arrests then the business owners will continue to profit off the black market labour supply.  Your latest point therefore reflects back to the ideology behind your argument – i.e the law itself and has nothing to do with the police who merely enforce the law.  By arresting the ‘illegal’ workers the police are also cracking down on the exploitative owners of these businesses.  Maybe you should repost this whole thread and argue against the law behind the arrests as opposed to merely having a dig at the police for doing their job.  Your argument has just unravelled royally and is inherently flawed!


eta - as much ass you may not believe it - i am also in support of a no borders policy.  Quite frankly if you want to work somewhere and there is a demand for your skills I think you should be able to go wherever the hell you want. So its not your ideology I object to – its your irrational and stereotypical labelling of the police as the ‘harassers’ when they have nothing to do with making the law of the country, and in this case (border control) of the world.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

I didn't make the original post, for starters.
But, and this is a big but, what planet are you on?
Surely it's perfectly consistent with my disagreement with the law that I should sympathise with a characterisation of said law as 'harrassment'??
Can you really not see that?
As long as this unjust law stands employers will continue to make hay from this (unjust) situation.
And as I said yesterday, most of the time this law isn't enforced anyway because the government know just as well as the employers that ilegal work is an integral and important part of our economy, and if they arrested every person wrking ilegallly in the country at this moment then there's probably be complete economic and social collapse.
Policing of this law is patchy in the extreme, and more often than not motivated by the need to TO BE SEEN TO BE doing something about immigration.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

How about the empathy question?
Or are we still to just dismiss these people as chancers who knew what they were getting themselves into and got what they deserved?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jul 6, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> How about the empathy question?
> Or are we still to just dismiss these people as chancers who knew what they were getting themselves into and got what they deserved?


as i said - i have empathy depending on the situation.  and clearly would in this case.  but you are still moaning about the wrong people - the police and not the politicians.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

Why can't you see it's perfectly consistent to moan about the cops and the politicians - the people who make the laws and the people who prosecute them?
For me the police are also part of the problem. I think you were moaning about the wrong people when you were going on about the employers (clearly exploiters, but not, for me, the root cause of the exploitation). 
The cops aren't the root cause either, but for me to characterise their application of this unjust law as harrassment is entirely consistent with my position on imigration and imigrants (illegal or otherwise) working. That's clear, for me.
I also don't like stop and search laws, either, as you know. And I would also characterise individual cops carrying out these laws as harrassment too. The fact that they're just doing their job/just obeying orders, is honestly just not important to me.
Plus, as an anarchist, I have a predisposition to dislike the structural role police play in our society as well as the way many of them go about their jobs. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right on this - that would be pointless, but that's also clearly not what I've been trying to do throughout this thread.


----------



## llantwit (Jul 6, 2007)

This is quite an interesting debate, btw. Ta.
Leaving work now, but migt look in later on tonight if you want to continue this.


----------

