The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, any remaining shreds of credibility the BNP had left have now thoroughly been flushed down the toilet. If you watched the documentary about the undercover guy working from inside the British National Party tonight, then you'll know what I mean. Candidates and Councillors of the BNP were exposed as the hate-filled racists they are, inciting racial hatred, conspiring towards criminal damage and making the kind of remarks that even Bernard Manning would cringe at. So in other words, it just confirmed what everyone suspected.
One member running for Councillor spoke of his desire to sit at the top of a hill in town (where all the area's mosques are visible) and let loose with a rocket launcher. The same charming fellow also let slip his fantasy of 'shooting P***s' and how he'd love to get a transit van with a machine gun in the back ("like them helicopters") and gun down Muslims leaving a mosque. Another chap spoke happily of how he squirted dog poo through a local Asian's letterbox. Another cheerfully admitted kicking an Asian in the head during the Bradford race riots, and how he took pleasure in seeing a floored opponent's body go limp when police picked him up. John Tyndall, the man who began the BNP many years ago, was caught on camera suggesting the only things African nations have given the world is black magic, witchcraft, voodoo and AIDS.
As if it wasn't bad enough that leading council members at candidates were caught on camera running their mouths of at the thought of butchering Asians and Muslims, even the party's leader Nick Griffin was exposed as being nothing more than a thug in a suit. Speaking at a rally in Keighley (an area of racial tension), Griffin stated that Islam was a 'vicious wicked faith' and that there was no 'shining knight coming along to slay the Islamic Dragon' and if area members didn't stand up and protect themselves, 'they'll do for your family'. According to Griffin in numerous post-programme interviews, he still stands by his statement, saying he's happy if he's prosecuted and that it just shows the law is an ass.
This from the person who is 'telling the truth'. This is the person thinks Britain is under threat from a rising Islamic threat, and openly admitted on an Newsnight interview that one of the reasons thet Islamic faith has grown over the past hundreds of years is because of rape (thankfully, the interview made him look utterly ridiculous and to see him cough and splutter his frankly pathetic answers was a joy).
If there's anyone left out there who still thinks the BNP are doing the right thing for your country, then for Christ's sake stop kidding yourself. The BNP have been exposed as the racist criminal thugs they are, and hopefully Griffin and his hateful cronies will be subjected to a nice long prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.
The fact that 750,000 people voted for the BNP in June makes me feel genuinely sick.
One member running for Councillor spoke of his desire to sit at the top of a hill in town (where all the area's mosques are visible) and let loose with a rocket launcher. The same charming fellow also let slip his fantasy of 'shooting P***s' and how he'd love to get a transit van with a machine gun in the back ("like them helicopters") and gun down Muslims leaving a mosque. Another chap spoke happily of how he squirted dog poo through a local Asian's letterbox. Another cheerfully admitted kicking an Asian in the head during the Bradford race riots, and how he took pleasure in seeing a floored opponent's body go limp when police picked him up. John Tyndall, the man who began the BNP many years ago, was caught on camera suggesting the only things African nations have given the world is black magic, witchcraft, voodoo and AIDS.
As if it wasn't bad enough that leading council members at candidates were caught on camera running their mouths of at the thought of butchering Asians and Muslims, even the party's leader Nick Griffin was exposed as being nothing more than a thug in a suit. Speaking at a rally in Keighley (an area of racial tension), Griffin stated that Islam was a 'vicious wicked faith' and that there was no 'shining knight coming along to slay the Islamic Dragon' and if area members didn't stand up and protect themselves, 'they'll do for your family'. According to Griffin in numerous post-programme interviews, he still stands by his statement, saying he's happy if he's prosecuted and that it just shows the law is an ass.
This from the person who is 'telling the truth'. This is the person thinks Britain is under threat from a rising Islamic threat, and openly admitted on an Newsnight interview that one of the reasons thet Islamic faith has grown over the past hundreds of years is because of rape (thankfully, the interview made him look utterly ridiculous and to see him cough and splutter his frankly pathetic answers was a joy).
If there's anyone left out there who still thinks the BNP are doing the right thing for your country, then for Christ's sake stop kidding yourself. The BNP have been exposed as the racist criminal thugs they are, and hopefully Griffin and his hateful cronies will be subjected to a nice long prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.
The fact that 750,000 people voted for the BNP in June makes me feel genuinely sick.
Page:
Kevstar, it's true that in absolute terms the UK receives a lot of asylum applications but (a) the numbers are decreasing:
Q1 2002 19,250
Q2 2002 20,090
Q3 2002 22,030
Q4 2002 22,760
Q1 2003 16,000
Q2 2003 10,585
Q3 2003 11,955
Q4 2003 10,830
Q1 2004 8,940
and (b) if you look at the figures per head of population then the UK takes less than many other European countries. (Most asylum seekers, by the way, end up in other third world countries that really can't afford to support them.) Anyway, the amount of applications really depends on wars, oppression etc that are outside our control. There are historical reasons why Britain receives a lot of applications: you said yourself that people should speak the language of the country they move to and because of the British Empire much of Africa and Asia speaks English. There are also cultural ties with Britain so that when there is oppression in Nigeria and Zimbabwe (as there has been recently) it is natural that people in fear of their lives want to flee somewhere where they'll fit in, or where they may have family.
Q1 2002 19,250
Q2 2002 20,090
Q3 2002 22,030
Q4 2002 22,760
Q1 2003 16,000
Q2 2003 10,585
Q3 2003 11,955
Q4 2003 10,830
Q1 2004 8,940
and (b) if you look at the figures per head of population then the UK takes less than many other European countries. (Most asylum seekers, by the way, end up in other third world countries that really can't afford to support them.) Anyway, the amount of applications really depends on wars, oppression etc that are outside our control. There are historical reasons why Britain receives a lot of applications: you said yourself that people should speak the language of the country they move to and because of the British Empire much of Africa and Asia speaks English. There are also cultural ties with Britain so that when there is oppression in Nigeria and Zimbabwe (as there has been recently) it is natural that people in fear of their lives want to flee somewhere where they'll fit in, or where they may have family.
kevstar wrote:
> No Cyclone it's you talking about the British, and yes(while on the
> subject) you do get British people leaving for other Countries but
> with a difference, not no where near the scale as most other
> countries, and to try to compare them with the amount of people we
> have coming out is not even worth answering, but I will. We had over
> 100,000 applications for asylum for the first time in 2002 at that
> figures still rising, now I don't know how many we had coming out of
> our Country, but It's obvious it was no where near that amount.
It's 'obvious'? Find the figures before making the judgements. Even so, if you're going to restrict people coming into our country, then surely you must restrict the number of people going out of it? Yes? You have to make it fair on both sides - don't go 'burdening' other countries if you don't want people to be a 'burden' on ours.
To
> say we over populate thier shores is wrong. Remember this is a small
> Isle and most countries are bigger than ours. Crime
> - How can you say that they spend months trying to get here and
> hoping to get in, only to get caught stealing some baked beans as an
> excuse. Baked beans? Selling copied dvd's, games and selling drugs
> where the money they make goes straight to terrorist fund. You please
> tell me the last time an asylum seeker committed a terror act here
> says cyclone? By funding theese terrorists is a act in terrorism in
> itself. They have also been numerous accounts stoped in this country
> for that very reason.
And let's not forget that there's a huge amount of criminal activity committed by British people, while we're here. Yes, kevstar, BRITISH people commit crimes too. Shocked? Thought you would be. Why not focus on the British criminals as well? Why can't we deal with them while we're dealing with foreign crime?
I'm just interested to know where you found all this out. Could you show me where you got all this from? Cheers.
A British person does put a strain on the NHS
> and I never said it didn't, but they will be more of a strain if we
> were to become overcrowded with people which is obvious. It seems
> impossible to make a judgement about our society without someone
> calling you racist.
Well, if have racist views then I guess it's fair to call you a racist, yes? Don't try and play the "political correctness gone mad!!!" card here, mate. You spout racism, you are called a racist. Because it's what you are, see?
> Racism means discriminating against people based
> on their skin colour, race, ethnic group or nationality, using the
> difference as a reason for the discrimination.Not me.
You said before:
> Terrorism = If we were
> at war with someone, and have a community of people from the country
> we are at war with, along with thier beliefs(jahad) among others,
> They will(not could) be an increased risk to our country(fact).
So, let's review. That's discrimination against people based on their ethnic group, nationality and/or religious beliefs.
Oops, you're a racist.
As with most prejudiced people, you make overwhelmingly huge generalisations. How is it a fact that Muslims in this country are a threat to us just because other Muslims have decided to attack the West? What the hell are you smoking? Just because one Muslim says something, does it mean that another completely different Muslim will agree? No. You're discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs. How dare you try and suggest that Muslims in this country are a definite danger? I trust you have in fact interviewed each and every single Muslim in the country to prove that all of them are thinking about committing terrorist attacks against us? If you haven't, you wouldn't have any basis for such claims, would you?
What's that? You HAVEN'T interviewed all the Muslims in Britain? You don't know if they're all a risk? So, you've been scaremongering all along? Gah, that's a darn shame, kevstar. You really are as ignorant as I feared.
Your solution to the 'asylum crisis' is to shut Britain's doors, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Na na, na na na!" so you can't hear anything. Why don't we go and find out why these people are going round the world to get here, or any other country in the world? Shouldn't we try and sort out those problems first? Then we have a good place to start from when we consider asylum applications. Make the world less of a danger (not from Muslims, by the way, from genuine terrorists). And besides, if you're so worried about public services, how do you suggest we find a skilled workforce in a British population that is ageing badly? How can we run the public services without the right number of workers? Where could we find help? Immigrants? That's a good idea. Let's help our economy, help other people and make the state better - all by immigration. Not simple, but we're better off with immigrants than without them, unless you want your GP to be 150 years old.
> No Cyclone it's you talking about the British, and yes(while on the
> subject) you do get British people leaving for other Countries but
> with a difference, not no where near the scale as most other
> countries, and to try to compare them with the amount of people we
> have coming out is not even worth answering, but I will. We had over
> 100,000 applications for asylum for the first time in 2002 at that
> figures still rising, now I don't know how many we had coming out of
> our Country, but It's obvious it was no where near that amount.
It's 'obvious'? Find the figures before making the judgements. Even so, if you're going to restrict people coming into our country, then surely you must restrict the number of people going out of it? Yes? You have to make it fair on both sides - don't go 'burdening' other countries if you don't want people to be a 'burden' on ours.
To
> say we over populate thier shores is wrong. Remember this is a small
> Isle and most countries are bigger than ours. Crime
> - How can you say that they spend months trying to get here and
> hoping to get in, only to get caught stealing some baked beans as an
> excuse. Baked beans? Selling copied dvd's, games and selling drugs
> where the money they make goes straight to terrorist fund. You please
> tell me the last time an asylum seeker committed a terror act here
> says cyclone? By funding theese terrorists is a act in terrorism in
> itself. They have also been numerous accounts stoped in this country
> for that very reason.
And let's not forget that there's a huge amount of criminal activity committed by British people, while we're here. Yes, kevstar, BRITISH people commit crimes too. Shocked? Thought you would be. Why not focus on the British criminals as well? Why can't we deal with them while we're dealing with foreign crime?
I'm just interested to know where you found all this out. Could you show me where you got all this from? Cheers.
A British person does put a strain on the NHS
> and I never said it didn't, but they will be more of a strain if we
> were to become overcrowded with people which is obvious. It seems
> impossible to make a judgement about our society without someone
> calling you racist.
Well, if have racist views then I guess it's fair to call you a racist, yes? Don't try and play the "political correctness gone mad!!!" card here, mate. You spout racism, you are called a racist. Because it's what you are, see?
> Racism means discriminating against people based
> on their skin colour, race, ethnic group or nationality, using the
> difference as a reason for the discrimination.Not me.
You said before:
> Terrorism = If we were
> at war with someone, and have a community of people from the country
> we are at war with, along with thier beliefs(jahad) among others,
> They will(not could) be an increased risk to our country(fact).
So, let's review. That's discrimination against people based on their ethnic group, nationality and/or religious beliefs.
Oops, you're a racist.
As with most prejudiced people, you make overwhelmingly huge generalisations. How is it a fact that Muslims in this country are a threat to us just because other Muslims have decided to attack the West? What the hell are you smoking? Just because one Muslim says something, does it mean that another completely different Muslim will agree? No. You're discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs. How dare you try and suggest that Muslims in this country are a definite danger? I trust you have in fact interviewed each and every single Muslim in the country to prove that all of them are thinking about committing terrorist attacks against us? If you haven't, you wouldn't have any basis for such claims, would you?
What's that? You HAVEN'T interviewed all the Muslims in Britain? You don't know if they're all a risk? So, you've been scaremongering all along? Gah, that's a darn shame, kevstar. You really are as ignorant as I feared.
Your solution to the 'asylum crisis' is to shut Britain's doors, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Na na, na na na!" so you can't hear anything. Why don't we go and find out why these people are going round the world to get here, or any other country in the world? Shouldn't we try and sort out those problems first? Then we have a good place to start from when we consider asylum applications. Make the world less of a danger (not from Muslims, by the way, from genuine terrorists). And besides, if you're so worried about public services, how do you suggest we find a skilled workforce in a British population that is ageing badly? How can we run the public services without the right number of workers? Where could we find help? Immigrants? That's a good idea. Let's help our economy, help other people and make the state better - all by immigration. Not simple, but we're better off with immigrants than without them, unless you want your GP to be 150 years old.
No Cyclone it's you talking about the British, and yes(while on the subject) you do get British people leaving for other Countries but with a difference, not no where near the scale as most other countries, and to try to compare them with the amount of people we have coming out is not even worth answering, but I will. We had over 100,000 applications for asylum for the first time in 2002 at that figures still rising, now I don't know how many we had coming out of our Country, but It's obvious it was no where near that amount. To say we over populate thier shores is wrong. Remember this is a small Isle and most countries are bigger than ours. Terrorism = If we were at war with someone, and have a community of people from the country we are at war with, along with thier beliefs(jahad) among others, They will(not could) be an increased risk to our country(fact). Crime - How can you say that they spend months trying to get here and hoping to get in, only to get caught stealing some baked beans as an excuse. Baked beans? Selling copied dvd's, games and selling drugs where the money they make goes straight to terrorist fund. You please tell me the last time an asylum seeker committed a terror act here says cyclone? By funding theese terrorists is a act in terrorism in itself. They have also been numerous accounts stoped in this country for that very reason. A British person does put a strain on the NHS and I never said it didn't, but they will be more of a strain if we were to become overcrowded with people which is obvious. It seems impossible to make a judgement about our society without someone calling you racist. Racism means discriminating against people based on their skin colour, race, ethnic group or nationality, using the difference as a reason for the discrimination.Not me.
Cyclone wrote:
> Everything needed in response to kevstar's guff
Cyclone, you're a top bloke.
kevstar, you ain't.
Now, start examining yourself and your ignorant views, or find me some facts backing your arguments up. I notice you didn't in your last post. And don't expect me to drop this, either, I do want some facts.
> Everything needed in response to kevstar's guff
Cyclone, you're a top bloke.
kevstar, you ain't.
Now, start examining yourself and your ignorant views, or find me some facts backing your arguments up. I notice you didn't in your last post. And don't expect me to drop this, either, I do want some facts.
kevstar wrote:
> >
> Listen jim the reason I didn't blame the British people is because
> were clearly not talking about the British
No you a*se, we're talking about 'problems' that affect the UK. Hence it includes all us clean-as-whistles and patriotic 'Brits'.
, this whole debate is
> based around cultures other than British coming on to our shores and
> over popullating our shores as well as overstretching our systems.
AND WE DON'T? Jesus f**king Christ, sorry for the reaction, but why do WE not do anything wrong and these small numbers do? Are you complaining about the vast numbers of foreign students? Of British people buying up and exploting property in Eastern Europe and the Med? Of British companies exploiting people in the Far East and Africa for capitalist gain?!! FFS, look at the context!
> Terrorism = Everyone knows we are now more vunerable to terrorist
> attacks because it's so easy for them to come in.
That's a pathetic, pathetic reasoning. 'Oh, blackies can get in, so that means one of them is carrying a bomb'. Do you REALLY believe that these apparantly so determined and ruthless people will neccessarily go through the immigration system? Why not just fly in and bomb a bloody airport? it's a pathetic link.
> Overcrowding = By overcrowding our country the NHS is obviously going
> to get stretched as it already is which will result in poorer
> services.
Look to my post below, if you can read it. Jesus...
The same applies to the transport system, just look at our
> roads?
AND WHO IS ON THEM? Immigrants? THEY HAVE CARS? OH! I guess they got them on state benefits.... No, surprisingly, the most people I see on the roads are us Brits, stridently driving by ourselves to work, amidst thousands upon thousands upon thousands of others, or in 4x4s to Cornwall. What a wonderful people we can be.
Rising puplic expediture to cover costs of improving system
> due to overcrowding.
1) British people DON'T affect this. Don't pass it off as 'not talking about British people'. You are, it's, believe it or not, quite inextricably linked.
And finally the breakdown in moral civil society
> = Different pockets of culures living in the same area always leads
> to conflict as history shows. And look Jim it's funny but thats the
> link you were looking for.
No, Jim, the sensible chap he is, wants actual facts and figures I reckon. See my post below for the civil thing.
This 'British culture' thing. Riiight. Please explain what it is. Please. WITHOUT ANY FOREIGN INFLUENCE. Cheers.
> >
> Listen jim the reason I didn't blame the British people is because
> were clearly not talking about the British
No you a*se, we're talking about 'problems' that affect the UK. Hence it includes all us clean-as-whistles and patriotic 'Brits'.
, this whole debate is
> based around cultures other than British coming on to our shores and
> over popullating our shores as well as overstretching our systems.
AND WE DON'T? Jesus f**king Christ, sorry for the reaction, but why do WE not do anything wrong and these small numbers do? Are you complaining about the vast numbers of foreign students? Of British people buying up and exploting property in Eastern Europe and the Med? Of British companies exploiting people in the Far East and Africa for capitalist gain?!! FFS, look at the context!
> Terrorism = Everyone knows we are now more vunerable to terrorist
> attacks because it's so easy for them to come in.
That's a pathetic, pathetic reasoning. 'Oh, blackies can get in, so that means one of them is carrying a bomb'. Do you REALLY believe that these apparantly so determined and ruthless people will neccessarily go through the immigration system? Why not just fly in and bomb a bloody airport? it's a pathetic link.
> Overcrowding = By overcrowding our country the NHS is obviously going
> to get stretched as it already is which will result in poorer
> services.
Look to my post below, if you can read it. Jesus...
The same applies to the transport system, just look at our
> roads?
AND WHO IS ON THEM? Immigrants? THEY HAVE CARS? OH! I guess they got them on state benefits.... No, surprisingly, the most people I see on the roads are us Brits, stridently driving by ourselves to work, amidst thousands upon thousands upon thousands of others, or in 4x4s to Cornwall. What a wonderful people we can be.
Rising puplic expediture to cover costs of improving system
> due to overcrowding.
1) British people DON'T affect this. Don't pass it off as 'not talking about British people'. You are, it's, believe it or not, quite inextricably linked.
And finally the breakdown in moral civil society
> = Different pockets of culures living in the same area always leads
> to conflict as history shows. And look Jim it's funny but thats the
> link you were looking for.
No, Jim, the sensible chap he is, wants actual facts and figures I reckon. See my post below for the civil thing.
This 'British culture' thing. Riiight. Please explain what it is. Please. WITHOUT ANY FOREIGN INFLUENCE. Cheers.
kevstar wrote:
> Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits, get
> their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of
> charge!
yes. Every single last god damn forsaken asylum seeker gets put in the Ritz, and points and laughs at us. They get £37 a week because they're not allowed to work. How joyful and fulfilling for them. Immigrants go depending on their case. But hang on, do you complain about Australian students in Britain (for example)? Any other groups? So why do you complain about some and not others?
>You cant deny that.
Yes I can. Present me with proof.
Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the
> majority are not!If people come here and put money into the country,
> that's fine. But I am fed up of people saying 'let them all come and
> live here for free'. When the rest of us have to work to get amywhere
> in life.
Except they've worked their butts off to get here in the first place, then actually *GASP!* have to work when they get here and are 'accepted' as well.
Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine fear of
> their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system
> in one way or another.
I don't get this. Show me please.
There is a link between current levels of
> immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime, the
> threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding,
> deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services,
> rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call
> normal civil society.
ah! Crime! Ah yes, bad people, people who smoke on street corners. Must be foreign. Must want to spend months trying to get here and hoping to get in, only to get caught stealing some baked beans. yah.
So, suddenly, Britain is 'going to pot' Perhaps, even if it was.. (hah! - How about we're all damn lucky citizens of an incredibly affluent and relatively free nation that has far to much idiocy in it).. oh dear. Terrorism? You please tell me the last time an asylum seeker committed a terror act here? Please tell me how a white British person does not add strain to the NHS, whereas an Asian person does? Please tell me who are involved in drinking culture/binge drinking, costing the NHS £3,000,000,000 a year? Immigrants? Oh yes, all of them. Not 'patriotic Brits'. Pathetic. 'Rising public expenditure'. I don't get how 'we' do not attribute to this, but 'they' do. Don't say, they 'add' to the problems. Perhaps the birth rate is slighty higher than immigration rates IN and STAYING in? 'Normal civil society' and its 'breakdown' is what you might call, a bit of an un-truth. As in, stop being scared by paedoes and bad mannered youths pushing grannies about. I'm sorry, but to pronounce this nations' 'civil society' to be bad and then see African nations where you have to pay mercs to drive down a road or else get your head blown off, and THEN blaming it on 'them' is just insane. I'm quite happy with this country. Except people like you. (And some others, but that's another story).
> Above all, it highlights the lack of democratic control over the
> process.
Apart from the usual crap about 'oh we have no say' (if you want a say, bloody well go and make it. Although you're a mong, so please don't), perhaps this apparant mentality means this percieved lack of democracy is a good thing!
Around 2% of the worlds asylum seekers come to the UK, 2%
> is quite a lot when you consider that the UK is such a small
> country.
58,000,000+ 'normal, acceptable humans' is quite a lot for such a small country. Whining about them?
Im not a hateful person at all. Also, Ive never been subject
> to racism etc either. I've been called racist names yes, but this
> isnt really racism. I've also been called a geordie, 'northern
> t****r' etc. This is just as offensive as being called the N word to
> me, but not really racism. Just idiotic patter. I honestly have no
> problem with the way Im treated.
And?
>I just disagree with people taking the mickey out of the system. Theres a difference.
So do I. Trouble is, there is a difference.
> Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits, get
> their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of
> charge!
yes. Every single last god damn forsaken asylum seeker gets put in the Ritz, and points and laughs at us. They get £37 a week because they're not allowed to work. How joyful and fulfilling for them. Immigrants go depending on their case. But hang on, do you complain about Australian students in Britain (for example)? Any other groups? So why do you complain about some and not others?
>You cant deny that.
Yes I can. Present me with proof.
Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the
> majority are not!If people come here and put money into the country,
> that's fine. But I am fed up of people saying 'let them all come and
> live here for free'. When the rest of us have to work to get amywhere
> in life.
Except they've worked their butts off to get here in the first place, then actually *GASP!* have to work when they get here and are 'accepted' as well.
Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine fear of
> their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system
> in one way or another.
I don't get this. Show me please.
There is a link between current levels of
> immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime, the
> threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding,
> deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services,
> rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call
> normal civil society.
ah! Crime! Ah yes, bad people, people who smoke on street corners. Must be foreign. Must want to spend months trying to get here and hoping to get in, only to get caught stealing some baked beans. yah.
So, suddenly, Britain is 'going to pot' Perhaps, even if it was.. (hah! - How about we're all damn lucky citizens of an incredibly affluent and relatively free nation that has far to much idiocy in it).. oh dear. Terrorism? You please tell me the last time an asylum seeker committed a terror act here? Please tell me how a white British person does not add strain to the NHS, whereas an Asian person does? Please tell me who are involved in drinking culture/binge drinking, costing the NHS £3,000,000,000 a year? Immigrants? Oh yes, all of them. Not 'patriotic Brits'. Pathetic. 'Rising public expenditure'. I don't get how 'we' do not attribute to this, but 'they' do. Don't say, they 'add' to the problems. Perhaps the birth rate is slighty higher than immigration rates IN and STAYING in? 'Normal civil society' and its 'breakdown' is what you might call, a bit of an un-truth. As in, stop being scared by paedoes and bad mannered youths pushing grannies about. I'm sorry, but to pronounce this nations' 'civil society' to be bad and then see African nations where you have to pay mercs to drive down a road or else get your head blown off, and THEN blaming it on 'them' is just insane. I'm quite happy with this country. Except people like you. (And some others, but that's another story).
> Above all, it highlights the lack of democratic control over the
> process.
Apart from the usual crap about 'oh we have no say' (if you want a say, bloody well go and make it. Although you're a mong, so please don't), perhaps this apparant mentality means this percieved lack of democracy is a good thing!
Around 2% of the worlds asylum seekers come to the UK, 2%
> is quite a lot when you consider that the UK is such a small
> country.
58,000,000+ 'normal, acceptable humans' is quite a lot for such a small country. Whining about them?
Im not a hateful person at all. Also, Ive never been subject
> to racism etc either. I've been called racist names yes, but this
> isnt really racism. I've also been called a geordie, 'northern
> t****r' etc. This is just as offensive as being called the N word to
> me, but not really racism. Just idiotic patter. I honestly have no
> problem with the way Im treated.
And?
>I just disagree with people taking the mickey out of the system. Theres a difference.
So do I. Trouble is, there is a difference.
Jim of Honor wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits,
> get
> their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of
> charge!
>
> Isn't that called compassion? Don't these people need this help to
> give them a footing to work from? Would you rather we left them on
> their own to turn to crime to get their money?
>
> Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the
> majority are not! Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine
> fear of
> their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system
> in one way or another.
>
> Can I have a look at those stats you're referring to? Whereabouts
> did you find them? I'm referring mainly to the idea that 'most' come
> in to cheat the system, or how the majority of cases are 'false'.
>
> You have found valid evidence for all of this, haven't you? Or have
> you just swallowed all the bull from the BNP and Daily Mail, as I'd
> hope you haven't?
>
> There is a link between current levels of
> immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime,
> the
> threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding,
> deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services,
> rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call
> normal civil society.
>
> Can you show me this direct link? Or is it just 'obvious' to you?
> No other reasons? Pretty convenient how you've made asylum seekers
> the scapegoat for these problems and avoided blaming anyone British
> at all, just as I'd said before.
Listen jim the reason I didn't blame the British people is because were clearly not talking about the British, this whole debate is based around cultures other than British coming on to our shores and over popullating our shores as well as overstretching our systems. Terrorism = Everyone knows we are now more vunerable to terrorist attacks because it's so easy for them to come in.
Overcrowding = By overcrowding our country the NHS is obviously going to get stretched as it already is which will result in poorer services. The same applies to the transport system, just look at our roads? Rising puplic expediture to cover costs of improving system due to overcrowding. And finally the breakdown in moral civil society = Different pockets of culures living in the same area always leads to conflict as history shows. And look Jim it's funny but thats the link you were looking for.
> kevstar wrote:
> Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits,
> get
> their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of
> charge!
>
> Isn't that called compassion? Don't these people need this help to
> give them a footing to work from? Would you rather we left them on
> their own to turn to crime to get their money?
>
> Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the
> majority are not! Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine
> fear of
> their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system
> in one way or another.
>
> Can I have a look at those stats you're referring to? Whereabouts
> did you find them? I'm referring mainly to the idea that 'most' come
> in to cheat the system, or how the majority of cases are 'false'.
>
> You have found valid evidence for all of this, haven't you? Or have
> you just swallowed all the bull from the BNP and Daily Mail, as I'd
> hope you haven't?
>
> There is a link between current levels of
> immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime,
> the
> threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding,
> deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services,
> rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call
> normal civil society.
>
> Can you show me this direct link? Or is it just 'obvious' to you?
> No other reasons? Pretty convenient how you've made asylum seekers
> the scapegoat for these problems and avoided blaming anyone British
> at all, just as I'd said before.
Listen jim the reason I didn't blame the British people is because were clearly not talking about the British, this whole debate is based around cultures other than British coming on to our shores and over popullating our shores as well as overstretching our systems. Terrorism = Everyone knows we are now more vunerable to terrorist attacks because it's so easy for them to come in.
Overcrowding = By overcrowding our country the NHS is obviously going to get stretched as it already is which will result in poorer services. The same applies to the transport system, just look at our roads? Rising puplic expediture to cover costs of improving system due to overcrowding. And finally the breakdown in moral civil society = Different pockets of culures living in the same area always leads to conflict as history shows. And look Jim it's funny but thats the link you were looking for.
kevstar wrote:
> Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits, get
> their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of
> charge!
Isn't that called compassion? Don't these people need this help to give them a footing to work from? Would you rather we left them on their own to turn to crime to get their money?
> Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the
> majority are not! Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine fear of
> their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system
> in one way or another.
Can I have a look at those stats you're referring to? Whereabouts did you find them? I'm referring mainly to the idea that 'most' come in to cheat the system, or how the majority of cases are 'false'.
You have found valid evidence for all of this, haven't you? Or have you just swallowed all the bull from the BNP and Daily Mail, as I'd hope you haven't?
There is a link between current levels of
> immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime, the
> threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding,
> deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services,
> rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call
> normal civil society.
Can you show me this direct link? Or is it just 'obvious' to you? No other reasons? Pretty convenient how you've made asylum seekers the scapegoat for these problems and avoided blaming anyone British at all, just as I'd said before.
> Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits, get
> their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of
> charge!
Isn't that called compassion? Don't these people need this help to give them a footing to work from? Would you rather we left them on their own to turn to crime to get their money?
> Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the
> majority are not! Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine fear of
> their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system
> in one way or another.
Can I have a look at those stats you're referring to? Whereabouts did you find them? I'm referring mainly to the idea that 'most' come in to cheat the system, or how the majority of cases are 'false'.
You have found valid evidence for all of this, haven't you? Or have you just swallowed all the bull from the BNP and Daily Mail, as I'd hope you haven't?
There is a link between current levels of
> immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime, the
> threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding,
> deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services,
> rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call
> normal civil society.
Can you show me this direct link? Or is it just 'obvious' to you? No other reasons? Pretty convenient how you've made asylum seekers the scapegoat for these problems and avoided blaming anyone British at all, just as I'd said before.
Now people come over as immigrants, they get houses, get benefits, get their legal fee's paid and basically get looked after, free of charge! You cant deny that. Granted, a lot of genuine cases, but the majority are not!If people come here and put money into the country, that's fine. But I am fed up of people saying 'let them all come and live here for free'. When the rest of us have to work to get amywhere in life. Fair enough if a few asylum seekers are in genuine fear of their lives for whatever reason, but most come and cheat the system in one way or another. There is a link between current levels of immigration and a whole raft of social problems, including crime, the threat of terrorism, the squalor of our urban centres, overcrowding, deteriorating public health, the collapse of inner city services, rising public expenditure, and the breakdown of what one might call normal civil society.
Above all, it highlights the lack of democratic control over the process. Around 2% of the worlds asylum seekers come to the UK, 2% is quite a lot when you consider that the UK is such a small country.Im not a hateful person at all. Also, Ive never been subject to racism etc either. I've been called racist names yes, but this isnt really racism. I've also been called a geordie, 'northern t****r' etc. This is just as offensive as being called the N word to me, but not really racism. Just idiotic patter. I honestly have no problem with the way Im treated. I just disagree with people taking the mickey out of the system. Theres a difference.
Above all, it highlights the lack of democratic control over the process. Around 2% of the worlds asylum seekers come to the UK, 2% is quite a lot when you consider that the UK is such a small country.Im not a hateful person at all. Also, Ive never been subject to racism etc either. I've been called racist names yes, but this isnt really racism. I've also been called a geordie, 'northern t****r' etc. This is just as offensive as being called the N word to me, but not really racism. Just idiotic patter. I honestly have no problem with the way Im treated. I just disagree with people taking the mickey out of the system. Theres a difference.
kevstar wrote:
> Whats all this? Looks like people have it in for me (boo),have I said
> I don't like other culture's?All I said was - I don't like the way
> people talk another language after thev'e just been talking to you.
> And also - the point above which im'e going to explain. If they were
> more Italians living in Spain(example) or any other Country they
> wouldn't axcept it, why? because it's not right, it's called an
> invasion. Yes we should have a varaity of different cultures living
> here, but theres a certain limit for everything, and why should our
> Country be chosen to let the most Asylum sekkers in? It's because
> were soft and we know it, and the sooner we toughen up the better.And
> as for jim of honour calling me thick about how do you think our
> culture got hear in the first place? Invasion but the difference is
> that were allowing them in. And thats how I get my apparently
> ignorent view of the world.Still don't think im'e racist though.
That's a shame, because you clearly are a racist, chum.
So how much of our population is made up of immigrants, exactly? Where are these immigrants claiming towns and cities as their own, or part of another state? And if you want to toughen up immigration laws, then I hope you mean having a limit on people leaving our country to go to others as well as those entering Britain. Why should we ban people from coming in our country if we won't stop our own country's people 'invading' other countries?
You sound exactly like the leaflet I got from the BNP before the Euro elections - a scaremongering, ignorant, distasteful and, above all, stupid view of the world.
> Whats all this? Looks like people have it in for me (boo),have I said
> I don't like other culture's?All I said was - I don't like the way
> people talk another language after thev'e just been talking to you.
> And also - the point above which im'e going to explain. If they were
> more Italians living in Spain(example) or any other Country they
> wouldn't axcept it, why? because it's not right, it's called an
> invasion. Yes we should have a varaity of different cultures living
> here, but theres a certain limit for everything, and why should our
> Country be chosen to let the most Asylum sekkers in? It's because
> were soft and we know it, and the sooner we toughen up the better.And
> as for jim of honour calling me thick about how do you think our
> culture got hear in the first place? Invasion but the difference is
> that were allowing them in. And thats how I get my apparently
> ignorent view of the world.Still don't think im'e racist though.
That's a shame, because you clearly are a racist, chum.
So how much of our population is made up of immigrants, exactly? Where are these immigrants claiming towns and cities as their own, or part of another state? And if you want to toughen up immigration laws, then I hope you mean having a limit on people leaving our country to go to others as well as those entering Britain. Why should we ban people from coming in our country if we won't stop our own country's people 'invading' other countries?
You sound exactly like the leaflet I got from the BNP before the Euro elections - a scaremongering, ignorant, distasteful and, above all, stupid view of the world.
Page: