The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Mr Clark said himself that people were abusing the system, I doubt he would say something like this if it wasn't true. He only admited it yesterday, so I guess he will have some sort of report somewhere. Wait for his speach today and it may say something then.
There not laying it in the immigrants door, they have proposals in place to try and reduce the amount of people on incapacity benefit, so that indicates there going right across the board, people just get that impression.
There not laying it in the immigrants door, they have proposals in place to try and reduce the amount of people on incapacity benefit, so that indicates there going right across the board, people just get that impression.
kevstar wrote:
> Cycloon wrote:
> Kevstar, I find it ironic that you seem to accept that because
> politician say 'there's a problem with immigration', and everyone
> says 'waa, immigrants!' that you actually think there is - HAVE you
> seen any facts?
>
> No, there is no facts, this is half the point. What there is however,
> is indications to my points.
What? People saying there are problems? 'There are problems on Mars!' You hear me? THERE ARE NOW, BECAUSE I SAID SO!
Theres no facts as such to say that
> immigration is working. What I do I see is 140-150,000 per year
> coming through when no improvement to our services are bieng made.
1) No facts?
2) And this is the fault of those immigrants? Please, please tell me how that is true.
3) Facts again?
I
> also see that they were signs that people are abusing our welfare
> system, the graph in the link sahowing how many immigrants are on
> benefits shows that.
After decoding that awful piece of English (again, another ironic fact about British people - 'waa, they can't speak English properly' - hey, you can't either. And yes, Kevstar, I know you said to Pandy you'd improve that, which is fair enough). Anyway, 'people'. Immigrants entirely? They can't work for 6 months anyway. My dad's on benefits. And my mum. OMG! They are scum. Of course abuse is wrong - but to lay it at the immigrants door is both unfair and entirely unfounded - as you said, there are so few facts.
> Cycloon wrote:
> Kevstar, I find it ironic that you seem to accept that because
> politician say 'there's a problem with immigration', and everyone
> says 'waa, immigrants!' that you actually think there is - HAVE you
> seen any facts?
>
> No, there is no facts, this is half the point. What there is however,
> is indications to my points.
What? People saying there are problems? 'There are problems on Mars!' You hear me? THERE ARE NOW, BECAUSE I SAID SO!
Theres no facts as such to say that
> immigration is working. What I do I see is 140-150,000 per year
> coming through when no improvement to our services are bieng made.
1) No facts?
2) And this is the fault of those immigrants? Please, please tell me how that is true.
3) Facts again?
I
> also see that they were signs that people are abusing our welfare
> system, the graph in the link sahowing how many immigrants are on
> benefits shows that.
After decoding that awful piece of English (again, another ironic fact about British people - 'waa, they can't speak English properly' - hey, you can't either. And yes, Kevstar, I know you said to Pandy you'd improve that, which is fair enough). Anyway, 'people'. Immigrants entirely? They can't work for 6 months anyway. My dad's on benefits. And my mum. OMG! They are scum. Of course abuse is wrong - but to lay it at the immigrants door is both unfair and entirely unfounded - as you said, there are so few facts.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Kevstar, I don't usually pull people on spelling and grammar, but I
> suggest you look up the correct spelling and use of: -
>
> 1) theese
> 2) your
> 3) thoose
> 4) there
>
> It's sometimes pretty difficult to read your posts.
Fair point, however i've never been to good at spelling or on a computer for that matter. Will try and improve.
> Kevstar, I don't usually pull people on spelling and grammar, but I
> suggest you look up the correct spelling and use of: -
>
> 1) theese
> 2) your
> 3) thoose
> 4) there
>
> It's sometimes pretty difficult to read your posts.
Fair point, however i've never been to good at spelling or on a computer for that matter. Will try and improve.
Cycloon wrote:
> Kevstar, I find it ironic that you seem to accept that because
> politician say 'there's a problem with immigration', and everyone
> says 'waa, immigrants!' that you actually think there is - HAVE you
> seen any facts?
No, there is no facts, this is half the point. What there is however, is indications to my points. Theres no facts as such to say that immigration is working. What I do I see is 140-150,000 per year coming through when no improvement to our services are bieng made. I also see that they were signs that people are abusing our welfare system, the graph in the link sahowing how many immigrants are on benefits shows that.
> Kevstar, I find it ironic that you seem to accept that because
> politician say 'there's a problem with immigration', and everyone
> says 'waa, immigrants!' that you actually think there is - HAVE you
> seen any facts?
No, there is no facts, this is half the point. What there is however, is indications to my points. Theres no facts as such to say that immigration is working. What I do I see is 140-150,000 per year coming through when no improvement to our services are bieng made. I also see that they were signs that people are abusing our welfare system, the graph in the link sahowing how many immigrants are on benefits shows that.
Kevstar, I don't usually pull people on spelling and grammar, but I suggest you look up the correct spelling and use of: -
1) theese
2) your
3) thoose
4) there
It's sometimes pretty difficult to read your posts.
1) theese
2) your
3) thoose
4) there
It's sometimes pretty difficult to read your posts.
Kevstar, I find it ironic that you seem to accept that because politician say 'there's a problem with immigration', and everyone says 'waa, immigrants!' that you actually think there is - HAVE you seen any facts?
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish, your just knocking back anything anyone has to say when
> mentioning immigrants. What makes you think that all immigrants are
> black in anyways, cos thats the way your sounding to me.
>
> I'm addressing the fact that you, in a post you made last week,
> said;
>
> "Well this topic isn't about white folks, is it."
>
> Didn't you my dear little bigoted boy? So you see, I'm addressing the
> fact that YOU seem to think all immigrants are non-white. Hell,
> gerrid even mentioned how you didn't seem to be considering white
> Eastern European immigrants. Amazing really; you always go for the
> "I know you are but what am I" approach when you're
> confronted with your racism.
And when exactly has that seemed the case?
>
> Incidentally, I'm not knocking everything back. I'm knocking back
> everything you say. There's a difference. And the reason I'm knocking
> it back is because it's ill-conceived xenophbic headsmeg. And I'm
> knocking it back by giving evidence and examples. You on the other
> hand are whining, and avoiding answering questions.
>
>
>
> Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage
> chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty
> dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
>
> Well the proposed moves regarding incapacity benefit should help,
> although they should apply to thoose already on sick.
>
> I'm sorry, what? Are you trying to imply that we need to get people
> suffering from incapacitating injuries into godawful jobs? Is that
> what you're saying?
>
> And if it is, tell me; how is that going to encourage chavs into
> squalid little jobs? Did I miss something? Is being a chav regarded
> as a disability for the purposes of incapacity benefit?
No what i'm saying, just like immigrant abusing our welfare system, it's the same with us British too. We need to get people with back problems and depresion back into work. Cos I tell you what; A lot of theese people are also abusing the system.
>
>
> This is where your ignorant mind comes into play, when have I said
> that immigrants don't do a good job? And when havn't I had respect
> for the ones that do work? What I dont have respect for, is people
> coming on to our shores with the impresion there here to do nothing
> but good for the Country, but actually do quite the opposite and
> scrounge of our benefits. It's just like anything you see, you get
> the good ones, and you get the bad ones.
>
> Heh. So I'm ignorant? Wow; I hadn't realised that producing reams of
> evidence for my views and giving examples made one ignorant. Clearly
> I should be taking your approach of making stuff up as I go along...
>
> Well, you've said that you don't think immigrants should be allowed
> in unless they contribute to the economy.
Is this saying there bad?
And the report that you
> linked to proved that they did. Your lack of respect was shown when
> you said that "immigrants are less active than us",
Which it states in the link I provided you with, look in the graph and it tells you, that is not lack of respect.
and
> went on to make unsupported claims that "they" are here to
> plunder the UK's benefit system. And do you remember that the report
> you linked to discussed the myth of immigrants coming here
> solely to scrounge?
I didn't say that, I said that some of them are (or thats what I meant), and the plans out today confirms this suspicion.
Do you remember that kevstar? Because you keep
> repeating that point even though it's been discredited, don't you?
>
> The reason I'm calling you such a rancid little bigot is because
> you've had facts and figures displayed to you that show that your
> opinion is based on erroneous assumptions. And you are reacting
> by....repeating the erroneous assumptions; clinging to them like a
> lifejacket.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gateshead actually, so your alright. I'd like to make a note to
> others that anyone who has an opinion about immigration not working,
> your not racist.
>
> However, when all of the those opinions about immigration not working
> are utterly discredited, and you still repeat them and pretend that
> you haven't had your ass handed to you on a plate concerning them,
> that tends to indicate that you're racist, doesn't it? I mean God, I
> find myself worrying for the Jewish community in Gateshead in case
> you're wandering up to them and asking them if they want to take a
> shower in your airtight garage.
I don't mind any race, you just think I do. As it happens my landlord is Jewish and we get on fine, my sisters boyfriend is black and I don't have any problems with him.
>
>
> They why is it not working, if it was then we wouldn't be in this
> mess would we.
>
>
> What mess are we in exactly? You keep saying that we're in a mess; so
> what is it? Explain it to me, and give me some examples and evidence.
>
>
>
> Yeahh, and that evidence is based on putting "other" in
> there application form when asked about what job skills they have,
> hey thats going to work every time. I mean, what sort of rubbish is
> all that about.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaa! Yeah, of course that's the case kevstar!
> Obviously; I can see why you, a person who's reaction to being told
> that his assumptions about immigration are incorrect was "I
> can't be expected to know that", would know everything about
> immigration forms.
>
> Give me some evidence that this is what actually happens. Because it
> sounds like something your dad told you, and you accepted.
It's in the link I provided, no graph, but it's in writing somewhere in there.
>
>
> Well if the legal channels were broad enough to allow anyone with
> the
> criteria to enter, who wished to, it would effectively be an open
> door. Or wouldn't it, and how not.
>
> Ahh, you're learning then; nice to see someone basically using my own
> particular style of argument against me. Makes a change from you
> cutting and pasting an argument from the BNP website I suppose.
> Unfortunately for you, I actually know what I'm talking about...
>
> The legal channels are of course broad enough to allow anyone with
> the necessary criteria for employment to enter. You've been saying
> all along that that is all you want, and you just want to keep out
> those evil darkies who want to steal your benefits (incidentally, are
> you on benefits?). It wouldn't be an open door, because the immigrant
> would have to provide proof of ability to work,
Again by putting other on the application form as a job skill. This is a flaw in the system if ever I saw one.
or actual employment.
> And even then, immigration officers can reject someone if they don't
> believe the immigrants story. So you see, it's not an open door. Do
> you understand kevstar? Am I getting through to that
> "Nyyurrrghhh....NO DARKIES!" brain of yours?
>
>
>
> Well, I think it isn't under controll. Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No
> I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
>
> YOU think it's not under control? But you don't have any evidence for
> that belief, do you?
>
> Ah yes; the link that states that immigrants make us a net profit? Do
> you understand what that means? It means that, taking into account
> the costs of administration, appeals, deporting any unsuccessful
> immigrants (and your pathetic example of "policing the
> borders" is rather dumb; we do that to stop smuggling as well
> you know. Do you imagine that the brave police are on constant vigil
> for brown invaders?) and anything else you may have forgotten, we
> STILL MAKE A COUPLE OF BILLION PER YEAR YOU NUMBNUTTED BRAIN
> DONER.
Numbnutted? thats a first, the fact is, it could be more. I'm just very interested to see what contribution they will make once theese new laws come into play.
>
> As a side point, I find it hilarious that you're now trying to
> discredit the report you tried to use to support your own argument.
> You didn't see those costs in the link? Well...you didn't actually
> see the whole point of that report either, did you?
The reason I gave that link was to show the potentual problems that may occur.
>
>
>
> Haaa, you racist piece of junked up crap if ever I heard one. You
> see, when people call us white folks names, it's not bieng racist is
> it. You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
> And you have the cheek to call me racist, you hypocrite.
> If you look in the link I provided, it state that it's the
> immigrants
> who are having big familys.
>
> My oh my; is your whole approach to argument going to be to repeat
> the same insults back to me despite the fact that they make no sense?
> Doubly fun when you then follow it up with a blanket statement like
> "the immigrants (are the ones) who are having big
> families".
>
> Now then; why don't you read what I said again. I said that "the
> biggest families I know are chav families". Not "Immigrants
> never have big families". Not "immigrants all have 2.4
> children". What I was saying was that your wailing hatred of
> immigrants based on their family size is ridiculous because chavs
> tend to spew huge numbers of mewling brats out of their slack flues
> with alarming regularity.
I made it a issue yes, to show how there (not all) coming here bringing there familys in, and as the link states how a number of theese people although some are working, the rest of the family does not. Now this will again be a burden on our services.
The point I made was that every criticism
> you make of immigrants can be applied to you, your chav family, and
> your chav friends. Do you see?
Me or my family or my friends are not chavs, thats an insult you prat. I dont wear tracksuits, trainers or have a big family. I've worked all my adult life except for the last year, which I am now on the sick. I should be going to work again in another 6-8 monthsor so, so dont try and make me out to be a chav.
>
> Am I saying all chavs are uneducated? Yup; that's sort of what the
> term means. The reason someone is branded a chav is because they're
> uneducated, usually jobless, and mostly (though not always) selfish
> and hateful. You don't get upper class chavs in universities my dear
> boy. It's a term for a social grouping, not a racial one.
>
> Incidentally, I am white, blonde haired, and blue eyed. Would you
> like to tell me how I'm being racist please?
Ok, well it may be because you're the only person who's actcually reffered a black person as darkie. It may be because you call me a racist without good reason.
>
>
>
> Rubbish, you don't even know what colour I am, for all you know I
> could be black, brown or yellow, thats called prejudging.
>
> True enough. However, two things immediately occur;
>
> 1. In this very post you said "when people call us white
> folks names". That's sort of a giveaway. You racist.
>
> 2. You've obviously assumed I'm non-white as you've rather amusingly
> accused me of being a racist.
>
> Now then, back to the topic; you didn't answer the question. What is
> the problem? Or the problems? C'mon kevstar; what are the problems
> created by immigrants that you know so much about.
As I keep saying, the strain it seems to be putting on our services, the abuse of the british good will. the 1 in 5 only getting deported back.
>
>
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned, is there a
> problem with that. Have I said that all immigrants are bad, no. Have
> I said that we shouldn't have immigration, no. So why dont you take
> a
> hike somewhere, listen to what i'm saying, and tell me exactlly what
> it is i'm bieng racist about. And it's funny you know because it's
> not just white people who are raising questions about immigration.
> You have it so far up you nose, you just assume there all white.
>
> I'd believe you were it not for one thing; I've addressed every one
> of your 'concerns' and given evidence and facts as to why those
> concerns are ill-informed and in dire need of further discussion. And
> your response was...to repeat that you have concerns. You clearly
> don't want to have your concerns addressed. All you want is to be
> right, and you have no problem with making up fantasy-facts to try
> and support your case.
Rubbish, I rejected your evidence, and it seems I was good to do that too.
>
> You've said immigration should be capped, but all the criteria you've
> come up with for capping already exist.
No it's not, not at all, there isn't a set limit on the amount we take. We took around 145,000 immigrants last year and tens of thousands of Asylum seekers, just say for arguments sake, thats 180,000 every year. Is there 180,000 houses bieng built each year(not that every person will have there own house). No wonder waiting lists arn't going down.
And your response to that
> was..."well, it mustn't be working". Why mustn't it be
> working? I've asked you that, and you've refused to answer. So the
> obvious assumption is that you think it isn't working because you can
> see too many brown faces in the crowd.
No I just went with the obvious fact that
>
> How are you being racist? You're being racist about the assumption
> that immigrants come here to sponge off benefits.
Not all, but they are a fair few that are, so that doesn't make me wrong, next.
You're being racist
> about the assumption that "they are less active than us".
Thats what it said in the link, as mentioned before it's one of the graphs, so again that doesn't make me wrong.
> You're being racist when you said that this topic "wasn't about
> white folks".
Well its not, this whole debate has been about immigrants, I mean we havn't even mentioned Asylum seekers yet never mind whites.
You're being racist when you say that immigrants
> only pretend to come here to work.
Well some of them do (never did I say all of them.)
And you're being racist when you
> try to ignore all the evidence against what you're saying, but you
> just repeat it anyway.
Well its because I don't accept the evidence, and rightly so because according to the evidence you provided, there shuldn't be a problem. But wait a minute, there is a problem, isn't there light?
Is that enough reasons why you're a racist
> kevstar?
No, because most of thoose reasons are rubbish, you talking out the back of your pants.
>
> Oh, and I know it's not just white people raising concerns about
> immigration. The thing is you see, I don't assume anyone who raises
> concerns IS a racist.
Haaaaaaaaaaaa, not the it sounds to me.
I only assume that when they have their
> specific concerns addressed, but still bleat on about how immigrants
> are evil.
>
>
> What has been discussed is how there contributing £2-3bn a
> year. That doesn't neccessary mean it's working, not one bit.
> Overcrowding is still my major concern, the popullation in Britain
> is
> still rising, you saying repeat what we done after the war to cover
> the pensioners, because hey, it worked after the war(even though
> there was not nearly the amount of people in this Country them, or
> the fact that the NHS then could could actually cope with an
> influx),
> I say it won't stop our NHS from stretching even more, it wont stop
> the housing crisis, it wont reduce the classes in schools, it wont
> stop the prisons from filling, will it, if so how.
>
> Ha.
>
> Ahaha.
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
>
> So, we get 2-3 billion a year, the report you linked to says that we
> can easily get more, and it praises the contribution made by
> immigrants to UK culture in general....but it's not necessarily
> working?
No, because it's not solving the problem of overcrowding.
>
> Overcrowding is a major concern? And yet, I've addressed the fact
> that you've not bothered to include figures for emigration when you
> talk about the city the size of Oxford coming in every year. So it's
> not actually a problem, is it?
>
> "what we done after the war"? My, I can see I'm debating
> with a genius here...Now then;
what we did after the war was to
> replace our workforce, and that's exactly why we need immigrants
> still. I've said it worked after the war, because it did. Can you
> give any reasons why it won't work? You haven't so far
Ohh, but i did, I said it won't work now because the place is overcrowded for our sevices to cope with another mass immigration, fact.
, but I'm
> always willing to watch you try to avoid answering another question.
>
> The housing crisis? Could you tell me how immigrants are driving up
> house prices please?
well, there doing this because there isn't many houses about, due to overcrowding! The fewer the houses, the more it costs, I thought you could have worked that one out.
How will they help stop it? Well, with a healthy
> economy, there will be more money going round which means earnings
> and savings will increase which in turn means people can afford
> houses easier.
Rubbish.
>
> The NHS? We need billions in investment and our aging workforce means
> we'll have to borrow it. Unless...we get an influx of workers from
> overseas who will keep our economy vaguely healthy and thus allow us
> to invest in the NHS.
And this method is really going to cut waiting lists, isn't it.
>
> The prisons from filling? Wow...are you assuming that all immigrants
> are criminals when you say that? Anyway, to prevent that happening we
> need to address social issues and we also need to address poverty. As
> it's mainly chavs who populate our prisons (I was a solicitor for a
> while and I worked in the Criminal justice system. Every client,
> without exception, was a nasty little chav), we need to do something
> about dealing with these feral dogboys. Preferably via education.
Most of theese people I feel, would rather work than get educated if given the choice And what makes you think they won't disrupt the class, after all thats the problem, you may get some of theese people who really do wan't a education, but you'll get just as much doing everything in there means to disrupt them.
For
> which we need money. Which we'll only get with a young and large
> workforce. Which we'll only get via immigration.
>
>
> So; there are your questions answered. Care to begin your avoidance
> of mine?
> kevstar wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish, your just knocking back anything anyone has to say when
> mentioning immigrants. What makes you think that all immigrants are
> black in anyways, cos thats the way your sounding to me.
>
> I'm addressing the fact that you, in a post you made last week,
> said;
>
> "Well this topic isn't about white folks, is it."
>
> Didn't you my dear little bigoted boy? So you see, I'm addressing the
> fact that YOU seem to think all immigrants are non-white. Hell,
> gerrid even mentioned how you didn't seem to be considering white
> Eastern European immigrants. Amazing really; you always go for the
> "I know you are but what am I" approach when you're
> confronted with your racism.
And when exactly has that seemed the case?
>
> Incidentally, I'm not knocking everything back. I'm knocking back
> everything you say. There's a difference. And the reason I'm knocking
> it back is because it's ill-conceived xenophbic headsmeg. And I'm
> knocking it back by giving evidence and examples. You on the other
> hand are whining, and avoiding answering questions.
>
>
>
> Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage
> chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty
> dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
>
> Well the proposed moves regarding incapacity benefit should help,
> although they should apply to thoose already on sick.
>
> I'm sorry, what? Are you trying to imply that we need to get people
> suffering from incapacitating injuries into godawful jobs? Is that
> what you're saying?
>
> And if it is, tell me; how is that going to encourage chavs into
> squalid little jobs? Did I miss something? Is being a chav regarded
> as a disability for the purposes of incapacity benefit?
No what i'm saying, just like immigrant abusing our welfare system, it's the same with us British too. We need to get people with back problems and depresion back into work. Cos I tell you what; A lot of theese people are also abusing the system.
>
>
> This is where your ignorant mind comes into play, when have I said
> that immigrants don't do a good job? And when havn't I had respect
> for the ones that do work? What I dont have respect for, is people
> coming on to our shores with the impresion there here to do nothing
> but good for the Country, but actually do quite the opposite and
> scrounge of our benefits. It's just like anything you see, you get
> the good ones, and you get the bad ones.
>
> Heh. So I'm ignorant? Wow; I hadn't realised that producing reams of
> evidence for my views and giving examples made one ignorant. Clearly
> I should be taking your approach of making stuff up as I go along...
>
> Well, you've said that you don't think immigrants should be allowed
> in unless they contribute to the economy.
Is this saying there bad?
And the report that you
> linked to proved that they did. Your lack of respect was shown when
> you said that "immigrants are less active than us",
Which it states in the link I provided you with, look in the graph and it tells you, that is not lack of respect.
and
> went on to make unsupported claims that "they" are here to
> plunder the UK's benefit system. And do you remember that the report
> you linked to discussed the myth of immigrants coming here
> solely to scrounge?
I didn't say that, I said that some of them are (or thats what I meant), and the plans out today confirms this suspicion.
Do you remember that kevstar? Because you keep
> repeating that point even though it's been discredited, don't you?
>
> The reason I'm calling you such a rancid little bigot is because
> you've had facts and figures displayed to you that show that your
> opinion is based on erroneous assumptions. And you are reacting
> by....repeating the erroneous assumptions; clinging to them like a
> lifejacket.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gateshead actually, so your alright. I'd like to make a note to
> others that anyone who has an opinion about immigration not working,
> your not racist.
>
> However, when all of the those opinions about immigration not working
> are utterly discredited, and you still repeat them and pretend that
> you haven't had your ass handed to you on a plate concerning them,
> that tends to indicate that you're racist, doesn't it? I mean God, I
> find myself worrying for the Jewish community in Gateshead in case
> you're wandering up to them and asking them if they want to take a
> shower in your airtight garage.
I don't mind any race, you just think I do. As it happens my landlord is Jewish and we get on fine, my sisters boyfriend is black and I don't have any problems with him.
>
>
> They why is it not working, if it was then we wouldn't be in this
> mess would we.
>
>
> What mess are we in exactly? You keep saying that we're in a mess; so
> what is it? Explain it to me, and give me some examples and evidence.
>
>
>
> Yeahh, and that evidence is based on putting "other" in
> there application form when asked about what job skills they have,
> hey thats going to work every time. I mean, what sort of rubbish is
> all that about.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaa! Yeah, of course that's the case kevstar!
> Obviously; I can see why you, a person who's reaction to being told
> that his assumptions about immigration are incorrect was "I
> can't be expected to know that", would know everything about
> immigration forms.
>
> Give me some evidence that this is what actually happens. Because it
> sounds like something your dad told you, and you accepted.
It's in the link I provided, no graph, but it's in writing somewhere in there.
>
>
> Well if the legal channels were broad enough to allow anyone with
> the
> criteria to enter, who wished to, it would effectively be an open
> door. Or wouldn't it, and how not.
>
> Ahh, you're learning then; nice to see someone basically using my own
> particular style of argument against me. Makes a change from you
> cutting and pasting an argument from the BNP website I suppose.
> Unfortunately for you, I actually know what I'm talking about...
>
> The legal channels are of course broad enough to allow anyone with
> the necessary criteria for employment to enter. You've been saying
> all along that that is all you want, and you just want to keep out
> those evil darkies who want to steal your benefits (incidentally, are
> you on benefits?). It wouldn't be an open door, because the immigrant
> would have to provide proof of ability to work,
Again by putting other on the application form as a job skill. This is a flaw in the system if ever I saw one.
or actual employment.
> And even then, immigration officers can reject someone if they don't
> believe the immigrants story. So you see, it's not an open door. Do
> you understand kevstar? Am I getting through to that
> "Nyyurrrghhh....NO DARKIES!" brain of yours?
>
>
>
> Well, I think it isn't under controll. Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No
> I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
>
> YOU think it's not under control? But you don't have any evidence for
> that belief, do you?
>
> Ah yes; the link that states that immigrants make us a net profit? Do
> you understand what that means? It means that, taking into account
> the costs of administration, appeals, deporting any unsuccessful
> immigrants (and your pathetic example of "policing the
> borders" is rather dumb; we do that to stop smuggling as well
> you know. Do you imagine that the brave police are on constant vigil
> for brown invaders?) and anything else you may have forgotten, we
> STILL MAKE A COUPLE OF BILLION PER YEAR YOU NUMBNUTTED BRAIN
> DONER.
Numbnutted? thats a first, the fact is, it could be more. I'm just very interested to see what contribution they will make once theese new laws come into play.
>
> As a side point, I find it hilarious that you're now trying to
> discredit the report you tried to use to support your own argument.
> You didn't see those costs in the link? Well...you didn't actually
> see the whole point of that report either, did you?
The reason I gave that link was to show the potentual problems that may occur.
>
>
>
> Haaa, you racist piece of junked up crap if ever I heard one. You
> see, when people call us white folks names, it's not bieng racist is
> it. You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
> And you have the cheek to call me racist, you hypocrite.
> If you look in the link I provided, it state that it's the
> immigrants
> who are having big familys.
>
> My oh my; is your whole approach to argument going to be to repeat
> the same insults back to me despite the fact that they make no sense?
> Doubly fun when you then follow it up with a blanket statement like
> "the immigrants (are the ones) who are having big
> families".
>
> Now then; why don't you read what I said again. I said that "the
> biggest families I know are chav families". Not "Immigrants
> never have big families". Not "immigrants all have 2.4
> children". What I was saying was that your wailing hatred of
> immigrants based on their family size is ridiculous because chavs
> tend to spew huge numbers of mewling brats out of their slack flues
> with alarming regularity.
I made it a issue yes, to show how there (not all) coming here bringing there familys in, and as the link states how a number of theese people although some are working, the rest of the family does not. Now this will again be a burden on our services.
The point I made was that every criticism
> you make of immigrants can be applied to you, your chav family, and
> your chav friends. Do you see?
Me or my family or my friends are not chavs, thats an insult you prat. I dont wear tracksuits, trainers or have a big family. I've worked all my adult life except for the last year, which I am now on the sick. I should be going to work again in another 6-8 monthsor so, so dont try and make me out to be a chav.
>
> Am I saying all chavs are uneducated? Yup; that's sort of what the
> term means. The reason someone is branded a chav is because they're
> uneducated, usually jobless, and mostly (though not always) selfish
> and hateful. You don't get upper class chavs in universities my dear
> boy. It's a term for a social grouping, not a racial one.
>
> Incidentally, I am white, blonde haired, and blue eyed. Would you
> like to tell me how I'm being racist please?
Ok, well it may be because you're the only person who's actcually reffered a black person as darkie. It may be because you call me a racist without good reason.
>
>
>
> Rubbish, you don't even know what colour I am, for all you know I
> could be black, brown or yellow, thats called prejudging.
>
> True enough. However, two things immediately occur;
>
> 1. In this very post you said "when people call us white
> folks names". That's sort of a giveaway. You racist.
>
> 2. You've obviously assumed I'm non-white as you've rather amusingly
> accused me of being a racist.
>
> Now then, back to the topic; you didn't answer the question. What is
> the problem? Or the problems? C'mon kevstar; what are the problems
> created by immigrants that you know so much about.
As I keep saying, the strain it seems to be putting on our services, the abuse of the british good will. the 1 in 5 only getting deported back.
>
>
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned, is there a
> problem with that. Have I said that all immigrants are bad, no. Have
> I said that we shouldn't have immigration, no. So why dont you take
> a
> hike somewhere, listen to what i'm saying, and tell me exactlly what
> it is i'm bieng racist about. And it's funny you know because it's
> not just white people who are raising questions about immigration.
> You have it so far up you nose, you just assume there all white.
>
> I'd believe you were it not for one thing; I've addressed every one
> of your 'concerns' and given evidence and facts as to why those
> concerns are ill-informed and in dire need of further discussion. And
> your response was...to repeat that you have concerns. You clearly
> don't want to have your concerns addressed. All you want is to be
> right, and you have no problem with making up fantasy-facts to try
> and support your case.
Rubbish, I rejected your evidence, and it seems I was good to do that too.
>
> You've said immigration should be capped, but all the criteria you've
> come up with for capping already exist.
No it's not, not at all, there isn't a set limit on the amount we take. We took around 145,000 immigrants last year and tens of thousands of Asylum seekers, just say for arguments sake, thats 180,000 every year. Is there 180,000 houses bieng built each year(not that every person will have there own house). No wonder waiting lists arn't going down.
And your response to that
> was..."well, it mustn't be working". Why mustn't it be
> working? I've asked you that, and you've refused to answer. So the
> obvious assumption is that you think it isn't working because you can
> see too many brown faces in the crowd.
No I just went with the obvious fact that
>
> How are you being racist? You're being racist about the assumption
> that immigrants come here to sponge off benefits.
Not all, but they are a fair few that are, so that doesn't make me wrong, next.
You're being racist
> about the assumption that "they are less active than us".
Thats what it said in the link, as mentioned before it's one of the graphs, so again that doesn't make me wrong.
> You're being racist when you said that this topic "wasn't about
> white folks".
Well its not, this whole debate has been about immigrants, I mean we havn't even mentioned Asylum seekers yet never mind whites.
You're being racist when you say that immigrants
> only pretend to come here to work.
Well some of them do (never did I say all of them.)
And you're being racist when you
> try to ignore all the evidence against what you're saying, but you
> just repeat it anyway.
Well its because I don't accept the evidence, and rightly so because according to the evidence you provided, there shuldn't be a problem. But wait a minute, there is a problem, isn't there light?
Is that enough reasons why you're a racist
> kevstar?
No, because most of thoose reasons are rubbish, you talking out the back of your pants.
>
> Oh, and I know it's not just white people raising concerns about
> immigration. The thing is you see, I don't assume anyone who raises
> concerns IS a racist.
Haaaaaaaaaaaa, not the it sounds to me.
I only assume that when they have their
> specific concerns addressed, but still bleat on about how immigrants
> are evil.
>
>
> What has been discussed is how there contributing £2-3bn a
> year. That doesn't neccessary mean it's working, not one bit.
> Overcrowding is still my major concern, the popullation in Britain
> is
> still rising, you saying repeat what we done after the war to cover
> the pensioners, because hey, it worked after the war(even though
> there was not nearly the amount of people in this Country them, or
> the fact that the NHS then could could actually cope with an
> influx),
> I say it won't stop our NHS from stretching even more, it wont stop
> the housing crisis, it wont reduce the classes in schools, it wont
> stop the prisons from filling, will it, if so how.
>
> Ha.
>
> Ahaha.
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
>
> So, we get 2-3 billion a year, the report you linked to says that we
> can easily get more, and it praises the contribution made by
> immigrants to UK culture in general....but it's not necessarily
> working?
No, because it's not solving the problem of overcrowding.
>
> Overcrowding is a major concern? And yet, I've addressed the fact
> that you've not bothered to include figures for emigration when you
> talk about the city the size of Oxford coming in every year. So it's
> not actually a problem, is it?
>
> "what we done after the war"? My, I can see I'm debating
> with a genius here...Now then;
what we did after the war was to
> replace our workforce, and that's exactly why we need immigrants
> still. I've said it worked after the war, because it did. Can you
> give any reasons why it won't work? You haven't so far
Ohh, but i did, I said it won't work now because the place is overcrowded for our sevices to cope with another mass immigration, fact.
, but I'm
> always willing to watch you try to avoid answering another question.
>
> The housing crisis? Could you tell me how immigrants are driving up
> house prices please?
well, there doing this because there isn't many houses about, due to overcrowding! The fewer the houses, the more it costs, I thought you could have worked that one out.
How will they help stop it? Well, with a healthy
> economy, there will be more money going round which means earnings
> and savings will increase which in turn means people can afford
> houses easier.
Rubbish.
>
> The NHS? We need billions in investment and our aging workforce means
> we'll have to borrow it. Unless...we get an influx of workers from
> overseas who will keep our economy vaguely healthy and thus allow us
> to invest in the NHS.
And this method is really going to cut waiting lists, isn't it.
>
> The prisons from filling? Wow...are you assuming that all immigrants
> are criminals when you say that? Anyway, to prevent that happening we
> need to address social issues and we also need to address poverty. As
> it's mainly chavs who populate our prisons (I was a solicitor for a
> while and I worked in the Criminal justice system. Every client,
> without exception, was a nasty little chav), we need to do something
> about dealing with these feral dogboys. Preferably via education.
Most of theese people I feel, would rather work than get educated if given the choice And what makes you think they won't disrupt the class, after all thats the problem, you may get some of theese people who really do wan't a education, but you'll get just as much doing everything in there means to disrupt them.
For
> which we need money. Which we'll only get with a young and large
> workforce. Which we'll only get via immigration.
>
>
> So; there are your questions answered. Care to begin your avoidance
> of mine?
watches as only Tony puts up hand.
SHEEPY wrote:
> The only reason Labour is introducing it's own immigration plans is
> they've seen it is a vote winner for the Tories.
Spot on. Hands up ANYONE who thinks that Labour would even suggest that there was any sort of problem had it not been an election year?
> The only reason Labour is introducing it's own immigration plans is
> they've seen it is a vote winner for the Tories.
Spot on. Hands up ANYONE who thinks that Labour would even suggest that there was any sort of problem had it not been an election year?
The only reason Labour is introducing it's own immigration plans is they've seen it is a vote winner for the Tories.
Page: