The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I was reading in New Statesman Magazine... The recon that nearly 1/3 of the White British Population in the next General Election will vote either BNP or UKIP, as they believe that New Labour have given very little to the British People... instead more money goes to imigrants. Even today those 4 terrorists are being allowed back into the UK.. SCREW THAT... should have left them at Cuba. I'm not a facist, but I can see their point about controlling imigration, you have not got the slightest clue who the hell the people are coming in; they might bomb a school (like what happened in Russia), or commit acts of evil things against the British citizens.
Page:
I think I admit defeat.
Kevstar wins for that alone.
Oh, how I smirked....
Kevstar wins for that alone.
Oh, how I smirked....
Light says
Hmmm....seems I'm much better at insults than you are too. I mean look at this; a rather sad, schoolboy attempt to call someone a d!ckhead it what you imagine to be a clever way. Where's the venom in that? And yet, if I were to suggest to you that you're an ugly anal carbuncle on the s***-smeared sphincter that is Gateshead, that would immediate be a better insult than yours. If I were to follow up by stating, quite clearly and unashamedly, that I think the main reason for your racism is that you're jealous of your sister's black boyfriend because you always hoped you'd been the one to sweatily bump and grind away her virginity, but because of him you've had to settle for sticking your piggly-wiggly little manhood into a jar of warm dog faeces, that would make it painfully clear how much better I am than you at insulting someone.
Hmmm I don't think so, first of all tell your Mrs that I left my boxers at your house for me will you, you should find them under the pillow on your bed. She came to me when she mentioned how she needed a man who could satisfy her properly, no offence but; I obliged. So I gave her a good roasting, meat and 2 veg and a splash of gravy at the end. She swallowed the lot of course, apart from the little bit which dribbled down her chin and in the cereal box, not hungry are you?
So now i've given your Mrs a leason in how to please a woman, she may give you a few tips given by the kevstar, enjoy them, i'm sure you will.
Hmmm....seems I'm much better at insults than you are too. I mean look at this; a rather sad, schoolboy attempt to call someone a d!ckhead it what you imagine to be a clever way. Where's the venom in that? And yet, if I were to suggest to you that you're an ugly anal carbuncle on the s***-smeared sphincter that is Gateshead, that would immediate be a better insult than yours. If I were to follow up by stating, quite clearly and unashamedly, that I think the main reason for your racism is that you're jealous of your sister's black boyfriend because you always hoped you'd been the one to sweatily bump and grind away her virginity, but because of him you've had to settle for sticking your piggly-wiggly little manhood into a jar of warm dog faeces, that would make it painfully clear how much better I am than you at insulting someone.
Hmmm I don't think so, first of all tell your Mrs that I left my boxers at your house for me will you, you should find them under the pillow on your bed. She came to me when she mentioned how she needed a man who could satisfy her properly, no offence but; I obliged. So I gave her a good roasting, meat and 2 veg and a splash of gravy at the end. She swallowed the lot of course, apart from the little bit which dribbled down her chin and in the cereal box, not hungry are you?
So now i've given your Mrs a leason in how to please a woman, she may give you a few tips given by the kevstar, enjoy them, i'm sure you will.
kevstar wrote:
> The only quotes from the link that even remotely bore out any of his bigoted bilge. And he even misunderstood those.
You really don't get it, do you? What I and basically everyone else is saying, is that it's impossible to say conclusively whether or not there is a problem with immigration based on the available figures.
You on the other hand are saying that there is definitely a problem with immigrants coming here, stealing our jobs, and also being on benefits (you still haven't spotted that contradiction have you?), despite your having no evidence for this. At all.
So whilst everyone else here is accepting the need for a proper, rational debate supported by facts and figures, you are wailing about evil foreigners sponging off the state. In other words, you're being a cowardly, ignorant, xenophobic bigot.
Oh, and you've avoided answering a single point put to you by gerrid or I in our last posts. Which sorta proves your cowardice, doesn't it?
> The only quotes from the link that even remotely bore out any of his bigoted bilge. And he even misunderstood those.
You really don't get it, do you? What I and basically everyone else is saying, is that it's impossible to say conclusively whether or not there is a problem with immigration based on the available figures.
You on the other hand are saying that there is definitely a problem with immigrants coming here, stealing our jobs, and also being on benefits (you still haven't spotted that contradiction have you?), despite your having no evidence for this. At all.
So whilst everyone else here is accepting the need for a proper, rational debate supported by facts and figures, you are wailing about evil foreigners sponging off the state. In other words, you're being a cowardly, ignorant, xenophobic bigot.
Oh, and you've avoided answering a single point put to you by gerrid or I in our last posts. Which sorta proves your cowardice, doesn't it?
Your Honour wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> Why do you presume they come straight to England?
> You are aware that other countries have asylum seekers as well
> aren't
> you?
>
> Of course.
>
> But we take in more than other countries, when ours is one of the
> smallest, as more difficult to get to.
But in terms of immigrant per 1,000 people, we're 10th or something - i.e, there are lots of nice white people to balance it out. If anything, people choosing to come here should be taken as a compliment! Unless of course they wish to abuse a system......and they all want to do that, no?
> Goatboy wrote:
> Why do you presume they come straight to England?
> You are aware that other countries have asylum seekers as well
> aren't
> you?
>
> Of course.
>
> But we take in more than other countries, when ours is one of the
> smallest, as more difficult to get to.
But in terms of immigrant per 1,000 people, we're 10th or something - i.e, there are lots of nice white people to balance it out. If anything, people choosing to come here should be taken as a compliment! Unless of course they wish to abuse a system......and they all want to do that, no?
Light wrote:
> Cycloon wrote:
> Oi, I contributed too.
>
> I DESERVE RECOGNITION!
>
> ~pats cycloon on the head~
>
> Good boy...GOOD boy. Now wassis? Wassis? Go on....FETCH the stick, go
> on!
>
>
>
>
> And that concludes Light's "How to be needlessly offensive"
> class for today.
Evil child.
> Cycloon wrote:
> Oi, I contributed too.
>
> I DESERVE RECOGNITION!
>
> ~pats cycloon on the head~
>
> Good boy...GOOD boy. Now wassis? Wassis? Go on....FETCH the stick, go
> on!
>
>
>
>
> And that concludes Light's "How to be needlessly offensive"
> class for today.
Evil child.
Quotes from the link....
But there remain significant concerns about the cost of the system (especially
given the high rate of success on appeal) and about the quality of initial decision making.
There are no records to show where all asylum seekers live. The Government only keeps
records centrally on those who receive Government support.
The regions of the
UK with the five highest populations of asylum seekers in NASS accommodation were:
Yorkshire & the Humber (19 per cent), North West (19 per cent), West Midlands (18 per
cent), Scotland (11 per cent), North East (11 per cent).
The Government has estimated that detaining all
asylum seekers on arrival could cost £2billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs
of over £1 billion
There are no available figures for the overall cost of the asylum system. Neither the Home
Office nor HM Treasury are able to provide a breakdown of costs.
78 per cent think ‘it is right that Britain should continue to let in people
seeking asylum if their claim is genuine’.
I stuck this bit in here as I agree with with bit.
The Home Office have data for those who
are removed or who depart voluntarily through their processes, but not what happens to
those outside of these processes
There are no records that show where all asylum seekers live. This has significant
implications for local authorities who have records of those they are supporting through
NASS, but not the number of asylum seekers who support themselves or Convention
refugees and others who have been allowed to stay. This means that it is very difficult to
assess the impact on public services more generally.
The local authorities with the ten highest populations of
dispersed asylum seekers were: Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds,
Manchester, Bradford, Nottingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton.
Administrative costs of the Immigration Appellate Authority
Year £ million
1995-96 8.4
1996-97 11.4
1997-98 12.5
1998–99 14.1
1999-00 16.1
The Department of Health is unable to quantify the indirect cost of asylum seekers as no
data are collected for analysis.
The then Department for Education and Employment did not collect information centrally
about education, training or employment provision for asylum seekers or their dependants
and cannot supply costs spent directly or indirectly from 1995.
The then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions had no programme of
expenditure on asylum seekers and indirect expenditure is not separately identifiable.
But there remain significant concerns about the cost of the system (especially
given the high rate of success on appeal) and about the quality of initial decision making.
There are no records to show where all asylum seekers live. The Government only keeps
records centrally on those who receive Government support.
The regions of the
UK with the five highest populations of asylum seekers in NASS accommodation were:
Yorkshire & the Humber (19 per cent), North West (19 per cent), West Midlands (18 per
cent), Scotland (11 per cent), North East (11 per cent).
The Government has estimated that detaining all
asylum seekers on arrival could cost £2billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs
of over £1 billion
There are no available figures for the overall cost of the asylum system. Neither the Home
Office nor HM Treasury are able to provide a breakdown of costs.
78 per cent think ‘it is right that Britain should continue to let in people
seeking asylum if their claim is genuine’.
I stuck this bit in here as I agree with with bit.
The Home Office have data for those who
are removed or who depart voluntarily through their processes, but not what happens to
those outside of these processes
There are no records that show where all asylum seekers live. This has significant
implications for local authorities who have records of those they are supporting through
NASS, but not the number of asylum seekers who support themselves or Convention
refugees and others who have been allowed to stay. This means that it is very difficult to
assess the impact on public services more generally.
The local authorities with the ten highest populations of
dispersed asylum seekers were: Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds,
Manchester, Bradford, Nottingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton.
Administrative costs of the Immigration Appellate Authority
Year £ million
1995-96 8.4
1996-97 11.4
1997-98 12.5
1998–99 14.1
1999-00 16.1
The Department of Health is unable to quantify the indirect cost of asylum seekers as no
data are collected for analysis.
The then Department for Education and Employment did not collect information centrally
about education, training or employment provision for asylum seekers or their dependants
and cannot supply costs spent directly or indirectly from 1995.
The then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions had no programme of
expenditure on asylum seekers and indirect expenditure is not separately identifiable.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2852129.stm[/URL]
Just so you know I'm not making it up.
Just so you know I'm not making it up.
Goatboy wrote:
> Why do you presume they come straight to England?
> You are aware that other countries have asylum seekers as well aren't
> you?
Of course.
But we take in more than other countries, when ours is one of the smallest, as more difficult to get to.
> Why do you presume they come straight to England?
> You are aware that other countries have asylum seekers as well aren't
> you?
Of course.
But we take in more than other countries, when ours is one of the smallest, as more difficult to get to.
gerrid wrote:
> gerrid: old people stretch our services far more than
> immigrants, shouldn't they be dealt with first?
Are you suggesting some sort of Logan's Run deal here?
> gerrid: old people stretch our services far more than
> immigrants, shouldn't they be dealt with first?
Are you suggesting some sort of Logan's Run deal here?
Cycloon wrote:
> Oi, I contributed too.
>
> I DESERVE RECOGNITION!
~pats cycloon on the head~
Good boy...GOOD boy. Now wassis? Wassis? Go on....FETCH the stick, go on!
And that concludes Light's "How to be needlessly offensive" class for today.
> Oi, I contributed too.
>
> I DESERVE RECOGNITION!
~pats cycloon on the head~
Good boy...GOOD boy. Now wassis? Wassis? Go on....FETCH the stick, go on!
And that concludes Light's "How to be needlessly offensive" class for today.
Page: