The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
kevstar wrote:
>> You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm a
> master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at
> everything else.
I challenege thee to a fight about WW2.
DRAW!
>> You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm a
> master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at
> everything else.
I challenege thee to a fight about WW2.
DRAW!
light says
>Yes, but (and listen carefully), you don't know either.
but, but, but, but, what if, if only, its all buts with you isn't it, your right I don't know, and if given the choice , that you don't know how many immigrants are coming in, you do nothing cos hey, there making a profit. Or, because you don't know how many's coming in, we put proposals in place to make it harder for people to get in and abuse our system.
>Yet you're saying that immigrants are DEFINITELY a problem based on your lack of knowledge. Whereas I'm saying that the available evidence would say that they're not,
yeahh, is that the available evidence with inaccurate figures?
> but we need a proper debate about it. You're saying we shouldn't even debate; we should stay as ignorant as you.
At what stage did I say this? Whats there to debate about, the fact is they don't know the figures of the people coming in, theres no debate whats going to hide that fact. Thats a flaw in the system, everyone knows that.
>Well, the simple fact is that I don't believe for an instant, based on what you're saying, you'd welcome any immigrants. Hence I've been calling you a liar. Do you see?
Yeahh, well it's a good job I know myself better than what you do.
>1. I am right about your views and bigotry
Thats a bigot
2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm a master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at everything else.
>Yes, but (and listen carefully), you don't know either.
but, but, but, but, what if, if only, its all buts with you isn't it, your right I don't know, and if given the choice , that you don't know how many immigrants are coming in, you do nothing cos hey, there making a profit. Or, because you don't know how many's coming in, we put proposals in place to make it harder for people to get in and abuse our system.
>Yet you're saying that immigrants are DEFINITELY a problem based on your lack of knowledge. Whereas I'm saying that the available evidence would say that they're not,
yeahh, is that the available evidence with inaccurate figures?
> but we need a proper debate about it. You're saying we shouldn't even debate; we should stay as ignorant as you.
At what stage did I say this? Whats there to debate about, the fact is they don't know the figures of the people coming in, theres no debate whats going to hide that fact. Thats a flaw in the system, everyone knows that.
>Well, the simple fact is that I don't believe for an instant, based on what you're saying, you'd welcome any immigrants. Hence I've been calling you a liar. Do you see?
Yeahh, well it's a good job I know myself better than what you do.
>1. I am right about your views and bigotry
Thats a bigot
2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
You may be better at spelling and maybee law, but nothing else. I'm a master at WW2 history, and what I would say little bit good at everything else.
It's in the news right now because we're bored of the tsunami disaster and we don't like to hear about anybody dying in Iraq that isn't a "terrorist insurgent".
And, as a principle, anything that "The Sun Says" or The Daily Mail backs is instantly worth dismissing as panic-rhetoric designed to inflame morons and bigoted tools.
And, as a principle, anything that "The Sun Says" or The Daily Mail backs is instantly worth dismissing as panic-rhetoric designed to inflame morons and bigoted tools.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> > Put s**t this way, I think theres more people in this Country who have
> the same way of thinking as me when talking about immigrants, why do
> you think there on about s**t now. s**t's your views which are in the
> minors**ty, just because you have a few people who agree ws**th you on
> this s**te doesn't mean your right. You see s**t's people like you who
> are going to get this Country in dilapidated state due to pure
> blindness and ignorance of the problems ws**th immigration.
>
>
Ahahahahahahahahaha.
THERE ARE NO FACTS. AHAHAHA. Aha. Jesus mary james joseph CHRIST! 'A lot of people think immigration is a major crisis' WHY? WHY WHY WHY do they think this? Erm, because the press tells them? 'I smoke, like 25,000,000 other people!' as the cliche goes, they can't ALL be wrong!
It's people like you who couldn't give a s*s**t what happens to the country as long as you can wave your flag of St. George, whine about Brs**tish superiors**ty (did you know, many people think the Welsh were the orginal Brs**tons?! OMG! NOT THE...ANGLO SAXONS?!!' and blame all the problems you have on some vague band of foreigners.
> kevstar wrote:
>
> > Put s**t this way, I think theres more people in this Country who have
> the same way of thinking as me when talking about immigrants, why do
> you think there on about s**t now. s**t's your views which are in the
> minors**ty, just because you have a few people who agree ws**th you on
> this s**te doesn't mean your right. You see s**t's people like you who
> are going to get this Country in dilapidated state due to pure
> blindness and ignorance of the problems ws**th immigration.
>
>
Ahahahahahahahahaha.
THERE ARE NO FACTS. AHAHAHA. Aha. Jesus mary james joseph CHRIST! 'A lot of people think immigration is a major crisis' WHY? WHY WHY WHY do they think this? Erm, because the press tells them? 'I smoke, like 25,000,000 other people!' as the cliche goes, they can't ALL be wrong!
It's people like you who couldn't give a s*s**t what happens to the country as long as you can wave your flag of St. George, whine about Brs**tish superiors**ty (did you know, many people think the Welsh were the orginal Brs**tons?! OMG! NOT THE...ANGLO SAXONS?!!' and blame all the problems you have on some vague band of foreigners.
kevstar wrote:
>
> But there not are they?
No, they aren't. And how is putting a quota on immigrants going to help them get paid a decent amount? How is your plan of keeping anyone vaguely brown out of the country going to help?
>
> Ehhh, it seems to me that the goverment was indeed exploiting theese
> people, and in turn making more money out of them. Tell me, do the
> agencies not pay the goverment a set amount for theese indentured
> immigrants, and if so would it be more than what the immigrant would
> be paying in taxes? if the goverment was going to save more money
> for the economy by paying them properly, how is this the case, surley
> he would have done that from the start.
~sigh~ Y'know, I sometimes wish I was as simple as you; life would be so much less complicated. Do the agencies pay a set amount? Not to my knowledge, no. The agencies get paid for the number of immigrants they find work for, and they're not fussy about giving them to companies who pay under minimum wage. So the Government are paying a set amount to agencies for every immigrant who gets a job. The government aren't employing the immigrants themselves you *&^%ing plum. However, the job they get pays them less. Which means that, as they're on a pitiful amount, they need to apply for housing benefits etc. So the government is paying for them twice. By paying a decent amount, the immigrants wouldn't need housing benefits.
Do you see, or did I use too many big words for you?
> Put it this way, I think theres more people in this Country who have
> the same way of thinking as me when talking about immigrants, why do
> you think there on about it now. it's your views which are in the
> minority, just because you have a few people who agree with you on
> this site doesn't mean your right. You see it's people like you who
> are going to get this Country in dilapidated state due to pure
> blindness and ignorance of the problems with immigration.
And it's people like you who are going to get the country in a worse state because rather than accept that taxes need raising and immigrants are a vital part of our economy, you'd prefer to stop them coming in and watch the pensions crisis erupt and our economy implode. But hey, it's not your fault that you don't understand words of more than one syllable.
Your views are in the majority for no reason other than the majority of this country read The Sun. If people were told the facts rather than a neverending diatribe of "Darkies are coming to bum your pets!", I would hope that sub-eugenics views such as your own would be in the minority.
And the people here aren't necessarily agreeing with me about immigration. What the ARE doing is agreeing that you personally are a bigoted racist, a coward, a liar, and possibly the stupidest and most ignorant man that has ever had good DNA and oxygen wasted on him.
> A question
> I have yet to ask, what do you think of the goverments new plans,
> good or bad.
I think the new plans are a knee jerk reaction based on opinion polls and little or no research. I think we'll find that they don't get implemented after the election.
I'm still curious; do you ever get embarrassed by how stupid you are? Or how much information you ignore to protect your precious prejudice?
>
> But there not are they?
No, they aren't. And how is putting a quota on immigrants going to help them get paid a decent amount? How is your plan of keeping anyone vaguely brown out of the country going to help?
>
> Ehhh, it seems to me that the goverment was indeed exploiting theese
> people, and in turn making more money out of them. Tell me, do the
> agencies not pay the goverment a set amount for theese indentured
> immigrants, and if so would it be more than what the immigrant would
> be paying in taxes? if the goverment was going to save more money
> for the economy by paying them properly, how is this the case, surley
> he would have done that from the start.
~sigh~ Y'know, I sometimes wish I was as simple as you; life would be so much less complicated. Do the agencies pay a set amount? Not to my knowledge, no. The agencies get paid for the number of immigrants they find work for, and they're not fussy about giving them to companies who pay under minimum wage. So the Government are paying a set amount to agencies for every immigrant who gets a job. The government aren't employing the immigrants themselves you *&^%ing plum. However, the job they get pays them less. Which means that, as they're on a pitiful amount, they need to apply for housing benefits etc. So the government is paying for them twice. By paying a decent amount, the immigrants wouldn't need housing benefits.
Do you see, or did I use too many big words for you?
> Put it this way, I think theres more people in this Country who have
> the same way of thinking as me when talking about immigrants, why do
> you think there on about it now. it's your views which are in the
> minority, just because you have a few people who agree with you on
> this site doesn't mean your right. You see it's people like you who
> are going to get this Country in dilapidated state due to pure
> blindness and ignorance of the problems with immigration.
And it's people like you who are going to get the country in a worse state because rather than accept that taxes need raising and immigrants are a vital part of our economy, you'd prefer to stop them coming in and watch the pensions crisis erupt and our economy implode. But hey, it's not your fault that you don't understand words of more than one syllable.
Your views are in the majority for no reason other than the majority of this country read The Sun. If people were told the facts rather than a neverending diatribe of "Darkies are coming to bum your pets!", I would hope that sub-eugenics views such as your own would be in the minority.
And the people here aren't necessarily agreeing with me about immigration. What the ARE doing is agreeing that you personally are a bigoted racist, a coward, a liar, and possibly the stupidest and most ignorant man that has ever had good DNA and oxygen wasted on him.
> A question
> I have yet to ask, what do you think of the goverments new plans,
> good or bad.
I think the new plans are a knee jerk reaction based on opinion polls and little or no research. I think we'll find that they don't get implemented after the election.
I'm still curious; do you ever get embarrassed by how stupid you are? Or how much information you ignore to protect your precious prejudice?
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> Anyone going to respond to the link a few posts down to answer the
> question regarding the £2-3 billion that was made through
> immigration, had anthing to do with the link I gave?
>
> I swear, your ignorance scares me...
>
> The article talks about the horrendous exploitation of low wage and
> low skilled immigrants. I would say that, if they were paid properly
> and given access to proper employment
But there not are they?
, we'd actually increase the 2-3
> billion that we make from immigrants. After all, the delayed report
> is talking about migrants who are basically indentured, so the
> majority of them (exluding the ones who are underpaid by the
> government if the article is correct) won't actually be included in
> the report you linked to.
Ehhh, it seems to me that the goverment was indeed exploiting theese people, and in turn making more money out of them. Tell me, do the agencies not pay the goverment a set amount for theese indentured immigrants, and if so would it be more than what the immigrant would be paying in taxes? if the goverment was going to save more money for the economy by paying them properly, how is this the case, surley he would have done that from the start.
>
> So in other words, you've yet again misunderstood an article and
> provided more evidence of the truth of what everyone except you is
> saying.
Put it this way, I think theres more people in this Country who have the same way of thinking as me when talking about immigrants, why do you think there on about it now. it's your views which are in the minority, just because you have a few people who agree with you on this site doesn't mean your right. You see it's people like you who are going to get this Country in dilapidated state due to pure blindness and ignorance of the problems with immigration. A question I have yet to ask, what do you think of the goverments new plans, good or bad.
>
> Tell me, do you ever get embarrassed by your breathtaking lack of
> intelligence?
> kevstar wrote:
> Anyone going to respond to the link a few posts down to answer the
> question regarding the £2-3 billion that was made through
> immigration, had anthing to do with the link I gave?
>
> I swear, your ignorance scares me...
>
> The article talks about the horrendous exploitation of low wage and
> low skilled immigrants. I would say that, if they were paid properly
> and given access to proper employment
But there not are they?
, we'd actually increase the 2-3
> billion that we make from immigrants. After all, the delayed report
> is talking about migrants who are basically indentured, so the
> majority of them (exluding the ones who are underpaid by the
> government if the article is correct) won't actually be included in
> the report you linked to.
Ehhh, it seems to me that the goverment was indeed exploiting theese people, and in turn making more money out of them. Tell me, do the agencies not pay the goverment a set amount for theese indentured immigrants, and if so would it be more than what the immigrant would be paying in taxes? if the goverment was going to save more money for the economy by paying them properly, how is this the case, surley he would have done that from the start.
>
> So in other words, you've yet again misunderstood an article and
> provided more evidence of the truth of what everyone except you is
> saying.
Put it this way, I think theres more people in this Country who have the same way of thinking as me when talking about immigrants, why do you think there on about it now. it's your views which are in the minority, just because you have a few people who agree with you on this site doesn't mean your right. You see it's people like you who are going to get this Country in dilapidated state due to pure blindness and ignorance of the problems with immigration. A question I have yet to ask, what do you think of the goverments new plans, good or bad.
>
> Tell me, do you ever get embarrassed by your breathtaking lack of
> intelligence?
All I can say to Light's, for want of a better word, "dedication" to putting this ignorant cretin straight is "wow".
The scroll bar on the far right is tiny.
Jesus...
The scroll bar on the far right is tiny.
Jesus...
kevstar wrote:
>
> How do you know it's a tiny amount ehh, this is my point, you
> don't know what impact there making do you, like you say they are
> no accurate figures. And as I keep saying, if theres no figures to
> say one way or another, then is it not better safe than sorry. The
> figures in the link are totally inacurate because it doesn't account
> for the illegal immigrants, so to go of a report that says don't
> worry everythings alright cos you know what, there making a net
> profit so theres nothing to worry about even know, we havn't any
> figures to show what impact it's doing on our services.
Yes, but (and listen carefully), you don't know either. Yet you're saying that immigrants are DEFINITELY a problem based on your lack of knowledge. Whereas I'm saying that the available evidence would say that they're not, but we need a proper debate about it. You're saying we shouldn't even debate; we should stay as ignorant as you.
Better safe than sorry? Didn't you reject that argument as a reason for the Iraq war?
> If i'm xenophobic then how do I welcome immigrants who contribute?
> That is not xenophobic.
Well, the simple fact is that I don't believe for an instant, based on what you're saying, you'd welcome any immigrants. Hence I've been calling you a liar. Do you see?
>
> Is it, how can they say that when they don't even know what the
> figures are? You see, again another one of your points which makes no
> sense. And yeahh, I call you a bigot for thinking there is no
> problem.
So you're saying no-one knows the figures? Yet didn't you lie yesterday and say that we have figures about immigrants being on benefits more than natives? Oh, and lazier than native english people too? So if there are no figures, why do you keep saying that there are figures to support what you're saying?
Oh, you might want to look up the meaning of "bigot" too; it seems you don't actually understand what it means. But then, you are very stupid, so I'm not too surprised.
> As I explained how the cause is mainly when there young, most of
> theese people grow out of it (which you agreed) before there 18 and
> on the dole or whatever. So the majority of chavs impact is more
> vandal than anything else. Thats why you can't compare theese 2 types
> of society's. Thats not making excuses, thats a fact of life. To deal
> with chavs you need to catch them when there young, make them aware
> of the damage they cause, drive them off the streets and give theese
> people something to do while there off school. The chavs who do make
> it on the dole should be given a reality check, give them a certain
> time to find work or change there benefit to vouchers in order to
> stop them buying drink and drugs.
MWahahahahahahaaaa! Not making excuses he says...them goes on to make excuses for 'em, and say "but it's a fact of life, not an excuse". Well guess what monkeyboy; it's a fact of life that the overwhelming majority of immigrants come here to work. Yet you're not as forgiving or understanding of that are you? Probably cos you're a lying, cowardly, moronic bigot.
> No i've given my solution above.
Yes; your solution seems to be "It's not the same; be nice to chavs but to hell with immigrants". Exactly what I'd expect from such a bigot.
> They proberly do as regards to spelling, but don't let that
> underestimate my wisdom.
Don't worry; your utter and total ignorance, your admission that you don't actually know anything about or understand immigration, and pretty much everything else you've said leads me to believe that I've met 3 day old onions with more wisdom than you.
> Who says you should accept it, all i'm doing is giving my reasons why
> I think that certain immigrants are abusing our system, and why I
> think there's more coming in than what we think. i've never said that
> this is whats definatly happening which is why I agreed I would be
> wrong if they didn't make net profit.
Well, you've said we shouldn't have a debate about it. And you're adamant you're right. So that indicates that you think we should accept it. You ignorant bigot.
God, you've backpeddled more than a circus unicyclist in this thread...
> Yeah well thats there point of view, just because I don't accept that
> immigration is controlled because the figures are not only
> inaccurate, but they havn't a clue how many illegal immigrants are
> coming in, which in turn means they havn't a clue what impact it will
> make on the services. And you wonder why I worry about the number of
> people sponging of our benefit, you wonder why I worry about our
> services bieng stretched when they say it's alright even though they
> don't know how many's entering. I say this again you'll be stupid not
> to worry.
And I say again, you'd be a stupid bigot to say that immigrants are the main cause of the problem when you have no evidence for it whatsoever. Happily, you are a stupid bigot. So that solves that particular problem.
Mind, I'm impressed how you ignored the point in the post that...well, states that you just ignore things you don't want to hear. As the word "ignore" is the root of "ignorant", I'd say that my description of you as ignorant is 100% accurate. You ignorant bigot.
>
> I call you this light, your a ignorant bigheaded idiot who thinks
> he's always right (and you call me a bigot)and never wrong.
Yup, and I agreed with you for 2 reasons;
1. I am right about your views and bigotry
2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
> look at
> how many times i've said immigration is good, yet you among others
> still think i'm set against it, when all i'm against is the abusers
> of the system, not the hard working immigrants who contribute.
> And how do you get this view, well because I didn't mention how to
> deal with the other spongers on benefits when the topic has nothing
> to do with them, pathetic.
And I said that paedophiles never admit to paedophilia and racists never admit to racism. You've not actually said it's good; you've tried to find every possible reason why it's bad, then backtracked when proved irrevocably wrong.
I stand by what I say; you're a coward, a liar, a thoroughly stupid little man, and a bigot. We can continue if you like, but it's clear that nothing will change your bigoted views as you simply ignore anything that challenges them.
>
> How do you know it's a tiny amount ehh, this is my point, you
> don't know what impact there making do you, like you say they are
> no accurate figures. And as I keep saying, if theres no figures to
> say one way or another, then is it not better safe than sorry. The
> figures in the link are totally inacurate because it doesn't account
> for the illegal immigrants, so to go of a report that says don't
> worry everythings alright cos you know what, there making a net
> profit so theres nothing to worry about even know, we havn't any
> figures to show what impact it's doing on our services.
Yes, but (and listen carefully), you don't know either. Yet you're saying that immigrants are DEFINITELY a problem based on your lack of knowledge. Whereas I'm saying that the available evidence would say that they're not, but we need a proper debate about it. You're saying we shouldn't even debate; we should stay as ignorant as you.
Better safe than sorry? Didn't you reject that argument as a reason for the Iraq war?
> If i'm xenophobic then how do I welcome immigrants who contribute?
> That is not xenophobic.
Well, the simple fact is that I don't believe for an instant, based on what you're saying, you'd welcome any immigrants. Hence I've been calling you a liar. Do you see?
>
> Is it, how can they say that when they don't even know what the
> figures are? You see, again another one of your points which makes no
> sense. And yeahh, I call you a bigot for thinking there is no
> problem.
So you're saying no-one knows the figures? Yet didn't you lie yesterday and say that we have figures about immigrants being on benefits more than natives? Oh, and lazier than native english people too? So if there are no figures, why do you keep saying that there are figures to support what you're saying?
Oh, you might want to look up the meaning of "bigot" too; it seems you don't actually understand what it means. But then, you are very stupid, so I'm not too surprised.
> As I explained how the cause is mainly when there young, most of
> theese people grow out of it (which you agreed) before there 18 and
> on the dole or whatever. So the majority of chavs impact is more
> vandal than anything else. Thats why you can't compare theese 2 types
> of society's. Thats not making excuses, thats a fact of life. To deal
> with chavs you need to catch them when there young, make them aware
> of the damage they cause, drive them off the streets and give theese
> people something to do while there off school. The chavs who do make
> it on the dole should be given a reality check, give them a certain
> time to find work or change there benefit to vouchers in order to
> stop them buying drink and drugs.
MWahahahahahahaaaa! Not making excuses he says...them goes on to make excuses for 'em, and say "but it's a fact of life, not an excuse". Well guess what monkeyboy; it's a fact of life that the overwhelming majority of immigrants come here to work. Yet you're not as forgiving or understanding of that are you? Probably cos you're a lying, cowardly, moronic bigot.
> No i've given my solution above.
Yes; your solution seems to be "It's not the same; be nice to chavs but to hell with immigrants". Exactly what I'd expect from such a bigot.
> They proberly do as regards to spelling, but don't let that
> underestimate my wisdom.
Don't worry; your utter and total ignorance, your admission that you don't actually know anything about or understand immigration, and pretty much everything else you've said leads me to believe that I've met 3 day old onions with more wisdom than you.
> Who says you should accept it, all i'm doing is giving my reasons why
> I think that certain immigrants are abusing our system, and why I
> think there's more coming in than what we think. i've never said that
> this is whats definatly happening which is why I agreed I would be
> wrong if they didn't make net profit.
Well, you've said we shouldn't have a debate about it. And you're adamant you're right. So that indicates that you think we should accept it. You ignorant bigot.
God, you've backpeddled more than a circus unicyclist in this thread...
> Yeah well thats there point of view, just because I don't accept that
> immigration is controlled because the figures are not only
> inaccurate, but they havn't a clue how many illegal immigrants are
> coming in, which in turn means they havn't a clue what impact it will
> make on the services. And you wonder why I worry about the number of
> people sponging of our benefit, you wonder why I worry about our
> services bieng stretched when they say it's alright even though they
> don't know how many's entering. I say this again you'll be stupid not
> to worry.
And I say again, you'd be a stupid bigot to say that immigrants are the main cause of the problem when you have no evidence for it whatsoever. Happily, you are a stupid bigot. So that solves that particular problem.
Mind, I'm impressed how you ignored the point in the post that...well, states that you just ignore things you don't want to hear. As the word "ignore" is the root of "ignorant", I'd say that my description of you as ignorant is 100% accurate. You ignorant bigot.
>
> I call you this light, your a ignorant bigheaded idiot who thinks
> he's always right (and you call me a bigot)and never wrong.
Yup, and I agreed with you for 2 reasons;
1. I am right about your views and bigotry
2. I'm better than you in every conceivable way.
> look at
> how many times i've said immigration is good, yet you among others
> still think i'm set against it, when all i'm against is the abusers
> of the system, not the hard working immigrants who contribute.
> And how do you get this view, well because I didn't mention how to
> deal with the other spongers on benefits when the topic has nothing
> to do with them, pathetic.
And I said that paedophiles never admit to paedophilia and racists never admit to racism. You've not actually said it's good; you've tried to find every possible reason why it's bad, then backtracked when proved irrevocably wrong.
I stand by what I say; you're a coward, a liar, a thoroughly stupid little man, and a bigot. We can continue if you like, but it's clear that nothing will change your bigoted views as you simply ignore anything that challenges them.
kevstar wrote:
> Anyone going to respond to the link a few posts down to answer the
> question regarding the £2-3 billion that was made through
> immigration, had anthing to do with the link I gave?
I swear, your ignorance scares me...
The article talks about the horrendous exploitation of low wage and low skilled immigrants. I would say that, if they were paid properly and given access to proper employment, we'd actually increase the 2-3 billion that we make from immigrants. After all, the delayed report is talking about migrants who are basically indentured, so the majority of them (exluding the ones who are underpaid by the government if the article is correct) won't actually be included in the report you linked to.
So in other words, you've yet again misunderstood an article and provided more evidence of the truth of what everyone except you is saying.
Tell me, do you ever get embarrassed by your breathtaking lack of intelligence?
> Anyone going to respond to the link a few posts down to answer the
> question regarding the £2-3 billion that was made through
> immigration, had anthing to do with the link I gave?
I swear, your ignorance scares me...
The article talks about the horrendous exploitation of low wage and low skilled immigrants. I would say that, if they were paid properly and given access to proper employment, we'd actually increase the 2-3 billion that we make from immigrants. After all, the delayed report is talking about migrants who are basically indentured, so the majority of them (exluding the ones who are underpaid by the government if the article is correct) won't actually be included in the report you linked to.
So in other words, you've yet again misunderstood an article and provided more evidence of the truth of what everyone except you is saying.
Tell me, do you ever get embarrassed by your breathtaking lack of intelligence?
Anyone going to respond to the link a few posts down to answer the question regarding the £2-3 billion that was made through immigration, had anthing to do with the link I gave?
Page: