UKC

Breaking News

Reports of a mass shooting currently going on in a shopping mall. "Multiple deaths/injuries". Large police operation.

In reply to Trangia:

Can you quote where you have seen "multiple deaths/injuries"

all I can see is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36870874

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/22/munich-shopping-centre-evacua...


It may turn out to be more (which I hope not) but just conscious not to jump to conclusions.

Juan

In reply to JuanTinco:

According to TV BBC News first reports of "multiple deaths/injuries" came from local press. Police have apparently just confirmed this.

In reply to Trangia:

Im reading 15 deaths on telegraph live feed and reports of more than one gunman.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
at least three dead according to le Figaro, and "several dead" at Le Monde

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Last I heard. 6 dead. 3 gunmen, With long barrelled weapons.
People still held or hiding.


No prizes for anyone to guess the motives and the gunmen...

In reply to Bootrock:




Fox News are saying far right? CNN are saying Islamic.

In reply to Bootrock:




'Gunman shouted "f***ing foreigners" before firing shots'

One of the gunmen screamed “Scheiß Ausländer” meaning “f***ing foreigners”, it’s been reported.

The man was heard shouting the racial slur, according to Bild.de.

There is also reports that a video has been shared of an apparent shooter shouting “I am German”.

A video is being shared of apparent shooter on parking garage shouting "I am German" (bystander yelling back "No, you're a wanker") #Munich
— Roland Kappe (@rolandkappe) July 22, 2016

Brexit supporters?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

"German security forces have been on alert since a teenage migrant stabbed and injured five people on a train in Bavaria on Monday, in an attack claimed by so-called Islamic State."

In reply to Mr Lopez:


You pathetic arsehole.

In reply to pec:


I've given you a like for that, not because i literally like your outstanding contribution, but because it made laugh out loud.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Du bist ein ficken volltrottel

In reply to Bootrock:





You're right, there will be no prizes for guessing motives or the gunmen.
There will also be no prizes for speculation either.

In reply to Bootrock:

It could well be but it's also very possible it was a far right attack. 5 years to the day of another far right mass shooting..

In reply to TMM:



Except that at least one appears to be German, not an Islamist, and it may be an extreme Right Wing gang........

In reply to Mr


Pythonesque, what a reply !

In reply to Trangia:


Perhaps you missed the point of my post...

In reply to Bootrock:
Reports saying gun men took his own life.. Points against being Islamic terrorists as they only kill themselves if killing others. Actual suicide by turning the gun on themselves is supposedly against their beliefs.. Motive very much in question.

In reply to TMM:

Did I? That's the problem with internet, it's difficult sometimes to judge the meaning behind someone's post without seeing their facial expression and body language. So, sorry if I misunderstood you

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Seen. More reports coming out now. All very saddening either way.

In reply to Bootrock:




How many prizes for you?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No prizes for me, despite some good odds, turns out I was wrong.

It was only a matter of time before there was a counter attack though.


But let's not lose sight here, still innocent people dead. Still families torn apart. All very saddening. Thoughts with the loved ones. I would say pray, but that seems to be what gets us in this mess.

In reply to Bootrock:




It's still messed up, sounds like a mentally ill person.

Reports he was shouting Islamic statements but then far right statements.. But they also don't know if it was just him or 3 shooters, all very confusing.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

The media usually try and push a lone gunman, as its easier to dehumanise them or make "excuses" to brush it off, and not tackle the main issue.

There were reports of the Orlando shooting being more than 1 person, but the media went for the Lone Gunman angle as it then becomes less
About radical Islam and more about a gun control/second amendment issue.

I don't buy into this "mentally ill" argument people keep throwing about, almost like an excuse. Anders Breivik was said to have been "mentally ill" yet he was proved not to be.
It's easy to dismiss the underlying issue.


But yes. Very horrific, very saddening. So soon after Nice.

In reply to Trangia:

Lone gunman who then offed himself, now being reported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36873180

In reply to Big Ger:

German Iranian responsible, thank goodness Brexit won...

In reply to Jim 1003:

Explain?

He targeted foreigners?

And teenagers.

It's highly unlikely our border situation will change.

In reply to Bootrock:


That's what they all said in the immediate aftermath of Utoya Island and of course they were all wrong just as you are now. No prizes for guessing your motives for that knee jerk wrong assumption either.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Interesting comment.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Wrong assumption? You know that for certain do you?

Just because he has no "known" links to IS, doesn't mean the that was the very idea he was doing it for, and just because he had a facination with Breivik and Mass shootings doesn't prove anything other than he did his homework.


It's like people saying the Orlando Shooter was a repressed Homosexual because he had Grindr on his phone, and had visited the club before.
Yea he went to the club to do a recce on the place to maximise his attack.
And he probably tried using Grindr to try and lure men to their deaths.

It's just excellent forethought and preparation.

In reply to Bootrock:




That's a bit of a worrying thing to write. Think it through Bootrock.

In reply to Trangia:

Well yet another tragedy, accompanied by some mindless drivel on UKC.

Cock of the year is shared between Mr Lopez and Jim 1003 both of whom should apologise to the assembled masses for their swivel eyed stupidity.

All very disheartening, shame on you.

In reply to cander:

Odd really, I saw both as more memorable than usual edgy black humour (and would have still if the joke was pointed at remainers).

I've always felt those compiling negative lists of people need to be be careful about looking in mirrors.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

It is very worrying indeed. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

With people pushed, frustrated and fed up, and turning to more extreme measures and the rise in popularity of groups such as the EDL, it was a matter of time before something happened.

In reply to Bootrock:

You may not be aware of the psychology studies which have found that the more openly homophobic the men who were part of the study were , the more they were turned on by gay porn, and the better they turn out to be at spotting a gay person without prior knowledge that they are gay?

With how he shot people there before shooting himself, I'd be highly surprised if he wasn't a repressed homosexual with some other issues going on as well.

In reply to Offwidth:

The joke was based on the deaths of German children, Brexit/ Remain is so irrelevant and nothing to do with black humour, so wrong!

In reply to cander:

Don't worry, these deaths of children in Germany are all the fault of the EDL apparently.

In reply to Jim 1003:

To help to keep out the barbaric middle eastern brown people you mean? In the UK, did you know that 7 women and 2 men die at the hands of a former partner each month?

Races aren't given in the statistics, but I'm guessing most of the violence will probably come from white people, with how most people in the UK are.

Thanks goodness for Brexit keeping us safe...?

In reply to Timmd:

Completely irrelevant point. 2 separate points.


Domestic abuse is a different problem and tackled differently to domestic terrorism.
And actually your point about most domestic abuse victims being white, is pure speculation, and due to cultural differences and ways of life, I think it's fair to say there's a good mix of races in that domestic abuse argument. Can you imagine people's reaction if you made the same comment, but directed it a different "race"? You would have been brandished a racist, and a bigot and people would have been up in arms.

Brexit, could well help security by denying open borders and allowing a more reliable way to screen people and find any possible threats easier, or to allow more in depth background checks.

Oh look at the news, another 2 attacks in Germany... I wonder who by...

In reply to Bootrock:

You may want to keep the Americans out as well. Oh, wait, but that's not terrorism...

In reply to Big Ger:

It just means I'm glad we will be getting back control of our borders after Brexit because I'm sick of uncontrolled immigration and all the problems it causes, and I see that tragically another bomb has been set off by an asylum seeker in Germany.

In reply to Removed UserZebdi:

Again completely different debate.

In reply to Bootrock:

I did put it very crassly, my general point is that there's other risks to our lives when living in the UK, being victims of domestic abuse, being attacked by drunken people. being knocked over when crossing the road, and the chances of being caught up in a terror attack are very small.

If a country has a majority race, I don't think it is bigoted to guess that most people who commit domestic violence are probably from that race, if it was a country like China, I don't think it'd be racist so say that there's more chance of them being Chinese.

What I think is a little bit bigoted, is to say 'thank goodness for Brexit' while quoting that this lone gunman was part Iranian, when it turns out that he probably didn't have any ISIS links, and it turns out he may just have been rather disturbed. A guy who works for a relative's company is Iranian (genuinely, I'm not making it up to make a point), and he's here amongst us in the UK. By the logic of the 'thank goodness for Brexit' person - should we suddenly start being wary of him in case he's plotting to kill people?

I was just trying to illustrate that there's threats to us from other things as well as terrorism, and that somebody being part Iranian has little to do with the Germany shooting. What about the Asians who are already living in the UK, should we start suspecting them because of their race too?

If the logic of the 'thank goodness for Brexit' person is anything to go by, it seems he thinks we should do?

You're probably right that tighter boarder controls could help towards our safety.

A friend mentioned that a certain amount of casual prejudice or racism seems to have become acceptable, in the wake of terrorism and Brexit (I'm not tarring all Brexit voters with the same brush), and I think that's illustrated in the 'thank goodness for Brexit' post. There's another Iranian in our midst in Sheffield (argh!).

In reply to Bootrock:


Brexit supporters??

In reply to Mr Lopez:

I'm curious as to why you think muslims/middle eastern origin people would be keen on BREXIT?

In reply to Timmd:

It's not racist to want less immigrants in the country, it's sensible, what part of that can you not understand?

In reply to Jim 1003:

I'm calling troll.

And it's fewer immigrants, not less.

In reply to lummox:

I called him worse than that!

In reply to Jim 1003:


It's the bit where cutting immigration just isn't sensible under any meaningful definition of the word is the part I personally have a problem with.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


Why is it sensible, given that immigration provides a net positive benefit to the UK economy, and much of the economic growth since the 2008 recession has been as a result of population growth arising from immigration?

In reply to tony:


There is a case to be made that continued population growth has worse long term consequences than abandoning our economic model of continual growth.

What matters is the sum of death rate, birth rate, outwards migration rate and inwards migration rate. I've listed those for in order of how difficult they perhaps are to influence (ethically and practically), with death rate being the hardest.

It was hard to get people to consider this before the exit vote saw people muck racking over inwards migration; it's a lot harder now.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Please remind us all of how many deaths by terror have occurred in the UK as a direct result of our immigration policy?

In reply to Jim 1003:

You need to explain why it's sensible backed up with some kind of evidence. Otherwise you just come across like an idiot.

In reply to doz generale:

I don't really need to explain, people are sick of the high level of immigration for very obvious reasons, hence the Brexit vote... sorry you lost mate...get with the programme now.

In reply to Jim 1003:


What programme?
What have you got to offer?

In reply to tony:


Does all immigration provide a net benefit? Or does some immigration provide a net benefit?

In reply to Jim 1003:


You are a joke! you say very obvious reasons but cant tell anyone what they are! Just because the referendum went the other way does not mean I have to "get with the program"

In reply to doz generale:
I assumed troll but on reflection, just hard of thinking.

In reply to tony:


Can you explain to me why that -- more people, bigger economy -- is a good thing? Surely what matters is GDP per capita, not GDP itself?

If we have more people and so higher GDP, but the same GDP/capita, then we're not any richer, all we are is more crowded with more congestion on roads and the need to build over more of the countryside, et cetera.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


GDP isnt necessarily a useful figure at all. Just look at the amazing jump in Irish GDP last year.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


In which case you'll be delighted to know that GDP per capita is higher now than it has ever been.

In reply to tony:


Maybe so, afterall the economy does generally progress through advances in science and engineering, et cetera.

But the evidence is that immigration does not boost GDP per capita -- it boosts numbers and GDP, yes, leaving GDP/capita much the same. So can you explain your comment suggesting that immigration produces a "net positive benefit to the UK economy"?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Maybe because we have had plenty of serious economic analysis showing this is likely for the UK in recent times. The reasons being filling major skill gaps and the significantly better levels of tax take vs service use of migrants compared to average UK citizens (the exact opposite of say Brits in Spain). You're the scientist, lets have less rhetoric and show us some evidence to the contrary (that is, growth is just GDP and not GDP per capita). Pretty much every major western economy in the world is built partly on migration, the biggest, the US, spectacularly so. To be clear I'm not denying that we do need to think about population issues.

As for science and engineering research, my School of Science and Technology is around 20% non UK academics and my University is around 15% non UK academics.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The net benefit comes from the fact those young, well immigrants cost a lot less to care for than the older, sicker, less productive population whose services and pensions they contribute to. Yeah, at present it's an unsustainable pyramid scheme but we can't dismantle it overnight, it needs to be reformed gradually however that is ultimately achieved.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Out of interest, who looks after and pays for the older, sicker, less productive in the countries these immigrants come from? Doesn't sound very equitable on the face of it?

In reply to Offwidth:


It's actually hard to get proper evidence, given the absence of control experiments. I did look into this a while ago, but the problem is that nearly every analysis of this is written with an agenda (either wanting to show "immigration is good for the economy" or "no it isn't").

I would welcome proper objective analysis of this. You seem to be putting the burden of proof on me, though it is usually those arguing that immigration benefits the economy who make the claims, so the burden should really be on them.

Another problem is that a lot of statistics are out of date. But, since you ask, here's is an example commentary from the web:

"In October 2006, the National Institute Economic Review No 198 contained a commentary on immigration and its effects. This examined the impact of immigration between 1998 and 2005. It concluded that immigrants who have arrived since 1998 have raised GDP by 3.1%. According to the Labour Force Survey figures in the report, of the 58.987m population, 2.249m have come to the UK in the 8 years since 1997. The crude addition to the population (excluding UK-born children) is therefore 3.8%. So the benefit is negative in terms of GDP per head [v]."

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/18

And no, I'm not claiming that source is authoritative and unbiased, and I would welcome any solid and reliable statistics on this. As I say, that might be very hard to obtain, lacking control experiments.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Family. State. Immigrants. They have the same sort of structural problems to solve that we do in the long run. I didn't pretend it was equitable, it's patently obvious that we live in a grossly unjust world of appalling inequality but if we're looking narrowly at our own interests (as we have been latterly in this thread) it's hard to argue immigrants harm them in the medium term at least.
jk

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Remittance from those working abroad.

The GBP or $ or Euro sent back go a lot further in the less well developed world and health care is a lot cheaper when most of it is very basic.

As for the word equitable... well the short answer is of course it isn't! If it was equitable we wouldn't have a developed and developing world.

In reply to petellis:


Not so good for our economy then - increased GDP isn't much use if it flows out one way...


Although cash isn't much use when some countries are atrophying trained healthcare professionals to migration.


Yup, and all the more reason for us to consider the effects of our policy on nations from which we take. A more equitable world is one with less violence and anger and terrorism.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That cut and past is about as unrepresentative of that article (which I'd seen) as it could be and that is an article from an organisation who unapologetically say right of the top of their public information about themselves "The problem is the current scale of immigration, which is simply unsustainable", so are hardly unbiased. Various surveys usually show small to medium gains in GDP per capita, current migration watch biased examples show neutral influence at worst (after correcting some of their own errors in the survey you pasted).

In reply to Offwidth:


You're welcome to link to some.

Again, as far as I can make out, the effect of immigration on GDP per capita is roughly neutral. And, again, my comments here are mostly a reaction to the oft-heard "immigration is good for the economy ...". It's those making such claims who should surely substantiate them.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Many are linked and critiqued (sometimes unfairly) on that Migration Watch site.

The (mixed) evidence and commentary on more balanced sites is a search click away:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-imm...
https://fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/
https://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Nu...
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-according-new-pie...

I will always think any organisation with stated aims of reducing immigration should never be used as an unbiased evidence source on the benefits of immigration by anyone with any scientific self respect. Will you will be quoting research from the tobacco industry on the health effects of smoking next?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Also, if we have inward migration of 500k people a year, 250k from the EU and 250k non EU (who have to jump through hoops to get in) is there any study showing which group is more "productive" for the economy?

I don't know the answer, but it would possibly make sense that the skilled non EU immigrants might be more productive than the unskilled EU immigrants? (that's not to say all EU immigrants are unskilled) Would be interesting to know either way

In reply to Offwidth:


And the pro-immigration websites are just as biased.


I've just looked at it. Nowhere (unless I've missed it) does it discuss the effect on GDP per capita. All it does it discuss increase in GDP, and then just assume -- as is typically done on pro-immigration websites -- that that is a good thing.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/

Ditto. It doesn't talk about GDP per capita.

As I said, you are welcome to provide links that actually support your claim that: "Various surveys usually show small to medium gains in GDP per capita".

In reply to Coel Hellier:
GDP per capita, as a headline, is your thing but I'd expect a Physics Prof to easily calculate it by taking the headline GDP imcrease figures for the same population numbers. Any independent GDP increase research will give a GDP per capita value. Migration Watch do it for you for some reports.

Most research of this type misses medium term economic gains (say to R&D) and losses (like say less productive family members later moving to the UK) and completely ignores less tangible effects like those to our culture.

Migration Watch may have done the best research on this subject (though I doubt that) but by phrasing their position in the debate in advance they are simply not to be trusted. As for the UCL research what evidence do you have for their bias that you imply?

In reply to Offwidth:

Hi Offwidth, I notice that you still haven't given a link which supports your claim that: "Various surveys usually show small to medium gains in GDP per capita". (And, as I said, I don't think it's that easy, given the number of things that will feed into GDP, and the lack of control experiments.)


The website just reads as a pro-immigration propaganda piece. The headline is: "Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence ".

It then says: "European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services ...".

The wording there ("helping to relieve the fiscal burden") is rather loaded. But what does this statistic actually say? That they paid more in taxes than they received in welfare-state benefits? Well, I would damn well hope so! Because that's the most minimal threshold.

The country needs a large excess of tax receipts over benefits in order to fund things like schools and hospitals and all the other public services and things like defence, et cetera. Of course the immigrants -- quite rightly -- also make use of the schools and hospitals, etc.

Does the article say that their excess of tax-paying over benefits is sufficient to pay for their share of public services? Well, no it doesn't say that. Yet surely that is a more relevant threshold than simply an excess of tax paying over benefits?

In other words this whole piece is pretty much propaganda -- it's trying to give the impression of "net fiscal benefit" when the data they present don't show anything such. Nor does it make any attempt at the most relevant sort of statistic, GDP per capita or something along those lines.

Lastly, note that not one statement in that article says anything negative about the effects of immigration. It doesn't, as it could, list positive aspects and negative aspects and then argue that the former outweigh the latter -- the whole thing is just spin.

In reply to Offwidth:

Just to add on the "spin" nature of that article:

"The value of the education of immigrants in the UK labour market who arrived since 2000 and that has been paid for in the immigrants’ origin countries amounts to £6.8bn over the period between 2000 and 2011."

That's a ludicrous thing to say. To claim that immigrants being, on average, better educated than the natives is a benefit to the UK is a fair thing to say (and they do also claim that).

But to claim the full cost of their education as a benefit is just silly. Consider a hypothetical immigration population with exactly the same degree of education as the natives; the net effect on average education levels would thus be zero. There is thus no benefit to the host country.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The population at any time is is fixed so at some level of estimated GDP growth slightly over the Migration Watch revised numbers (as in the articles they critique for that reason, including UCL), the GDP per capita will be increasing slightly. The particular figures are your concern not mine, do the calculations yourself. Back in the real world its lucky we don't measure growth and recessions on GDP per capita as otherwise the UK economy would be regarded as much poorer than it is now since recent population growth is 0.8 % (and only half of that estimated to be from migrants).

Those are pretty sketchy arguments to indicate bias in the UCL research and as for the specific critiques Ill stick to experts... hardly the same as giving the 'answer' up front on the researchers website before doing the work, like Migration Watch did.