The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Goatboy wrote:
> Kevstar, you're a penis.
> Pure and simple, and the more you try to outwit somebody, the worse
> you appear.
> For your own dignity and our sanity and wordcount, accept that some
> people in life are supposed to deliver my pizza until they
> retire, ever unaware of their squandered potential, blissfully
> ignorant that shaved apes perform a more useful role in society.
>
> My only regret is that moral and social law prevent us from eating
> the lame, we're forced to all slow to an evolutionary crawl whilst
> the stragglers blunder along reading The Daily Mail and breathing
> slowly through their facehole, reading with moving lips and a finger
> under the text.
> Of course, you could simply end it all today - everybody looks good
> in black and I'm sure, once the initial "my beautiful
> angelllllllll" anguish has subsided? Even relatives will say
> "y'know what, that kid was a goober. Let's go rent a
> movie"
> And ever thus the world revolves.
> Kevstar, you're a penis.
> Pure and simple, and the more you try to outwit somebody, the worse
> you appear.
> For your own dignity and our sanity and wordcount, accept that some
> people in life are supposed to deliver my pizza until they
> retire, ever unaware of their squandered potential, blissfully
> ignorant that shaved apes perform a more useful role in society.
>
> My only regret is that moral and social law prevent us from eating
> the lame, we're forced to all slow to an evolutionary crawl whilst
> the stragglers blunder along reading The Daily Mail and breathing
> slowly through their facehole, reading with moving lips and a finger
> under the text.
> Of course, you could simply end it all today - everybody looks good
> in black and I'm sure, once the initial "my beautiful
> angelllllllll" anguish has subsided? Even relatives will say
> "y'know what, that kid was a goober. Let's go rent a
> movie"
> And ever thus the world revolves.
KEVSTAR GIVE IT UP. No one agrees with you on this one, you've dug yourself a hole so deep its now become a tunnel!Just STOP and move on for gods sake!
kevstar wrote:
> Since when exactly, in your own time, have I said immigration is bad?
> Come on, what you can't? It may be because you know i've never said
> that isn't it. why do you talk rubbish?
Nor have the BNP come right out and said that they hate black people. However, their words clearly infer it. In your case, you've rejected every pro-immigration argument with the words "that's rubbish". So I've done something that we thinking people call "deducing the truth from the available evidence". Make a note of that phrase; you might like to use it to impress your sister when you're trying to talk her into bed.
> Well the difference is that theres a lot more reasons which support
> my views that immigration isn't controlled, where the war was based
> on one big lie that not many people believed. I mean all the evidence
> supported the views that Iraq did have WOMD and could attack in 45
> mins was based on one report( which was rubbish). The fact is, blair
> tried to hide his figures on immigration by using work permits
> cynically to conceal the fact that not one of these migrants is
> entitled to come here(i'm talking about The 1200 from Sangatte) along
> with all the other scandals which i'll be glad to fill you in on.
Please; do fill me in on these scandals. Because it sounds like you've simply bought into every single story in the Sun based on this paragraph...
Anyway, back to the point; so what you're essentially saying is that you're willing to believe what Blair says about immigration based on government reports, but you're not willing to believe him on Iraq because of...government reports? How very enlightened of you...
>
> You say
> Well here's a thing my bigoted friend; every single report and
> figure I've shown you that goes a way to proving immigration is
> working, you've dismissed it out of hand. You've tried to claim that
> "the figures are incomplete", or "it's rubbish",
> or (my personal favourite this one) you don't even bother to read it
> in the first place.
>
> And can you tell me then how theese figure are complete and accurate
> and if it's working how come...
> Speaking of Mrs Hughes, for what has been progressively dragged out
> of her is the admission that, bit by bit, normal checks were indeed
> being waived to allow people to come into this country regardless of
> the validity of their claim. Is this controlled immigration?
None of which actually addresses the point I made about how you try to dismiss pro-immigration figures, does it my bigoted friend? And Jesus, will you stop cutting and pasting when you run out of ideas? It's getting to be that I'm having a debate with a bunch of newspaper cuttings...
I wholeheartedly agree that the story about Hughes indicates some problems; this is why we need a fair and open debate. Because all you've done is cut and pasted a paragraph that concentrates on one (anti immigration) piece of evidence to the exclusion of everything else. Do you see?
>
> Now then light, This raises a very big question. For this is a
> picture of something more than an administrative shambles. It is
> bigger even than merely trying to massage the statistics to minimise
> the numbers coming here after ten new states join the EU on May 1
You mean the 10 new states that joined last May, you stupid little nobswab? For Gods sake, if you're going to cut and paste your arguments, make sure they're current...
Oh, and airports and immigration services (as well as immigrant employment agencies) reported barely any immigrants from these 10 member states. Would you like me to post a link to it, or do you want time to think of a reason why you've managed to demonstrate your further ignorance of immigration?
In fact, here's a link;
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1293773.html?menu=[/URL]
That would seem to indicate everything you say is bilge. But, as I've said from the start, the fact that all these contradictory figures are around indicates the need for an honest debate, wouldn't you say?
>
> Brussels pointed out that we have irrevocably signed away our asylum
> and immigration controls. We have no ability to legislate in this
> area any more, so any debate between the parties is pointless.
Mwahahahahahaaaaaa!! Excellent; so you're saying that;
1. The figures are incorrect
2. Therefore we cannot say immigration is a good thing
3. But we CAN say immigration is a bad thing
4. And there is no point having a debate to sort out exactly what the figures are.
If we have no ability to legislate, why are you trusting Tony Blair and what he says?
Like I say; it's incredibly obvious when you've cut and pasted something kevstar. I've asked you to give explanations in your own words. It's seems you're incapable of doing so, so unless you can come up with something in your reply to this one that indicates you're actually capable of independant thought, I believe I'll be ending my constant humiliation of you.
>
>
> You say
> 1. What out current system of immigration is, and
> 2. Exactly what the current proposals are, and how they will improve
> the system for both economic immigrants and illegal immigrants
>
> Well as I said i'm not going to put the current system but I will
> tell you the changes and the benefits they bring...
So...you don't understand the current system, and you've had to cut and paste something about the changes? So you don't actually understand any of this kevstar? I suspected as much, but I like to have confirmation.
>
> They are putting in place tighter rules to restrict migrants' access
> to benefits and social housing. Migrants will not be able to access
> social housing unless they are here legally and are working.
>
> No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged
> EU simply to claim benefits or housing. There will be no support for
> the economically inactive, the same goes for migrants from elsewhere
> in the world. Whether they come to work in our hospitals or in our
> banks, they must be self-sufficient.
>
> They will not be able to access local authority housing unless they
> are here legally and working.
>
> And they are tightening up certain migration channels which they
> suspect may have been abused in the past. So by the end of the year
> students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to
> study if they choose institutions on an accredited list. And we are
> consulting on a requirement for colleges to notify the Home Office if
> any student fails to attend the course they have come to the UK to
> study.
>
> To help prevent bogus marriages, they will create a new requirement
> that third country nationals have to apply to certain, designated
> registry offices before they can marry in the UK. And they are
> looking at whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry
> those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse
> the migration system.
>
> They have tightened the rules on benefits so that they only go to
> those who claim asylum as soon as possible after arriving in the UK,
> and introduced much tougher controls on legal aid so that it is
> restricted to legitimate advisers - to weed out the cowboys who were
> preying on vulnerable migrants.
>
> The new legislation on asylum will tighten up further still,
> overhauling the appeals system which allowed unfounded applicants to
> play the system for months on end, and clamping down on those who
> destroy their documents and create an new and fraudulent identity in
> order to claim asylum. And they have asked the NAO to audit the
> figures in order to confirm that the fall in asylum is genuine.
>
>
>
> ID cards starting voluntary, compulsory later, For the first time,
> employers and those regulating access to public services will have a
> secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or
> service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access
> services.
Okay; bearing in mind that "you" just said that we can no longer legislate on immigration, would you like to explain to me just how all of these measures are going to be implemented? In your own words of course....
> ha, ha, ha, considering the lack of evidence in Iraq as mentioned
> above compared to the known problems immigration brings on our
> services of course i'm going to believe him, cos you know what, the
> other partys are saying the same thing, and don't give me this
> dribble about "it's election year" and so on. Immigration
> problems have been happening for years, people have been abusing the
> system for years, services are struggling to cope with the influx
> (don't even bother denying this).
This would be the evidence stemming from the figures that you say are unreliable, but they can still be used to show how bad immigration is?
I like how you deal with the fact that in an election year, all parties say what the electorate want to hear; you try and claim that, since you don't like that point, it's irrelevant. Nice. Oh, and I'm doubly impressed by how quickly you've reverted to your standard "they're stretching services, the evil darkies" bleating. The bleating that has NO evidence to support it and is in fact debunked by every single fact I've posted (y'know; the facts that you say are "rubbish").
You're going to believe him because it's what you want to hear kevstar. You're a bigot. Nothing will change your unfounded opinion that immigrants are the main cause of problems with services etc. And the reason that nothing will change your opinion is because you want to blame problems on foreigners. Which also makes you a deeply unpleasant racist. So much so that it's not even funny any more. But hey; at least you've demonstrated your racism to all and sundry.
>
>
> Controlling the amount of people what come in is the issue, tell me
> why should a densely crowded island, with four million people who
> want to work but who are not working, need a rate of immigration that
> will quadruple population growth, cripple already desperately
> overstretched public services and create parallel societies? Yeahh
> you havn't debated that point yet have you, tell me when you see
> immigrants and Asylum seekers in the street or wherever, how often do
> you actually see them all with there own kind of race. Come on this
> is meant to be a multiculture society but the only thing I see is the
> different races in there own little groups. Tell me how can this be
> good for Britain, what good is it doing, whats good in having a asian
> section here, a jewish section there, and a native section hear when
> theese different races don't even mix with each other? Ohh sorry
> there making a net profit so theres nowt to worry about.
4 million who want to work? Please; do tell me where that figure comes from kevstar. Sounds like the unemployment figures from the 80's, but I'm looking forward to hearing you lie again.
A rate of immigration that will quadruple population growth? Again, give me your figures for that please. After all, you keep wailing that no-one knows the true immigration figures, so I'm intrigued to find how you know the projected effects on population.
Densely crowded? In some cities, yup no doubt. Which would seem to be a good argument for more housing, clearence of slums, and incentives to move to less populated areas. Preferably Gateshead...
As for the remainder of the paragraph; it's the most blatently racist bilge I've ever read. Your loathing for anyone who looks different comes through loud and clear.
Why do "they" stick to their own groups? Well, firstly let me ask you; ever tried talking to someone from a different ethnic background? And do you have any friends who aren't white anglo saxon protestants? Finally, why on earth would someone from an ethnic minority want to talk to an ignorant, hateful racist like you?
> One reason, the figures are innacurate because they lack important
> information, some of it's been fiddled, all the evidence against
> suggests exactlly this, so theres my reason.
That's not an answer dear boy. I asked you to explain why you accept anti-immigration figures as correct when you dismiss any pro immigration figures, even if they come from the same report. All you've done is said why you dismiss pro-immigration figures. Do answer the whole question kevstar. Unless of course, you're afraid to do so.
> Well to be honest you have made me think, and I accept a lot of what
> your saying makes sense, but not when you call me racist, xenophobic
> and a bigot. You think i'm all of theese things when I say I don't
> agree with the point immigration is controlled. I mean the budget for
> immigration has rise from 200m to nearly 2bln, In Australia, they
> spend just £286 million policing their immigration system. Even
> through they process three quarter of a million more applications
> than we do, is this controlled?
I don't just think these things kevstar; you've demonstrated that they're true by your words and your evasiveness. Australia, by the way, has a population of less than a 3rd than us. And they've always been notoriously tough on immigrants. Unpleasantly so. Hell, they tried to wipe out their native brown people, so why on earth would they want to let more in?
And unfortunately, the only thing I've made you think is "how can I try and prove that what he's saying is wrong and that immigrants are bad?". At NO POINT have you thought "hmmm...maybe immigrants aren't the demons I thought. I'll need to look at some more evidence".
>
> The numbers have risen, without the public, or Parliament, being
> asked, from less than 50,000 a year in 1997 to more than 150,000
> people a year. The Government has admitted that it doesn't know
> precisely who is entering the country. And David Blunkett has
> conceded that the Government sees "no obvious upper limit to
> legal immigration". Is this controlled immigration? If we are to
> maintain support for immigration, people have to be reassured that
> the numbers coming here are publicly known, and there not known so
> how can they say it's controlled.
So are "you" (the cutting and pasting is getting hilarious...) now saying that a quota is necessary? Or have you just cut and pasted this from a website that does?
> And why not, tell me if thats not an example of a out of control
> system then I don't know what is.
> No it doesn't, it means the figures i'm going off havn't been
> fiddled, cos theres no reason to fiddle them, however the figures you
> go off have every reason to be fiddled cos they want to make the
> numbers more respectable, make it sound like it is working, do you
> see?
Heheheheh. See? You want the figures to be incomplete and untrustworthy when they're pro-immigration. You insist they're completely reliable when they're anti immigration. Spoken like the true bigot that you are.
Man...no reason to fiddle them? Apart from a loathing of darkies and foreign types you mean? Oh, and to make political capital against the government? You really do assume that everyone is as moronic as you don't you?
> Well, after reading the proposals made by Clarke, it seems there is
> enough in there to stop the abusers without the need of quotas.
Yet "you've" also said we can't legislate on it. So why are you trusting these proposals?
One more try my little smear of cockbutter. One more attempt to show me that you're something other than a loathsome xenophobe. If not, I'll leave you to squeal about darkies in peace; frankly I've done enough to prove what a hateful little man you are.
> Since when exactly, in your own time, have I said immigration is bad?
> Come on, what you can't? It may be because you know i've never said
> that isn't it. why do you talk rubbish?
Nor have the BNP come right out and said that they hate black people. However, their words clearly infer it. In your case, you've rejected every pro-immigration argument with the words "that's rubbish". So I've done something that we thinking people call "deducing the truth from the available evidence". Make a note of that phrase; you might like to use it to impress your sister when you're trying to talk her into bed.
> Well the difference is that theres a lot more reasons which support
> my views that immigration isn't controlled, where the war was based
> on one big lie that not many people believed. I mean all the evidence
> supported the views that Iraq did have WOMD and could attack in 45
> mins was based on one report( which was rubbish). The fact is, blair
> tried to hide his figures on immigration by using work permits
> cynically to conceal the fact that not one of these migrants is
> entitled to come here(i'm talking about The 1200 from Sangatte) along
> with all the other scandals which i'll be glad to fill you in on.
Please; do fill me in on these scandals. Because it sounds like you've simply bought into every single story in the Sun based on this paragraph...
Anyway, back to the point; so what you're essentially saying is that you're willing to believe what Blair says about immigration based on government reports, but you're not willing to believe him on Iraq because of...government reports? How very enlightened of you...
>
> You say
> Well here's a thing my bigoted friend; every single report and
> figure I've shown you that goes a way to proving immigration is
> working, you've dismissed it out of hand. You've tried to claim that
> "the figures are incomplete", or "it's rubbish",
> or (my personal favourite this one) you don't even bother to read it
> in the first place.
>
> And can you tell me then how theese figure are complete and accurate
> and if it's working how come...
> Speaking of Mrs Hughes, for what has been progressively dragged out
> of her is the admission that, bit by bit, normal checks were indeed
> being waived to allow people to come into this country regardless of
> the validity of their claim. Is this controlled immigration?
None of which actually addresses the point I made about how you try to dismiss pro-immigration figures, does it my bigoted friend? And Jesus, will you stop cutting and pasting when you run out of ideas? It's getting to be that I'm having a debate with a bunch of newspaper cuttings...
I wholeheartedly agree that the story about Hughes indicates some problems; this is why we need a fair and open debate. Because all you've done is cut and pasted a paragraph that concentrates on one (anti immigration) piece of evidence to the exclusion of everything else. Do you see?
>
> Now then light, This raises a very big question. For this is a
> picture of something more than an administrative shambles. It is
> bigger even than merely trying to massage the statistics to minimise
> the numbers coming here after ten new states join the EU on May 1
You mean the 10 new states that joined last May, you stupid little nobswab? For Gods sake, if you're going to cut and paste your arguments, make sure they're current...
Oh, and airports and immigration services (as well as immigrant employment agencies) reported barely any immigrants from these 10 member states. Would you like me to post a link to it, or do you want time to think of a reason why you've managed to demonstrate your further ignorance of immigration?
In fact, here's a link;
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1293773.html?menu=[/URL]
That would seem to indicate everything you say is bilge. But, as I've said from the start, the fact that all these contradictory figures are around indicates the need for an honest debate, wouldn't you say?
>
> Brussels pointed out that we have irrevocably signed away our asylum
> and immigration controls. We have no ability to legislate in this
> area any more, so any debate between the parties is pointless.
Mwahahahahahaaaaaa!! Excellent; so you're saying that;
1. The figures are incorrect
2. Therefore we cannot say immigration is a good thing
3. But we CAN say immigration is a bad thing
4. And there is no point having a debate to sort out exactly what the figures are.
If we have no ability to legislate, why are you trusting Tony Blair and what he says?
Like I say; it's incredibly obvious when you've cut and pasted something kevstar. I've asked you to give explanations in your own words. It's seems you're incapable of doing so, so unless you can come up with something in your reply to this one that indicates you're actually capable of independant thought, I believe I'll be ending my constant humiliation of you.
>
>
> You say
> 1. What out current system of immigration is, and
> 2. Exactly what the current proposals are, and how they will improve
> the system for both economic immigrants and illegal immigrants
>
> Well as I said i'm not going to put the current system but I will
> tell you the changes and the benefits they bring...
So...you don't understand the current system, and you've had to cut and paste something about the changes? So you don't actually understand any of this kevstar? I suspected as much, but I like to have confirmation.
>
> They are putting in place tighter rules to restrict migrants' access
> to benefits and social housing. Migrants will not be able to access
> social housing unless they are here legally and are working.
>
> No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged
> EU simply to claim benefits or housing. There will be no support for
> the economically inactive, the same goes for migrants from elsewhere
> in the world. Whether they come to work in our hospitals or in our
> banks, they must be self-sufficient.
>
> They will not be able to access local authority housing unless they
> are here legally and working.
>
> And they are tightening up certain migration channels which they
> suspect may have been abused in the past. So by the end of the year
> students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to
> study if they choose institutions on an accredited list. And we are
> consulting on a requirement for colleges to notify the Home Office if
> any student fails to attend the course they have come to the UK to
> study.
>
> To help prevent bogus marriages, they will create a new requirement
> that third country nationals have to apply to certain, designated
> registry offices before they can marry in the UK. And they are
> looking at whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry
> those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse
> the migration system.
>
> They have tightened the rules on benefits so that they only go to
> those who claim asylum as soon as possible after arriving in the UK,
> and introduced much tougher controls on legal aid so that it is
> restricted to legitimate advisers - to weed out the cowboys who were
> preying on vulnerable migrants.
>
> The new legislation on asylum will tighten up further still,
> overhauling the appeals system which allowed unfounded applicants to
> play the system for months on end, and clamping down on those who
> destroy their documents and create an new and fraudulent identity in
> order to claim asylum. And they have asked the NAO to audit the
> figures in order to confirm that the fall in asylum is genuine.
>
>
>
> ID cards starting voluntary, compulsory later, For the first time,
> employers and those regulating access to public services will have a
> secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or
> service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access
> services.
Okay; bearing in mind that "you" just said that we can no longer legislate on immigration, would you like to explain to me just how all of these measures are going to be implemented? In your own words of course....
> ha, ha, ha, considering the lack of evidence in Iraq as mentioned
> above compared to the known problems immigration brings on our
> services of course i'm going to believe him, cos you know what, the
> other partys are saying the same thing, and don't give me this
> dribble about "it's election year" and so on. Immigration
> problems have been happening for years, people have been abusing the
> system for years, services are struggling to cope with the influx
> (don't even bother denying this).
This would be the evidence stemming from the figures that you say are unreliable, but they can still be used to show how bad immigration is?
I like how you deal with the fact that in an election year, all parties say what the electorate want to hear; you try and claim that, since you don't like that point, it's irrelevant. Nice. Oh, and I'm doubly impressed by how quickly you've reverted to your standard "they're stretching services, the evil darkies" bleating. The bleating that has NO evidence to support it and is in fact debunked by every single fact I've posted (y'know; the facts that you say are "rubbish").
You're going to believe him because it's what you want to hear kevstar. You're a bigot. Nothing will change your unfounded opinion that immigrants are the main cause of problems with services etc. And the reason that nothing will change your opinion is because you want to blame problems on foreigners. Which also makes you a deeply unpleasant racist. So much so that it's not even funny any more. But hey; at least you've demonstrated your racism to all and sundry.
>
>
> Controlling the amount of people what come in is the issue, tell me
> why should a densely crowded island, with four million people who
> want to work but who are not working, need a rate of immigration that
> will quadruple population growth, cripple already desperately
> overstretched public services and create parallel societies? Yeahh
> you havn't debated that point yet have you, tell me when you see
> immigrants and Asylum seekers in the street or wherever, how often do
> you actually see them all with there own kind of race. Come on this
> is meant to be a multiculture society but the only thing I see is the
> different races in there own little groups. Tell me how can this be
> good for Britain, what good is it doing, whats good in having a asian
> section here, a jewish section there, and a native section hear when
> theese different races don't even mix with each other? Ohh sorry
> there making a net profit so theres nowt to worry about.
4 million who want to work? Please; do tell me where that figure comes from kevstar. Sounds like the unemployment figures from the 80's, but I'm looking forward to hearing you lie again.
A rate of immigration that will quadruple population growth? Again, give me your figures for that please. After all, you keep wailing that no-one knows the true immigration figures, so I'm intrigued to find how you know the projected effects on population.
Densely crowded? In some cities, yup no doubt. Which would seem to be a good argument for more housing, clearence of slums, and incentives to move to less populated areas. Preferably Gateshead...
As for the remainder of the paragraph; it's the most blatently racist bilge I've ever read. Your loathing for anyone who looks different comes through loud and clear.
Why do "they" stick to their own groups? Well, firstly let me ask you; ever tried talking to someone from a different ethnic background? And do you have any friends who aren't white anglo saxon protestants? Finally, why on earth would someone from an ethnic minority want to talk to an ignorant, hateful racist like you?
> One reason, the figures are innacurate because they lack important
> information, some of it's been fiddled, all the evidence against
> suggests exactlly this, so theres my reason.
That's not an answer dear boy. I asked you to explain why you accept anti-immigration figures as correct when you dismiss any pro immigration figures, even if they come from the same report. All you've done is said why you dismiss pro-immigration figures. Do answer the whole question kevstar. Unless of course, you're afraid to do so.
> Well to be honest you have made me think, and I accept a lot of what
> your saying makes sense, but not when you call me racist, xenophobic
> and a bigot. You think i'm all of theese things when I say I don't
> agree with the point immigration is controlled. I mean the budget for
> immigration has rise from 200m to nearly 2bln, In Australia, they
> spend just £286 million policing their immigration system. Even
> through they process three quarter of a million more applications
> than we do, is this controlled?
I don't just think these things kevstar; you've demonstrated that they're true by your words and your evasiveness. Australia, by the way, has a population of less than a 3rd than us. And they've always been notoriously tough on immigrants. Unpleasantly so. Hell, they tried to wipe out their native brown people, so why on earth would they want to let more in?
And unfortunately, the only thing I've made you think is "how can I try and prove that what he's saying is wrong and that immigrants are bad?". At NO POINT have you thought "hmmm...maybe immigrants aren't the demons I thought. I'll need to look at some more evidence".
>
> The numbers have risen, without the public, or Parliament, being
> asked, from less than 50,000 a year in 1997 to more than 150,000
> people a year. The Government has admitted that it doesn't know
> precisely who is entering the country. And David Blunkett has
> conceded that the Government sees "no obvious upper limit to
> legal immigration". Is this controlled immigration? If we are to
> maintain support for immigration, people have to be reassured that
> the numbers coming here are publicly known, and there not known so
> how can they say it's controlled.
So are "you" (the cutting and pasting is getting hilarious...) now saying that a quota is necessary? Or have you just cut and pasted this from a website that does?
> And why not, tell me if thats not an example of a out of control
> system then I don't know what is.
> No it doesn't, it means the figures i'm going off havn't been
> fiddled, cos theres no reason to fiddle them, however the figures you
> go off have every reason to be fiddled cos they want to make the
> numbers more respectable, make it sound like it is working, do you
> see?
Heheheheh. See? You want the figures to be incomplete and untrustworthy when they're pro-immigration. You insist they're completely reliable when they're anti immigration. Spoken like the true bigot that you are.
Man...no reason to fiddle them? Apart from a loathing of darkies and foreign types you mean? Oh, and to make political capital against the government? You really do assume that everyone is as moronic as you don't you?
> Well, after reading the proposals made by Clarke, it seems there is
> enough in there to stop the abusers without the need of quotas.
Yet "you've" also said we can't legislate on it. So why are you trusting these proposals?
One more try my little smear of cockbutter. One more attempt to show me that you're something other than a loathsome xenophobe. If not, I'll leave you to squeal about darkies in peace; frankly I've done enough to prove what a hateful little man you are.
Kevstar, you're a penis.
Pure and simple, and the more you try to outwit somebody, the worse you appear.
For your own dignity and our sanity and wordcount, accept that some people in life are supposed to deliver my pizza until they retire, ever unaware of their squandered potential, blissfully ignorant that shaved apes perform a more useful role in society.
My only regret is that moral and social law prevent us from eating the lame, we're forced to all slow to an evolutionary crawl whilst the stragglers blunder along reading The Daily Mail and breathing slowly through their facehole, reading with moving lips and a finger under the text.
Of course, you could simply end it all today - everybody looks good in black and I'm sure, once the initial "my beautiful angelllllllll" anguish has subsided? Even relatives will say "y'know what, that kid was a goober. Let's go rent a movie"
And ever thus the world revolves.
Pure and simple, and the more you try to outwit somebody, the worse you appear.
For your own dignity and our sanity and wordcount, accept that some people in life are supposed to deliver my pizza until they retire, ever unaware of their squandered potential, blissfully ignorant that shaved apes perform a more useful role in society.
My only regret is that moral and social law prevent us from eating the lame, we're forced to all slow to an evolutionary crawl whilst the stragglers blunder along reading The Daily Mail and breathing slowly through their facehole, reading with moving lips and a finger under the text.
Of course, you could simply end it all today - everybody looks good in black and I'm sure, once the initial "my beautiful angelllllllll" anguish has subsided? Even relatives will say "y'know what, that kid was a goober. Let's go rent a movie"
And ever thus the world revolves.
light says
I think that no matter what he said about it working, there would always be idiots like you who point blank refuse to accept that immigration is a good thing for this country.
Since when exactly, in your own time, have I said immigration is bad? Come on, what you can't? It may be because you know i've never said that isn't it. why do you talk rubbish?
you say you don't see any reason for him to lie on this? Yet you immediately saw reasons for him to lie about Iraq. So tell me; what's the difference?
Well the difference is that theres a lot more reasons which support my views that immigration isn't controlled, where the war was based on one big lie that not many people believed. I mean all the evidence supported the views that Iraq did have WOMD and could attack in 45 mins was based on one report( which was rubbish). The fact is, blair tried to hide his figures on immigration by using work permits cynically to conceal the fact that not one of these migrants is entitled to come here(i'm talking about The 1200 from Sangatte) along with all the other scandals which i'll be glad to fill you in on.
You say
Well here's a thing my bigoted friend; every single report and figure I've shown you that goes a way to proving immigration is working, you've dismissed it out of hand. You've tried to claim that "the figures are incomplete", or "it's rubbish", or (my personal favourite this one) you don't even bother to read it in the first place.
And can you tell me then how theese figure are complete and accurate and if it's working how come...
Speaking of Mrs Hughes, for what has been progressively dragged out of her is the admission that, bit by bit, normal checks were indeed being waived to allow people to come into this country regardless of the validity of their claim. Is this controlled immigration?
Now then light, This raises a very big question. For this is a picture of something more than an administrative shambles. It is bigger even than merely trying to massage the statistics to minimise the numbers coming here after ten new states join the EU on May 1
You say
An open and honest debate would help sort the problem. Because then it'll be more difficult for you to cry "the figures are wrong!" every single time you read something that doesn't square with your bigotry.
Brussels pointed out that we have irrevocably signed away our asylum and immigration controls. We have no ability to legislate in this area any more, so any debate between the parties is pointless.
You say
1. What out current system of immigration is, and
2. Exactly what the current proposals are, and how they will improve the system for both economic immigrants and illegal immigrants
Well as I said i'm not going to put the current system but I will tell you the changes and the benefits they bring...
They are putting in place tighter rules to restrict migrants' access to benefits and social housing. Migrants will not be able to access social housing unless they are here legally and are working.
No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged EU simply to claim benefits or housing. There will be no support for the economically inactive, the same goes for migrants from elsewhere in the world. Whether they come to work in our hospitals or in our banks, they must be self-sufficient.
They will not be able to access local authority housing unless they are here legally and working.
And they are tightening up certain migration channels which they suspect may have been abused in the past. So by the end of the year students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to study if they choose institutions on an accredited list. And we are consulting on a requirement for colleges to notify the Home Office if any student fails to attend the course they have come to the UK to study.
To help prevent bogus marriages, they will create a new requirement that third country nationals have to apply to certain, designated registry offices before they can marry in the UK. And they are looking at whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse the migration system.
They have tightened the rules on benefits so that they only go to those who claim asylum as soon as possible after arriving in the UK, and introduced much tougher controls on legal aid so that it is restricted to legitimate advisers - to weed out the cowboys who were preying on vulnerable migrants.
The new legislation on asylum will tighten up further still, overhauling the appeals system which allowed unfounded applicants to play the system for months on end, and clamping down on those who destroy their documents and create an new and fraudulent identity in order to claim asylum. And they have asked the NAO to audit the figures in order to confirm that the fall in asylum is genuine.
ID cards starting voluntary, compulsory later, For the first time, employers and those regulating access to public services will have a secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access services.
You say
Wow. You're showing an awful lot of trust in someone whom you said lied to us about a pointless war, aren't you? What makes you think he's telling the truth now (about something you agree with him on) but that he's a liar about Iraq (which is something you disagree with him about)? Sounds to me like you're being very selective in what you accept as fact.
ha, ha, ha, considering the lack of evidence in Iraq as mentioned above compared to the known problems immigration brings on our services of course i'm going to believe him, cos you know what, the other partys are saying the same thing, and don't give me this dribble about "it's election year" and so on. Immigration problems have been happening for years, people have been abusing the system for years, services are struggling to cope with the influx (don't even bother denying this).
Controlling the amount of people what come in is the issue, tell me why should a densely crowded island, with four million people who want to work but who are not working, need a rate of immigration that will quadruple population growth, cripple already desperately overstretched public services and create parallel societies? Yeahh you havn't debated that point yet have you, tell me when you see immigrants and Asylum seekers in the street or wherever, how often do you actually see them all with there own kind of race. Come on this is meant to be a multiculture society but the only thing I see is the different races in there own little groups. Tell me how can this be good for Britain, what good is it doing, whats good in having a asian section here, a jewish section there, and a native section hear when theese different races don't even mix with each other? Ohh sorry there making a net profit so theres nowt to worry about.
You say
And this also goes back to what I keep saying about you; if the figures are so wrong, why are you so happy to accept any figures that support your view as being correct? Especially when you're so quick to dismiss any that don't?
One reason, the figures are innacurate because they lack important information, some of it's been fiddled, all the evidence against suggests exactlly this, so theres my reason.
What I've been doing is trying to make you justify your views. And you've failed to do so; you just keep falling back on the same bigoted and unsupported half truths and lies. Do you understand kevstar? I've been trying to make you think. And alas, I've failed.
Well to be honest you have made me think, and I accept a lot of what your saying makes sense, but not when you call me racist, xenophobic and a bigot. You think i'm all of theese things when I say I don't agree with the point immigration is controlled. I mean the budget for immigration has rise from 200m to nearly 2bln, In Australia, they spend just £286 million policing their immigration system. Even through they process three quarter of a million more applications than we do, is this controlled?
The numbers have risen, without the public, or Parliament, being asked, from less than 50,000 a year in 1997 to more than 150,000 people a year. The Government has admitted that it doesn't know precisely who is entering the country. And David Blunkett has conceded that the Government sees "no obvious upper limit to legal immigration". Is this controlled immigration? If we are to maintain support for immigration, people have to be reassured that the numbers coming here are publicly known, and there not known so how can they say it's controlled.
You say
However, that also means that people like you can't say that there IS a problem with immigration if the figures are incomplete.
And why not, tell me if thats not an example of a out of control system then I don't know what is.
You say
Well now, that depends; which figures are you talking about? And why are you trying to avoid accepting that, if the figures are wrong, it means that all the figures you're spouting to try to back you up are also wrong?
No it doesn't, it means the figures i'm going off havn't been fiddled, cos theres no reason to fiddle them, however the figures you go off have every reason to be fiddled cos they want to make the numbers more respectable, make it sound like it is working, do you see?
You say
And lets not forget that you said a quota was necessary...before backpeddling and saying "no it isn't". Very consistent.
Well, after reading the proposals made by Clarke, it seems there is enough in there to stop the abusers without the need of quotas.
I think that no matter what he said about it working, there would always be idiots like you who point blank refuse to accept that immigration is a good thing for this country.
Since when exactly, in your own time, have I said immigration is bad? Come on, what you can't? It may be because you know i've never said that isn't it. why do you talk rubbish?
you say you don't see any reason for him to lie on this? Yet you immediately saw reasons for him to lie about Iraq. So tell me; what's the difference?
Well the difference is that theres a lot more reasons which support my views that immigration isn't controlled, where the war was based on one big lie that not many people believed. I mean all the evidence supported the views that Iraq did have WOMD and could attack in 45 mins was based on one report( which was rubbish). The fact is, blair tried to hide his figures on immigration by using work permits cynically to conceal the fact that not one of these migrants is entitled to come here(i'm talking about The 1200 from Sangatte) along with all the other scandals which i'll be glad to fill you in on.
You say
Well here's a thing my bigoted friend; every single report and figure I've shown you that goes a way to proving immigration is working, you've dismissed it out of hand. You've tried to claim that "the figures are incomplete", or "it's rubbish", or (my personal favourite this one) you don't even bother to read it in the first place.
And can you tell me then how theese figure are complete and accurate and if it's working how come...
Speaking of Mrs Hughes, for what has been progressively dragged out of her is the admission that, bit by bit, normal checks were indeed being waived to allow people to come into this country regardless of the validity of their claim. Is this controlled immigration?
Now then light, This raises a very big question. For this is a picture of something more than an administrative shambles. It is bigger even than merely trying to massage the statistics to minimise the numbers coming here after ten new states join the EU on May 1
You say
An open and honest debate would help sort the problem. Because then it'll be more difficult for you to cry "the figures are wrong!" every single time you read something that doesn't square with your bigotry.
Brussels pointed out that we have irrevocably signed away our asylum and immigration controls. We have no ability to legislate in this area any more, so any debate between the parties is pointless.
You say
1. What out current system of immigration is, and
2. Exactly what the current proposals are, and how they will improve the system for both economic immigrants and illegal immigrants
Well as I said i'm not going to put the current system but I will tell you the changes and the benefits they bring...
They are putting in place tighter rules to restrict migrants' access to benefits and social housing. Migrants will not be able to access social housing unless they are here legally and are working.
No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged EU simply to claim benefits or housing. There will be no support for the economically inactive, the same goes for migrants from elsewhere in the world. Whether they come to work in our hospitals or in our banks, they must be self-sufficient.
They will not be able to access local authority housing unless they are here legally and working.
And they are tightening up certain migration channels which they suspect may have been abused in the past. So by the end of the year students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to study if they choose institutions on an accredited list. And we are consulting on a requirement for colleges to notify the Home Office if any student fails to attend the course they have come to the UK to study.
To help prevent bogus marriages, they will create a new requirement that third country nationals have to apply to certain, designated registry offices before they can marry in the UK. And they are looking at whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse the migration system.
They have tightened the rules on benefits so that they only go to those who claim asylum as soon as possible after arriving in the UK, and introduced much tougher controls on legal aid so that it is restricted to legitimate advisers - to weed out the cowboys who were preying on vulnerable migrants.
The new legislation on asylum will tighten up further still, overhauling the appeals system which allowed unfounded applicants to play the system for months on end, and clamping down on those who destroy their documents and create an new and fraudulent identity in order to claim asylum. And they have asked the NAO to audit the figures in order to confirm that the fall in asylum is genuine.
ID cards starting voluntary, compulsory later, For the first time, employers and those regulating access to public services will have a secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access services.
You say
Wow. You're showing an awful lot of trust in someone whom you said lied to us about a pointless war, aren't you? What makes you think he's telling the truth now (about something you agree with him on) but that he's a liar about Iraq (which is something you disagree with him about)? Sounds to me like you're being very selective in what you accept as fact.
ha, ha, ha, considering the lack of evidence in Iraq as mentioned above compared to the known problems immigration brings on our services of course i'm going to believe him, cos you know what, the other partys are saying the same thing, and don't give me this dribble about "it's election year" and so on. Immigration problems have been happening for years, people have been abusing the system for years, services are struggling to cope with the influx (don't even bother denying this).
Controlling the amount of people what come in is the issue, tell me why should a densely crowded island, with four million people who want to work but who are not working, need a rate of immigration that will quadruple population growth, cripple already desperately overstretched public services and create parallel societies? Yeahh you havn't debated that point yet have you, tell me when you see immigrants and Asylum seekers in the street or wherever, how often do you actually see them all with there own kind of race. Come on this is meant to be a multiculture society but the only thing I see is the different races in there own little groups. Tell me how can this be good for Britain, what good is it doing, whats good in having a asian section here, a jewish section there, and a native section hear when theese different races don't even mix with each other? Ohh sorry there making a net profit so theres nowt to worry about.
You say
And this also goes back to what I keep saying about you; if the figures are so wrong, why are you so happy to accept any figures that support your view as being correct? Especially when you're so quick to dismiss any that don't?
One reason, the figures are innacurate because they lack important information, some of it's been fiddled, all the evidence against suggests exactlly this, so theres my reason.
What I've been doing is trying to make you justify your views. And you've failed to do so; you just keep falling back on the same bigoted and unsupported half truths and lies. Do you understand kevstar? I've been trying to make you think. And alas, I've failed.
Well to be honest you have made me think, and I accept a lot of what your saying makes sense, but not when you call me racist, xenophobic and a bigot. You think i'm all of theese things when I say I don't agree with the point immigration is controlled. I mean the budget for immigration has rise from 200m to nearly 2bln, In Australia, they spend just £286 million policing their immigration system. Even through they process three quarter of a million more applications than we do, is this controlled?
The numbers have risen, without the public, or Parliament, being asked, from less than 50,000 a year in 1997 to more than 150,000 people a year. The Government has admitted that it doesn't know precisely who is entering the country. And David Blunkett has conceded that the Government sees "no obvious upper limit to legal immigration". Is this controlled immigration? If we are to maintain support for immigration, people have to be reassured that the numbers coming here are publicly known, and there not known so how can they say it's controlled.
You say
However, that also means that people like you can't say that there IS a problem with immigration if the figures are incomplete.
And why not, tell me if thats not an example of a out of control system then I don't know what is.
You say
Well now, that depends; which figures are you talking about? And why are you trying to avoid accepting that, if the figures are wrong, it means that all the figures you're spouting to try to back you up are also wrong?
No it doesn't, it means the figures i'm going off havn't been fiddled, cos theres no reason to fiddle them, however the figures you go off have every reason to be fiddled cos they want to make the numbers more respectable, make it sound like it is working, do you see?
You say
And lets not forget that you said a quota was necessary...before backpeddling and saying "no it isn't". Very consistent.
Well, after reading the proposals made by Clarke, it seems there is enough in there to stop the abusers without the need of quotas.
kevstar wrote:
> Well I don't see any reason for him to lie on this. Don't you think
> if they were no problems, then he would be able to proove how well
> it's working?
I think that no matter what he said about it working, there would always be idiots like you who point blank refuse to accept that immigration is a good thing for this country. Unfortunately, he relies on idiots like you to vote for him. So he has to pander to your idiot sensibilities.
You don't see any reason for him to lie on this? Yet you immediately saw reasons for him to lie about Iraq. So tell me; what's the difference?
> No but they are concerned about the numbers.
To the extent that people like you will gladly make numbers up, and selectively quote 'em in order to maintain your prejudice, right?
I'm sick of hearing about your "concern" when you're not even capable of quantifying what has caused it. Oh, my mistake; the Sun told you to be concerned.
> They woudn't, not if he could prove that immigration hasn't got any
> problems, but he can't, cos he knows theres problems just like
> everybody else whoe voted in the polls.
Well here's a thing my bigoted friend; every single report and figure I've shown you that goes a way to proving immigration is working, you've dismissed it out of hand. You've tried to claim that "the figures are incomplete", or "it's rubbish", or (my personal favourite this one) you don't even bother to read it in the first place.
He's not trying to prove it because he quite possibly knows that there is not much point in trying to do so just prior to an election when he relies on cowardly bigots like you to elect him.
Or, maybe it's true and immigration is a problem. In which case, an open and honest debate would help sort the problem. Because then it'll be more difficult for you to cry "the figures are wrong!" every single time you read something that doesn't square with your bigotry.
> You keep going on about me selectively quoting figures, more like
> showing where the potentual problems are.
Well, no not really. Because you tend to take a paragraph or a figure that shows immgrants in a bad light. But you ignore the paragraph following it that points out why any such worries that you spout mindlessly are not something to be concerned about. And you go on to ignore any figures that show the benefits of immigration. Or, when you do deign to pay attention, you simply say "they're rubbish".
All the "potential problems" you mention have been addressed during this little debate, usually in the same report that you initially triumphantly quote. Unfortunately for you, you always try to imply that anything that doesn't support your case is wrong, but you don't give anything to prove it's wrong.
>
>
> Incidentally, that's mighty egotistical of you to say that Tony
> Blair
> was admitting something to you personally. Do the voices often talk
> to you, or is that just a side effect of your condition?
Actually, in hindsight that was a cheap shot. My apologies.
> I know the flaws in the system which as I said before, is enough to
> know what the problems are. And I know the proposals which could come
> into place is aimed at thoose very problems.
No, it's not enough. Because you've STILL not bothered to explain what the system is. How can you know that something is a flaw when you don't actually know what the system is and what it does? How can you know a proposal is aimed at something when you haven't a clue what it is?
I'll ask again; in your own words, please explain;
1. What out current system of immigration is, and
2. Exactly what the current proposals are, and how they will improve the system for both economic immigrants and illegal immigrants.
>
>
> So how do you know how the changes would affect
> it?
>
> Well the changes in place explain how it will affect it.
And what are those changes? You haven't even convinced me you know what they are. So, as I've asked above, tell me what the system is and what the changes will do to make it better. Because, you see, I don't think you actually know. And because you don't know, it's therefore impossible to convince you that immigration is a positive, because you don't understand the system at all. You only know you want less immigrants coming in, don't you?
> Well I think he will bring them in because he knows there is a
> problem and wants the problems sorted.
Wow. You're showing an awful lot of trust in someone whom you said lied to us about a pointless war, aren't you? What makes you think he's telling the truth now (about something you agree with him on) but that he's a liar about Iraq (which is something you disagree with him about)? Sounds to me like you're being very selective in what you accept as fact.
Please; tell me the basis on which you think Blair is completely trustworthy on this issue. Especially when, at the start of this debate, you claimed that he was totally untrustworthy.
> But how can you say this rubbish if they dont have accurate figures?
> Thats why the systems dodgy, even if you report the figures
> selectively, the fact they don't know how many are coming in is
> enough to say theres a problem, no doubt about it.
Because they never, not ever, report the positives of immigration. Ever heard Kilroy talk about the net profit we make from immigration? Or the Sun? Or the Tories? No? Funny that, isn't it?
Jesus..."even when you report the figures selectively"? Tell me this kevstar; we were given info leading up to the Iraq war. That info was given to the public VERY selectively. And you've spent a long time saying that it means we were lied to. Yet you're happy to accept selective figures when you agree with them. Doesn't that make you...well, a coward and a hypocrite? (oh, and please; do look up the definition of hypocrite; I'm getting embarrassed for you...)
>
> Neither group just cuts to the quick and says "these are the
> figures". And when someone does,
> bigots like you squeal
> "That's rubbish and you're wrong
>
> So your saying that the figures are right is that correct? If it is
> your a joke.
See what I mean? Even the mere suggestion that the figures may be correct has you squealing "you're wrong! you're a joke! waaaaah!!!".
Tell me, what basis do you have for saying they're not? I know why, but I'd like to hear what your view is. In your own time...
>
>
> Your joking in asking me to explain the immigration system without
> using a link, how big do you want the post to be? Now if you ask me
> to tell you the points I think is wrong about the system I will, but
> if you think i'm going to sit here for hours to write about a system
> which is in a link on here already, you must be stupid.
Well, as we've already written several thousand words on the subject, I don't think words should be a limit, do you? And you're not exactly rushed for time being as you're on the sick. I don't much care how big the post is. So please; be my guest.
Of course, I know you won't. And I know the reason you won't is because you don't actually understand the system or anything about it. But I enjoy watching you attempting to squirm out of admitting that. Because it makes you look a fool.
> How is this, i've said it from the first few posts I done about this
> topic.
Of course you have kevstar, of course you have.
> And there is evidence, everyone knows they don't know the right
> figures cos they've admited it themselves.
Really? Can you explain to me when "they" admitted it? And, for that matter, who "they" are?
And this also goes back to what I keep saying about you; if the figures are so wrong, why are you so happy to accept any figures that support your view as being correct? Especially when you're so quick to dismiss any that don't?
> The fact is no one denies that immigration is good, even the
> most racist people would agree,
Really? Yet you try and claim that your occasional and grudging acceptance that immigration is a good thing is proof you're not racist? I'm glad to see you're finally accepting your racism.
> but it's controlled immigration thats
> needed, and as I keep saying unaccurate figures does not go with
> controlled immigration.
And I keep asking you to explain the system as it is, and what the proposals will do to improve control. And you keep failing to do so. Which leads me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about beyond a vague desire to blame the nations troubles on foreigners.
> Well I find you a ignorant, irratating snot at the end of my nose
> just waiting to be flicked off, someone who can't accept there is a
> problem with immigration. It's funny because when this started I had
> no back up, there wasn't any major debates on tv about immigration at
> the time. Now it seems I wasn't alone in my concern, and even now
> when theese concerns have been confirmed, and told right to be so,
> you still get people like you who just don't get it, and proberly
> never will.
Erm...when you started, there were polls stating that over 80% of people were concerned about immigration. What, are you so egocentric (look it up) that you think this debate between us has influenced the government? Mwahahahahahaaaaaa! Course it has kevstar, and you're SUCH a trailblazer for thinking of it first. Just like no-one talked about Iraq before you, right?
If you weren't so determined to prove that darkies are evil, you might have noticed the following; I'm not trying to prove there is no problem with immigration. I just don't know if there is or is not; an honest and open debate is needed to establish that.
What I've been doing is trying to make you justify your views. And you've failed to do so; you just keep falling back on the same bigoted and unsupported half truths and lies. Do you understand kevstar? I've been trying to make you think. And alas, I've failed.
>
>
>
>
> Well, if that's the case then how come you're getting so worked up
> when you don't know the true figures?
>
> You didn't answer the question!
kevstar, I've never denied that debate was needed to establish the truth of the figures. What I'm saying is that whilst I'm saying that the figures need looking at, you're saying that any figures which support you are "evidence I'm right", whereas any figures that don't are unreliable because "the figures are incomplete".
Do you see? I'll put it in baby language for you...
To answer you're question, no; no-one can say that there is no problem without immigration if the figures are incomplete.
However, that also means that people like you can't say that there IS a problem with immigration if the figures are incomplete.
> But it's known the figures i'm talking about are not correct isn't
> it?
Well now, that depends; which figures are you talking about? And why are you trying to avoid accepting that, if the figures are wrong, it means that all the figures you're spouting to try to back you up are also wrong?
>
> Well they can start by giving them the chance to choose, i'll bet my
> life you'll get some people who would do that.
I wish you would kevstar, I truly wish you would. Do you think enough people would choose to do so? Or do you think that it'll have to be forced on people?
Why don't we put it to a straight vote; less darkies and longer working lives, or more evil foreigners and normal retirement with full pension?
You know fine well what the proposals are, you don't need me to tell
> you, i've provided enough links.
Yes, you've provided links. Monkeys can do that. What you haven't done is explained them in any way. You've just mindlessly put in a few quotes, then tried to ignore the reams of evidence from those same reports that suggest you're the walking, talking equivalent of a fatty corpuscle on the brainstem.
I do indeed know what the proposals are. I want to see some evidence that you actually understand them. So far I've seen none.
> Haa,haa, it's funny because i've been saying the same thing all
> along, so I don't see how i'm trying to salvage dignity, i've kept
> that by sticking to my guns.
So...you've stuck to your guns by continualling insisting that darkies are bad for the country? Wow...how very dignified of you. Oh, but you've also said that immigration is a good thing? Mm...not at all contradictory.
And lets not forget that you said a quota was necessary...before backpeddling and saying "no it isn't". Very consistent.
Of course, we could also look at your saying that the system needs changing...before you admitted that you don't know what the system is. You don't...you don't find that at all humiliating?
And finally, we have your truly woeful attempt at insults; I mean really, I've not seen one person lose so much dignity in so short a time since my boss' ex-wife shat herself at a staff party...
So; not only have you not been saying the same thing all along, you're a bit of a lying coward to boot.
> So that makes it alright for the other 3 on benefits does it just cos
> there making a net profit, really? You idiot. How much money do you
> think we would make if they were at work?
You do understand that income support is a benefit, don't you kevstar? And that child benefit is also...well, a benefit? And tax credits? And that all of these benefits can be received when one has a low paying job? So in other words, we're subsidising the poor sods who have to do the awful jobs of this country, and it's not actually costing us any money to do so. You do understand that, don't you kevstar?
You, better than anyone bearing in mind your condition, should realise that being in receipt of a state benefit doesn't preclude one from working.
> That may be because the British people don't want to work for low
> rate wages, do you not think that may have something to do with it?
Yes. Yes I do. And I seem to recall you saying something about "showing people how every job is important" in your effort to come up with new measures to keep out immigrants. Do you remember that? Or are you going to pretend it never happened? Hey, maybe you could help convince people of this by doing a few shifts as a road sweeper?
> Yeahh, and the different sources from which figures are dodgy, like
> the Beverly hughes figures which were doctored.
And again, this proves your bigotry; you're happy to say that one set of figures are doctored, yet you refuse to accept that the figures you're relying on could be.
Oh, and if changing a few words from a post is your idea of wit, then I fear for your children and fervently hope that you or your delightfully Hoff-A-Like girlfriend (assuming she exists outside of your own mind...) get sterilised before you inflict more ignorant, hateful, and above all, stupid kids on the world. Happily, your lack of imagination in the words you changed proves that I'm better than you in terms of wordplay. As well as everything else.
> Well I don't see any reason for him to lie on this. Don't you think
> if they were no problems, then he would be able to proove how well
> it's working?
I think that no matter what he said about it working, there would always be idiots like you who point blank refuse to accept that immigration is a good thing for this country. Unfortunately, he relies on idiots like you to vote for him. So he has to pander to your idiot sensibilities.
You don't see any reason for him to lie on this? Yet you immediately saw reasons for him to lie about Iraq. So tell me; what's the difference?
> No but they are concerned about the numbers.
To the extent that people like you will gladly make numbers up, and selectively quote 'em in order to maintain your prejudice, right?
I'm sick of hearing about your "concern" when you're not even capable of quantifying what has caused it. Oh, my mistake; the Sun told you to be concerned.
> They woudn't, not if he could prove that immigration hasn't got any
> problems, but he can't, cos he knows theres problems just like
> everybody else whoe voted in the polls.
Well here's a thing my bigoted friend; every single report and figure I've shown you that goes a way to proving immigration is working, you've dismissed it out of hand. You've tried to claim that "the figures are incomplete", or "it's rubbish", or (my personal favourite this one) you don't even bother to read it in the first place.
He's not trying to prove it because he quite possibly knows that there is not much point in trying to do so just prior to an election when he relies on cowardly bigots like you to elect him.
Or, maybe it's true and immigration is a problem. In which case, an open and honest debate would help sort the problem. Because then it'll be more difficult for you to cry "the figures are wrong!" every single time you read something that doesn't square with your bigotry.
> You keep going on about me selectively quoting figures, more like
> showing where the potentual problems are.
Well, no not really. Because you tend to take a paragraph or a figure that shows immgrants in a bad light. But you ignore the paragraph following it that points out why any such worries that you spout mindlessly are not something to be concerned about. And you go on to ignore any figures that show the benefits of immigration. Or, when you do deign to pay attention, you simply say "they're rubbish".
All the "potential problems" you mention have been addressed during this little debate, usually in the same report that you initially triumphantly quote. Unfortunately for you, you always try to imply that anything that doesn't support your case is wrong, but you don't give anything to prove it's wrong.
>
>
> Incidentally, that's mighty egotistical of you to say that Tony
> Blair
> was admitting something to you personally. Do the voices often talk
> to you, or is that just a side effect of your condition?
Actually, in hindsight that was a cheap shot. My apologies.
> I know the flaws in the system which as I said before, is enough to
> know what the problems are. And I know the proposals which could come
> into place is aimed at thoose very problems.
No, it's not enough. Because you've STILL not bothered to explain what the system is. How can you know that something is a flaw when you don't actually know what the system is and what it does? How can you know a proposal is aimed at something when you haven't a clue what it is?
I'll ask again; in your own words, please explain;
1. What out current system of immigration is, and
2. Exactly what the current proposals are, and how they will improve the system for both economic immigrants and illegal immigrants.
>
>
> So how do you know how the changes would affect
> it?
>
> Well the changes in place explain how it will affect it.
And what are those changes? You haven't even convinced me you know what they are. So, as I've asked above, tell me what the system is and what the changes will do to make it better. Because, you see, I don't think you actually know. And because you don't know, it's therefore impossible to convince you that immigration is a positive, because you don't understand the system at all. You only know you want less immigrants coming in, don't you?
> Well I think he will bring them in because he knows there is a
> problem and wants the problems sorted.
Wow. You're showing an awful lot of trust in someone whom you said lied to us about a pointless war, aren't you? What makes you think he's telling the truth now (about something you agree with him on) but that he's a liar about Iraq (which is something you disagree with him about)? Sounds to me like you're being very selective in what you accept as fact.
Please; tell me the basis on which you think Blair is completely trustworthy on this issue. Especially when, at the start of this debate, you claimed that he was totally untrustworthy.
> But how can you say this rubbish if they dont have accurate figures?
> Thats why the systems dodgy, even if you report the figures
> selectively, the fact they don't know how many are coming in is
> enough to say theres a problem, no doubt about it.
Because they never, not ever, report the positives of immigration. Ever heard Kilroy talk about the net profit we make from immigration? Or the Sun? Or the Tories? No? Funny that, isn't it?
Jesus..."even when you report the figures selectively"? Tell me this kevstar; we were given info leading up to the Iraq war. That info was given to the public VERY selectively. And you've spent a long time saying that it means we were lied to. Yet you're happy to accept selective figures when you agree with them. Doesn't that make you...well, a coward and a hypocrite? (oh, and please; do look up the definition of hypocrite; I'm getting embarrassed for you...)
>
> Neither group just cuts to the quick and says "these are the
> figures". And when someone does,
> bigots like you squeal
> "That's rubbish and you're wrong
>
> So your saying that the figures are right is that correct? If it is
> your a joke.
See what I mean? Even the mere suggestion that the figures may be correct has you squealing "you're wrong! you're a joke! waaaaah!!!".
Tell me, what basis do you have for saying they're not? I know why, but I'd like to hear what your view is. In your own time...
>
>
> Your joking in asking me to explain the immigration system without
> using a link, how big do you want the post to be? Now if you ask me
> to tell you the points I think is wrong about the system I will, but
> if you think i'm going to sit here for hours to write about a system
> which is in a link on here already, you must be stupid.
Well, as we've already written several thousand words on the subject, I don't think words should be a limit, do you? And you're not exactly rushed for time being as you're on the sick. I don't much care how big the post is. So please; be my guest.
Of course, I know you won't. And I know the reason you won't is because you don't actually understand the system or anything about it. But I enjoy watching you attempting to squirm out of admitting that. Because it makes you look a fool.
> How is this, i've said it from the first few posts I done about this
> topic.
Of course you have kevstar, of course you have.
> And there is evidence, everyone knows they don't know the right
> figures cos they've admited it themselves.
Really? Can you explain to me when "they" admitted it? And, for that matter, who "they" are?
And this also goes back to what I keep saying about you; if the figures are so wrong, why are you so happy to accept any figures that support your view as being correct? Especially when you're so quick to dismiss any that don't?
> The fact is no one denies that immigration is good, even the
> most racist people would agree,
Really? Yet you try and claim that your occasional and grudging acceptance that immigration is a good thing is proof you're not racist? I'm glad to see you're finally accepting your racism.
> but it's controlled immigration thats
> needed, and as I keep saying unaccurate figures does not go with
> controlled immigration.
And I keep asking you to explain the system as it is, and what the proposals will do to improve control. And you keep failing to do so. Which leads me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about beyond a vague desire to blame the nations troubles on foreigners.
> Well I find you a ignorant, irratating snot at the end of my nose
> just waiting to be flicked off, someone who can't accept there is a
> problem with immigration. It's funny because when this started I had
> no back up, there wasn't any major debates on tv about immigration at
> the time. Now it seems I wasn't alone in my concern, and even now
> when theese concerns have been confirmed, and told right to be so,
> you still get people like you who just don't get it, and proberly
> never will.
Erm...when you started, there were polls stating that over 80% of people were concerned about immigration. What, are you so egocentric (look it up) that you think this debate between us has influenced the government? Mwahahahahahaaaaaa! Course it has kevstar, and you're SUCH a trailblazer for thinking of it first. Just like no-one talked about Iraq before you, right?
If you weren't so determined to prove that darkies are evil, you might have noticed the following; I'm not trying to prove there is no problem with immigration. I just don't know if there is or is not; an honest and open debate is needed to establish that.
What I've been doing is trying to make you justify your views. And you've failed to do so; you just keep falling back on the same bigoted and unsupported half truths and lies. Do you understand kevstar? I've been trying to make you think. And alas, I've failed.
>
>
>
>
> Well, if that's the case then how come you're getting so worked up
> when you don't know the true figures?
>
> You didn't answer the question!
kevstar, I've never denied that debate was needed to establish the truth of the figures. What I'm saying is that whilst I'm saying that the figures need looking at, you're saying that any figures which support you are "evidence I'm right", whereas any figures that don't are unreliable because "the figures are incomplete".
Do you see? I'll put it in baby language for you...
To answer you're question, no; no-one can say that there is no problem without immigration if the figures are incomplete.
However, that also means that people like you can't say that there IS a problem with immigration if the figures are incomplete.
> But it's known the figures i'm talking about are not correct isn't
> it?
Well now, that depends; which figures are you talking about? And why are you trying to avoid accepting that, if the figures are wrong, it means that all the figures you're spouting to try to back you up are also wrong?
>
> Well they can start by giving them the chance to choose, i'll bet my
> life you'll get some people who would do that.
I wish you would kevstar, I truly wish you would. Do you think enough people would choose to do so? Or do you think that it'll have to be forced on people?
Why don't we put it to a straight vote; less darkies and longer working lives, or more evil foreigners and normal retirement with full pension?
You know fine well what the proposals are, you don't need me to tell
> you, i've provided enough links.
Yes, you've provided links. Monkeys can do that. What you haven't done is explained them in any way. You've just mindlessly put in a few quotes, then tried to ignore the reams of evidence from those same reports that suggest you're the walking, talking equivalent of a fatty corpuscle on the brainstem.
I do indeed know what the proposals are. I want to see some evidence that you actually understand them. So far I've seen none.
> Haa,haa, it's funny because i've been saying the same thing all
> along, so I don't see how i'm trying to salvage dignity, i've kept
> that by sticking to my guns.
So...you've stuck to your guns by continualling insisting that darkies are bad for the country? Wow...how very dignified of you. Oh, but you've also said that immigration is a good thing? Mm...not at all contradictory.
And lets not forget that you said a quota was necessary...before backpeddling and saying "no it isn't". Very consistent.
Of course, we could also look at your saying that the system needs changing...before you admitted that you don't know what the system is. You don't...you don't find that at all humiliating?
And finally, we have your truly woeful attempt at insults; I mean really, I've not seen one person lose so much dignity in so short a time since my boss' ex-wife shat herself at a staff party...
So; not only have you not been saying the same thing all along, you're a bit of a lying coward to boot.
> So that makes it alright for the other 3 on benefits does it just cos
> there making a net profit, really? You idiot. How much money do you
> think we would make if they were at work?
You do understand that income support is a benefit, don't you kevstar? And that child benefit is also...well, a benefit? And tax credits? And that all of these benefits can be received when one has a low paying job? So in other words, we're subsidising the poor sods who have to do the awful jobs of this country, and it's not actually costing us any money to do so. You do understand that, don't you kevstar?
You, better than anyone bearing in mind your condition, should realise that being in receipt of a state benefit doesn't preclude one from working.
> That may be because the British people don't want to work for low
> rate wages, do you not think that may have something to do with it?
Yes. Yes I do. And I seem to recall you saying something about "showing people how every job is important" in your effort to come up with new measures to keep out immigrants. Do you remember that? Or are you going to pretend it never happened? Hey, maybe you could help convince people of this by doing a few shifts as a road sweeper?
> Yeahh, and the different sources from which figures are dodgy, like
> the Beverly hughes figures which were doctored.
And again, this proves your bigotry; you're happy to say that one set of figures are doctored, yet you refuse to accept that the figures you're relying on could be.
Oh, and if changing a few words from a post is your idea of wit, then I fear for your children and fervently hope that you or your delightfully Hoff-A-Like girlfriend (assuming she exists outside of your own mind...) get sterilised before you inflict more ignorant, hateful, and above all, stupid kids on the world. Happily, your lack of imagination in the words you changed proves that I'm better than you in terms of wordplay. As well as everything else.
Light wrote:
>
> Heh. Answered your point? By pointing out that you instantly agree
> with a man you've pilloried as a liar for no reason other than he's
> saying what you want to hear?
Well I don't see any reason for him to lie on this. Don't you think if they were no problems, then he would be able to proove how well it's working?
>
> And to me, it's like he's trying to ensure that he doesn't lose
> votes. After all, thanks to the Sun and the Mail, damn near every
> prole in the country thinks that little brown men are coming into
> this country with the express purpose of stealing your job.
No but they are concerned about the numbers.
And the
> Tories have, unsurprisingly, tried to make political capital out of
> it. What political leader wants to see his parties votes going from
> his party to the other?
They woudn't, not if he could prove that immigration hasn't got any problems, but he can't, cos he knows theres problems just like everybody else whoe voted in the polls.
>
> You don't agree with the figures? No, you never seem to agree with
> any figures unless they're ones that you've selectively quoted.
> That's why I'm calling you a bigot; you refuse to accept that any
> figures that disagree with you are accurate, whilst you slavishly
> quote ones that you feel support your case.
You keep going on about me selectively quoting figures, more like showing where the potentual problems are.
>
> Incidentally, that's mighty egotistical of you to say that Tony Blair
> was admitting something to you personally. Do the voices often talk
> to you, or is that just a side effect of your condition?
>
>
> What a confused, barely literate ramble that was. Sounds like you're
> trying to say too many words at once, and all that comes out is
> "muuuuhhh". So lets see....so that's a desperate scramble
> to backpeddle away from quota's because "the changes are now
> good enough"? But kevstar...you don't actually even know what
> the system is now.
I know the flaws in the system which as I said before, is enough to know what the problems are. And I know the proposals which could come into place is aimed at thoose very problems.
So how do you know how the changes would affect
> it?
Well the changes in place explain how it will affect it.
And if it's a shameless attempt to get votes, and you supposedly
> don't trust Blair, how do you know that these changes will actually
> be brought in?
Well I think he will bring them in because he knows there is a problem and wants the problems sorted.
>
> I'd agree entirely with you about the whole "not knowing the
> numbers" spiel were it not for one simple fact; the numbers are
> collated, and then wonderfully bigoted people such as Kilroy, Michael
> Howard, The Sun, you...they all try and report the figures as
> selectively as possible in order to make us all
> "concerned". Then, well meaning mungwits such as Charles
> Kennedy, the Guardian, anyone who's ever bought Socialist
> Worker...they report the figures equally as selectively in order to
> convince us that there are no fears necessary.
But how can you say this rubbish if they dont have accurate figures? Thats why the systems dodgy, even if you report the figures selectively, the fact they don't know how many are coming in is enough to say theres a problem, no doubt about it.
>
> Neither group just cuts to the quick and says "these are the
> figures". And when someone does,
> bigots like you squeal
> "That's rubbish and you're wrong
So your saying that the figures are right is that correct? If it is your a joke.
Your joking in asking me to explain the immigration system without using a link, how big do you want the post to be? Now if you ask me to tell you the points I think is wrong about the system I will, but if you think i'm going to sit here for hours to write about a system which is in a link on here already, you must be stupid.
>
> Mind you, all that said, a grudging admission that immigrants are
> vital is something I didn't expect from you and is better than no
> admission at all.
How is this, i've said it from the first few posts I done about this topic.
>
> So it's not your job to find a solution,
No it's not
it's your job to say
> "Even though I have no evidence to support my view, I know I'm
> right and this situation is a disgrace and someone must do
> something!" (ever notice how annoying little curtain-twitchers
> like you who say "someone must do something!" never follow
> up with "and that someone is me"? Whining little
> cowards...).
And there is evidence, everyone knows they don't know the right figures cos they've admited it themselves.
>
> Again, I would completely agree with you if it weren't for one thing;
> whenever figures or reports have been given to you to prove the lack
> of truth in what you're saying, you've either refused point blank to
> read them, or you've said "rubbish, you're wrong" and
> offered nothing in rebuttal yourself. Over the last two weeks, you've
> proven time and time again that you're incredibly suspicious of
> anything that indicates immigration is a positive, yet you're happy
> to crow about figures that even hints at immigration being a bad
> thing. My God, you even tried to claim that it was impossible to say
> immigration was a good thing cos there were no accurate figures, but
> it was perfectly possible to say that it was a bad thing because you
> have "concerns".
The fact is no one denies that immigration is good, even the most racist people would agree, but it's controlled immigration thats needed, and as I keep saying unaccurate figures does not go with controlled immigration.
>
> I have to be honest kevstar; I find you to be a repellant little
> coward who squeals with rage one moment, then bows and scrapes to try
> and be left alone to his xenophobia the next.
Well I find you a ignorant, irratating snot at the end of my nose just waiting to be flicked off, someone who can't accept there is a problem with immigration. It's funny because when this started I had no back up, there wasn't any major debates on tv about immigration at the time. Now it seems I wasn't alone in my concern, and even now when theese concerns have been confirmed, and told right to be so, you still get people like you who just don't get it, and proberly never will.
>
>
> Well, if that's the case then how come you're getting so worked up
> when you don't know the true figures?
You didn't answer the question!
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about; you want the figures
> available to back up your side of the story, but you're so quick to
> exclaim "ah, but they're not complete" when they
> (frequently) prove you wrong (due almost entirely to your not reading
> the report in it's entirety).
But it's known the figures i'm talking about are not correct isn't it?
>
>
> People need to uderstand the increase of life span nowdays compared
> to when the pension system first come into play, sure it's not
> going
> to be popular, but it's a fact that needs to be taken into account.
> It's called changing with the times, and to be honest nobody is that
> keen on change.
>
> Ri-ight. And I suppose you've read about all the trouble that this
> proposed pension increase is causing, yes? You show an almost
> touching naivety about politics kevstar; you seem to think that, just
> as Labour are trying to prove how nasty they can be to immigrants in
> order to win votes, they're going to do something that will lose them
> the majority of the age group most likely to vote.
Well they can start by giving them the chance to choose, i'll bet my life you'll get some people who would do that.
>
>
>
> If no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a
> bad thing for both the country and the immigrants, then why won't
> you
> accept that changes need to be made, just like the ones propossed?
>
> Two reasons;
>
> - Because you've not actually explained what any of the changes are,
> and whether or not they apply to illegal immigrants or economic
> immigrants
> - You've only just started to claim "Oh, I was always talking
> about illegal immigrants", when just last week you were
> continually trying to lump them both in together.
You know fine well what the proposals are, you don't need me to tell you, i've provided enough links.
>
> Plus this is the most appalling attempt to try and salvage some sort
> of dignity in a debate you've utterly humiliated yourself in that
> I've ever seen.
Haa,haa, it's funny because i've been saying the same thing all along, so I don't see how i'm trying to salvage dignity, i've kept that by sticking to my guns.
>
>
> One thing it does say in the report that you missed when taking
> about
> the conclusion of immigrants, it states that the high earning
> immigrants are more or less covering the low end of immigrants, so
> in
> other words if you had 3 immigrants on benefits, the one immigrant
> on
> high earnings will cover thoose other 3 on benefits. So all in all,
> it still means there making a net contribution, does that mean its
> working? I would dissagree. Look, I do (believe it or not) think
> immigration is good for our economy, no doubt, but it shows the
> system has potentual flaws which need to be adressed.
>
> Well...yes, it does. Because you see, net gain means that even after
> we take off all the losses of the immigrants being virtually
> enslaved, the nation makes money. Do you understand that kevstar? Do
> you know what "net profit" means, or do you think it's
> something involving fishermen?
So that makes it alright for the other 3 on benefits does it just cos there making a net profit, really? You idiot. How much money do you think we would make if they were at work?
>
> You're also forgetting that the report you linked to in order to try
> and prove yourself correct stated that immigrants who are at the
> lower end of the earning scale and who do cost the state money are of
> a benefit to the country (presumably because they do the appalling,
> morale sapping, demeaning jobs that, in an ideal world, bigots like
> you would have to do).
That may be because the British people don't want to work for low rate wages, do you not think that may have something to do with it?
>
>
> Mwahahahahaaaaa! A desperate attempt to defend the 'news' in the Sun?
> And a staunch defence of the News of the World? Yeah, if it's in
> those papers it must be true eh? And they definitely wouldn't
> report it in a sensationalist, self-aggrandising manner eh?
> Wow..."it actually happened". I would love to live in your
> world; you seem so much happier in your pig-ignorance.
>
> Oh, and my dear boy; I gave you one link from the Guardian. And a
> number of others from various different sources. Because, you see, we
> people in the thinking world like to gather as much info and evidence
> as possible. Rather than just believing whatever Rupert Murdoch has
> decided he wants the pleb scum to believe in any given week. So yeah, I
> would call myself a hypocrite. In fact, I'd call the fact that
> you're trying to now slate the Guardian for no reason other than I
> linked to it as further proof (as if any were needed) that I'm
> infinitely not better than you in every conceivable way.
Yeahh, and the different sources from which figures are dodgy, like the Beverly hughes figures which were doctored.
>
> Heh. Answered your point? By pointing out that you instantly agree
> with a man you've pilloried as a liar for no reason other than he's
> saying what you want to hear?
Well I don't see any reason for him to lie on this. Don't you think if they were no problems, then he would be able to proove how well it's working?
>
> And to me, it's like he's trying to ensure that he doesn't lose
> votes. After all, thanks to the Sun and the Mail, damn near every
> prole in the country thinks that little brown men are coming into
> this country with the express purpose of stealing your job.
No but they are concerned about the numbers.
And the
> Tories have, unsurprisingly, tried to make political capital out of
> it. What political leader wants to see his parties votes going from
> his party to the other?
They woudn't, not if he could prove that immigration hasn't got any problems, but he can't, cos he knows theres problems just like everybody else whoe voted in the polls.
>
> You don't agree with the figures? No, you never seem to agree with
> any figures unless they're ones that you've selectively quoted.
> That's why I'm calling you a bigot; you refuse to accept that any
> figures that disagree with you are accurate, whilst you slavishly
> quote ones that you feel support your case.
You keep going on about me selectively quoting figures, more like showing where the potentual problems are.
>
> Incidentally, that's mighty egotistical of you to say that Tony Blair
> was admitting something to you personally. Do the voices often talk
> to you, or is that just a side effect of your condition?
>
>
> What a confused, barely literate ramble that was. Sounds like you're
> trying to say too many words at once, and all that comes out is
> "muuuuhhh". So lets see....so that's a desperate scramble
> to backpeddle away from quota's because "the changes are now
> good enough"? But kevstar...you don't actually even know what
> the system is now.
I know the flaws in the system which as I said before, is enough to know what the problems are. And I know the proposals which could come into place is aimed at thoose very problems.
So how do you know how the changes would affect
> it?
Well the changes in place explain how it will affect it.
And if it's a shameless attempt to get votes, and you supposedly
> don't trust Blair, how do you know that these changes will actually
> be brought in?
Well I think he will bring them in because he knows there is a problem and wants the problems sorted.
>
> I'd agree entirely with you about the whole "not knowing the
> numbers" spiel were it not for one simple fact; the numbers are
> collated, and then wonderfully bigoted people such as Kilroy, Michael
> Howard, The Sun, you...they all try and report the figures as
> selectively as possible in order to make us all
> "concerned". Then, well meaning mungwits such as Charles
> Kennedy, the Guardian, anyone who's ever bought Socialist
> Worker...they report the figures equally as selectively in order to
> convince us that there are no fears necessary.
But how can you say this rubbish if they dont have accurate figures? Thats why the systems dodgy, even if you report the figures selectively, the fact they don't know how many are coming in is enough to say theres a problem, no doubt about it.
>
> Neither group just cuts to the quick and says "these are the
> figures". And when someone does,
> bigots like you squeal
> "That's rubbish and you're wrong
So your saying that the figures are right is that correct? If it is your a joke.
Your joking in asking me to explain the immigration system without using a link, how big do you want the post to be? Now if you ask me to tell you the points I think is wrong about the system I will, but if you think i'm going to sit here for hours to write about a system which is in a link on here already, you must be stupid.
>
> Mind you, all that said, a grudging admission that immigrants are
> vital is something I didn't expect from you and is better than no
> admission at all.
How is this, i've said it from the first few posts I done about this topic.
>
> So it's not your job to find a solution,
No it's not
it's your job to say
> "Even though I have no evidence to support my view, I know I'm
> right and this situation is a disgrace and someone must do
> something!" (ever notice how annoying little curtain-twitchers
> like you who say "someone must do something!" never follow
> up with "and that someone is me"? Whining little
> cowards...).
And there is evidence, everyone knows they don't know the right figures cos they've admited it themselves.
>
> Again, I would completely agree with you if it weren't for one thing;
> whenever figures or reports have been given to you to prove the lack
> of truth in what you're saying, you've either refused point blank to
> read them, or you've said "rubbish, you're wrong" and
> offered nothing in rebuttal yourself. Over the last two weeks, you've
> proven time and time again that you're incredibly suspicious of
> anything that indicates immigration is a positive, yet you're happy
> to crow about figures that even hints at immigration being a bad
> thing. My God, you even tried to claim that it was impossible to say
> immigration was a good thing cos there were no accurate figures, but
> it was perfectly possible to say that it was a bad thing because you
> have "concerns".
The fact is no one denies that immigration is good, even the most racist people would agree, but it's controlled immigration thats needed, and as I keep saying unaccurate figures does not go with controlled immigration.
>
> I have to be honest kevstar; I find you to be a repellant little
> coward who squeals with rage one moment, then bows and scrapes to try
> and be left alone to his xenophobia the next.
Well I find you a ignorant, irratating snot at the end of my nose just waiting to be flicked off, someone who can't accept there is a problem with immigration. It's funny because when this started I had no back up, there wasn't any major debates on tv about immigration at the time. Now it seems I wasn't alone in my concern, and even now when theese concerns have been confirmed, and told right to be so, you still get people like you who just don't get it, and proberly never will.
>
>
> Well, if that's the case then how come you're getting so worked up
> when you don't know the true figures?
You didn't answer the question!
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about; you want the figures
> available to back up your side of the story, but you're so quick to
> exclaim "ah, but they're not complete" when they
> (frequently) prove you wrong (due almost entirely to your not reading
> the report in it's entirety).
But it's known the figures i'm talking about are not correct isn't it?
>
>
> People need to uderstand the increase of life span nowdays compared
> to when the pension system first come into play, sure it's not
> going
> to be popular, but it's a fact that needs to be taken into account.
> It's called changing with the times, and to be honest nobody is that
> keen on change.
>
> Ri-ight. And I suppose you've read about all the trouble that this
> proposed pension increase is causing, yes? You show an almost
> touching naivety about politics kevstar; you seem to think that, just
> as Labour are trying to prove how nasty they can be to immigrants in
> order to win votes, they're going to do something that will lose them
> the majority of the age group most likely to vote.
Well they can start by giving them the chance to choose, i'll bet my life you'll get some people who would do that.
>
>
>
> If no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a
> bad thing for both the country and the immigrants, then why won't
> you
> accept that changes need to be made, just like the ones propossed?
>
> Two reasons;
>
> - Because you've not actually explained what any of the changes are,
> and whether or not they apply to illegal immigrants or economic
> immigrants
> - You've only just started to claim "Oh, I was always talking
> about illegal immigrants", when just last week you were
> continually trying to lump them both in together.
You know fine well what the proposals are, you don't need me to tell you, i've provided enough links.
>
> Plus this is the most appalling attempt to try and salvage some sort
> of dignity in a debate you've utterly humiliated yourself in that
> I've ever seen.
Haa,haa, it's funny because i've been saying the same thing all along, so I don't see how i'm trying to salvage dignity, i've kept that by sticking to my guns.
>
>
> One thing it does say in the report that you missed when taking
> about
> the conclusion of immigrants, it states that the high earning
> immigrants are more or less covering the low end of immigrants, so
> in
> other words if you had 3 immigrants on benefits, the one immigrant
> on
> high earnings will cover thoose other 3 on benefits. So all in all,
> it still means there making a net contribution, does that mean its
> working? I would dissagree. Look, I do (believe it or not) think
> immigration is good for our economy, no doubt, but it shows the
> system has potentual flaws which need to be adressed.
>
> Well...yes, it does. Because you see, net gain means that even after
> we take off all the losses of the immigrants being virtually
> enslaved, the nation makes money. Do you understand that kevstar? Do
> you know what "net profit" means, or do you think it's
> something involving fishermen?
So that makes it alright for the other 3 on benefits does it just cos there making a net profit, really? You idiot. How much money do you think we would make if they were at work?
>
> You're also forgetting that the report you linked to in order to try
> and prove yourself correct stated that immigrants who are at the
> lower end of the earning scale and who do cost the state money are of
> a benefit to the country (presumably because they do the appalling,
> morale sapping, demeaning jobs that, in an ideal world, bigots like
> you would have to do).
That may be because the British people don't want to work for low rate wages, do you not think that may have something to do with it?
>
>
> Mwahahahahaaaaa! A desperate attempt to defend the 'news' in the Sun?
> And a staunch defence of the News of the World? Yeah, if it's in
> those papers it must be true eh? And they definitely wouldn't
> report it in a sensationalist, self-aggrandising manner eh?
> Wow..."it actually happened". I would love to live in your
> world; you seem so much happier in your pig-ignorance.
>
> Oh, and my dear boy; I gave you one link from the Guardian. And a
> number of others from various different sources. Because, you see, we
> people in the thinking world like to gather as much info and evidence
> as possible. Rather than just believing whatever Rupert Murdoch has
> decided he wants the pleb scum to believe in any given week. So yeah, I
> would call myself a hypocrite. In fact, I'd call the fact that
> you're trying to now slate the Guardian for no reason other than I
> linked to it as further proof (as if any were needed) that I'm
> infinitely not better than you in every conceivable way.
Yeahh, and the different sources from which figures are dodgy, like the Beverly hughes figures which were doctored.
kevstar wrote:
> Is it, no, as I mentioned in earlier posts, how can't there be a risk
> when they don't know how many people is coming in? This is what you
> and others don't seem to take in, it's impossible for them to
> say "theres no risk to public services" or anyone else for
> that matter when they don't know what the correct numbers are.
...but it's entirely possible for you to say "they're stretching our services!", right?
> Is it, no, as I mentioned in earlier posts, how can't there be a risk
> when they don't know how many people is coming in? This is what you
> and others don't seem to take in, it's impossible for them to
> say "theres no risk to public services" or anyone else for
> that matter when they don't know what the correct numbers are.
...but it's entirely possible for you to say "they're stretching our services!", right?
kevstar wrote:
> Thank you, you've just answered my point. The fact is your right in a
> way, my point with Tony Blair is that I don't believe the figures
> he's quoting (in fact i'm certain there not) are accurate, which is
> why, when he goes on TV and admits that i'm correct to be worried. To
> me, it's like he's admitting to something that he knows there's a
> problem.
Heh. Answered your point? By pointing out that you instantly agree with a man you've pilloried as a liar for no reason other than he's saying what you want to hear?
And to me, it's like he's trying to ensure that he doesn't lose votes. After all, thanks to the Sun and the Mail, damn near every prole in the country thinks that little brown men are coming into this country with the express purpose of stealing your job. And the Tories have, unsurprisingly, tried to make political capital out of it. What political leader wants to see his parties votes going from his party to the other?
You don't agree with the figures? No, you never seem to agree with any figures unless they're ones that you've selectively quoted. That's why I'm calling you a bigot; you refuse to accept that any figures that disagree with you are accurate, whilst you slavishly quote ones that you feel support your case.
Incidentally, that's mighty egotistical of you to say that Tony Blair was admitting something to you personally. Do the voices often talk to you, or is that just a side effect of your condition?
>
>
> Your point about a quota which has been rejected, I do agree, why,
> well to be honest I think the proposed changes are now good enough
> without the need of quotas, something which at first seemed
> impossible. I do find it is a shamless attempt to get votes, however
> it's still a issue that needs to be adressed. And I will always say
> that any system (immigration or not) has problems if they don't know
> the correct numbers coming in. It's like a shop, if you had goods
> coming in, but didn't know the total ammount coming in, sooner or
> later your going to have to many which will always cause problems.
What a confused, barely literate ramble that was. Sounds like you're trying to say too many words at once, and all that comes out is "muuuuhhh". So lets see....so that's a desperate scramble to backpeddle away from quota's because "the changes are now good enough"? But kevstar...you don't actually even know what the system is now. So how do you know how the changes would affect it? And if it's a shameless attempt to get votes, and you supposedly don't trust Blair, how do you know that these changes will actually be brought in?
I'd agree entirely with you about the whole "not knowing the numbers" spiel were it not for one simple fact; the numbers are collated, and then wonderfully bigoted people such as Kilroy, Michael Howard, The Sun, you...they all try and report the figures as selectively as possible in order to make us all "concerned". Then, well meaning mungwits such as Charles Kennedy, the Guardian, anyone who's ever bought Socialist Worker...they report the figures equally as selectively in order to convince us that there are no fears necessary.
Neither group just cuts to the quick and says "these are the figures". And when someone does, bigots like you squeal "That's rubbish and you're wrong and pandaemoanalot is telling you to say that and I said poo heheheheheheee"
>
>
> I do see a point in having a debate on immigration, mainly to show
> how inaccurate the figures are for the amount coming in. I do accept
> (something which you seem to think I don't agree with) that there is
> a need for migrants, and the better qualified the better for the
> economy, and yes before you start, I also see some need for
> un-skilled workers. What I don't see a need for, is the potentual to
> damage our economy and services with a system that lacks control.
And like I continually ask you; explain our system. Not "post a link to a document about immigration". Not "wail I've already told you and anyway I hate you you are horrid". Explain to me, in your own words, what our current immigration system actually is. Because to me, this sounds like the desperate backpeddling of someone who doesn't want to admit in any way that his precious prejudice is nothing more than ill-informed cockwittery.
Mind you, all that said, a grudging admission that immigrants are vital is something I didn't expect from you and is better than no admission at all. I'd still like you to explain how the system works in your own words though.
>
>
> It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for
> immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system, it's not
> my job to come up with ways to solve the problem (thats Mr Clarks job
> init), but more to raise my concerns. Look i'm not saying I have all
> the solutions, but I do have a mind of my own, a mind what thinks
> when you hear the problems such as "no known figures on people
> coming in", then I have a right to say what I think without
> bieng racist as I find it a problem that needs resolved.
So it's not your job to find a solution, it's your job to say "Even though I have no evidence to support my view, I know I'm right and this situation is a disgrace and someone must do something!" (ever notice how annoying little curtain-twitchers like you who say "someone must do something!" never follow up with "and that someone is me"? Whining little cowards...).
Again, I would completely agree with you if it weren't for one thing; whenever figures or reports have been given to you to prove the lack of truth in what you're saying, you've either refused point blank to read them, or you've said "rubbish, you're wrong" and offered nothing in rebuttal yourself. Over the last two weeks, you've proven time and time again that you're incredibly suspicious of anything that indicates immigration is a positive, yet you're happy to crow about figures that even hints at immigration being a bad thing. My God, you even tried to claim that it was impossible to say immigration was a good thing cos there were no accurate figures, but it was perfectly possible to say that it was a bad thing because you have "concerns".
I have to be honest kevstar; I find you to be a repellant little coward who squeals with rage one moment, then bows and scrapes to try and be left alone to his xenophobia the next.
>
>
> The paragragh you provided, how can they come out and say this if
> they don't know the true figures? There going off figures that are
> incomplete, not including and illegals, i'm not even sure if it takes
> account of the mass increase of immigration numbers under labour, do
> you?
Well, if that's the case then how come you're getting so worked up when you don't know the true figures?
This is exactly what I'm talking about; you want the figures available to back up your side of the story, but you're so quick to exclaim "ah, but they're not complete" when they (frequently) prove you wrong (due almost entirely to your not reading the report in it's entirety).
>
> People need to uderstand the increase of life span nowdays compared
> to when the pension system first come into play, sure it's not going
> to be popular, but it's a fact that needs to be taken into account.
> It's called changing with the times, and to be honest nobody is that
> keen on change.
Ri-ight. And I suppose you've read about all the trouble that this proposed pension increase is causing, yes? You show an almost touching naivety about politics kevstar; you seem to think that, just as Labour are trying to prove how nasty they can be to immigrants in order to win votes, they're going to do something that will lose them the majority of the age group most likely to vote.
>
>
> If no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a
> bad thing for both the country and the immigrants, then why won't you
> accept that changes need to be made, just like the ones propossed?
Two reasons;
- Because you've not actually explained what any of the changes are, and whether or not they apply to illegal immigrants or economic immigrants
- You've only just started to claim "Oh, I was always talking about illegal immigrants", when just last week you were continually trying to lump them both in together.
Plus this is the most appalling attempt to try and salvage some sort of dignity in a debate you've utterly humiliated yourself in that I've ever seen.
>
>
> One thing it does say in the report that you missed when taking about
> the conclusion of immigrants, it states that the high earning
> immigrants are more or less covering the low end of immigrants, so in
> other words if you had 3 immigrants on benefits, the one immigrant on
> high earnings will cover thoose other 3 on benefits. So all in all,
> it still means there making a net contribution, does that mean its
> working? I would dissagree. Look, I do (believe it or not) think
> immigration is good for our economy, no doubt, but it shows the
> system has potentual flaws which need to be adressed.
Well...yes, it does. Because you see, net gain means that even after we take off all the losses of the immigrants being virtually enslaved, the nation makes money. Do you understand that kevstar? Do you know what "net profit" means, or do you think it's something involving fishermen?
You're also forgetting that the report you linked to in order to try and prove yourself correct stated that immigrants who are at the lower end of the earning scale and who do cost the state money are of a benefit to the country (presumably because they do the appalling, morale sapping, demeaning jobs that, in an ideal world, bigots like you would have to do).
> Rubbish, the poll in the Sun was asking do you think Britain should
> have tighter controls over immigration, not should we throw them out.
> As for the News of the World, well it was a sting, a undercover
> opperation, you know the person involved got caught and all evidence
> was handed to the police, Again this is not spin, this is something
> that actually happened. Now Light seems to think that you shouldn't
> read to much into things like that from papers such as theese
> mentioned. I say look at the paper where your getting your
> information from, the Gaurdian, it's always the same stuff, as soon
> as someone mentions "immigration has some problems in the
> system" there the first to back immigrants up, no matter how
> wrong they are. You could in fact call yourself a hypocrite wouldn't
> you agree?
Mwahahahahaaaaa! A desperate attempt to defend the 'news' in the Sun? And a staunch defence of the News of the World? Yeah, if it's in those papers it must be true eh? And they definitely wouldn't report it in a sensationalist, self-aggrandising manner eh? Wow..."it actually happened". I would love to live in your world; you seem so much happier in your pig-ignorance.
Oh, and my dear boy; I gave you one link from the Guardian. And a number of others from various different sources. Because, you see, we people in the thinking world like to gather as much info and evidence as possible. Rather than just believing whatever Rupert Murdoch has decided he wants the pleb scum to believe in any given week. So no, I wouldn't call myself a hypocrite. In fact, I'd call the fact that you're trying to now slate the Guardian for no reason other than I linked to it as further proof (as if any were needed) that I'm infinitely better than you in every conceivable way.
> Thank you, you've just answered my point. The fact is your right in a
> way, my point with Tony Blair is that I don't believe the figures
> he's quoting (in fact i'm certain there not) are accurate, which is
> why, when he goes on TV and admits that i'm correct to be worried. To
> me, it's like he's admitting to something that he knows there's a
> problem.
Heh. Answered your point? By pointing out that you instantly agree with a man you've pilloried as a liar for no reason other than he's saying what you want to hear?
And to me, it's like he's trying to ensure that he doesn't lose votes. After all, thanks to the Sun and the Mail, damn near every prole in the country thinks that little brown men are coming into this country with the express purpose of stealing your job. And the Tories have, unsurprisingly, tried to make political capital out of it. What political leader wants to see his parties votes going from his party to the other?
You don't agree with the figures? No, you never seem to agree with any figures unless they're ones that you've selectively quoted. That's why I'm calling you a bigot; you refuse to accept that any figures that disagree with you are accurate, whilst you slavishly quote ones that you feel support your case.
Incidentally, that's mighty egotistical of you to say that Tony Blair was admitting something to you personally. Do the voices often talk to you, or is that just a side effect of your condition?
>
>
> Your point about a quota which has been rejected, I do agree, why,
> well to be honest I think the proposed changes are now good enough
> without the need of quotas, something which at first seemed
> impossible. I do find it is a shamless attempt to get votes, however
> it's still a issue that needs to be adressed. And I will always say
> that any system (immigration or not) has problems if they don't know
> the correct numbers coming in. It's like a shop, if you had goods
> coming in, but didn't know the total ammount coming in, sooner or
> later your going to have to many which will always cause problems.
What a confused, barely literate ramble that was. Sounds like you're trying to say too many words at once, and all that comes out is "muuuuhhh". So lets see....so that's a desperate scramble to backpeddle away from quota's because "the changes are now good enough"? But kevstar...you don't actually even know what the system is now. So how do you know how the changes would affect it? And if it's a shameless attempt to get votes, and you supposedly don't trust Blair, how do you know that these changes will actually be brought in?
I'd agree entirely with you about the whole "not knowing the numbers" spiel were it not for one simple fact; the numbers are collated, and then wonderfully bigoted people such as Kilroy, Michael Howard, The Sun, you...they all try and report the figures as selectively as possible in order to make us all "concerned". Then, well meaning mungwits such as Charles Kennedy, the Guardian, anyone who's ever bought Socialist Worker...they report the figures equally as selectively in order to convince us that there are no fears necessary.
Neither group just cuts to the quick and says "these are the figures". And when someone does, bigots like you squeal "That's rubbish and you're wrong and pandaemoanalot is telling you to say that and I said poo heheheheheheee"
>
>
> I do see a point in having a debate on immigration, mainly to show
> how inaccurate the figures are for the amount coming in. I do accept
> (something which you seem to think I don't agree with) that there is
> a need for migrants, and the better qualified the better for the
> economy, and yes before you start, I also see some need for
> un-skilled workers. What I don't see a need for, is the potentual to
> damage our economy and services with a system that lacks control.
And like I continually ask you; explain our system. Not "post a link to a document about immigration". Not "wail I've already told you and anyway I hate you you are horrid". Explain to me, in your own words, what our current immigration system actually is. Because to me, this sounds like the desperate backpeddling of someone who doesn't want to admit in any way that his precious prejudice is nothing more than ill-informed cockwittery.
Mind you, all that said, a grudging admission that immigrants are vital is something I didn't expect from you and is better than no admission at all. I'd still like you to explain how the system works in your own words though.
>
>
> It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for
> immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system, it's not
> my job to come up with ways to solve the problem (thats Mr Clarks job
> init), but more to raise my concerns. Look i'm not saying I have all
> the solutions, but I do have a mind of my own, a mind what thinks
> when you hear the problems such as "no known figures on people
> coming in", then I have a right to say what I think without
> bieng racist as I find it a problem that needs resolved.
So it's not your job to find a solution, it's your job to say "Even though I have no evidence to support my view, I know I'm right and this situation is a disgrace and someone must do something!" (ever notice how annoying little curtain-twitchers like you who say "someone must do something!" never follow up with "and that someone is me"? Whining little cowards...).
Again, I would completely agree with you if it weren't for one thing; whenever figures or reports have been given to you to prove the lack of truth in what you're saying, you've either refused point blank to read them, or you've said "rubbish, you're wrong" and offered nothing in rebuttal yourself. Over the last two weeks, you've proven time and time again that you're incredibly suspicious of anything that indicates immigration is a positive, yet you're happy to crow about figures that even hints at immigration being a bad thing. My God, you even tried to claim that it was impossible to say immigration was a good thing cos there were no accurate figures, but it was perfectly possible to say that it was a bad thing because you have "concerns".
I have to be honest kevstar; I find you to be a repellant little coward who squeals with rage one moment, then bows and scrapes to try and be left alone to his xenophobia the next.
>
>
> The paragragh you provided, how can they come out and say this if
> they don't know the true figures? There going off figures that are
> incomplete, not including and illegals, i'm not even sure if it takes
> account of the mass increase of immigration numbers under labour, do
> you?
Well, if that's the case then how come you're getting so worked up when you don't know the true figures?
This is exactly what I'm talking about; you want the figures available to back up your side of the story, but you're so quick to exclaim "ah, but they're not complete" when they (frequently) prove you wrong (due almost entirely to your not reading the report in it's entirety).
>
> People need to uderstand the increase of life span nowdays compared
> to when the pension system first come into play, sure it's not going
> to be popular, but it's a fact that needs to be taken into account.
> It's called changing with the times, and to be honest nobody is that
> keen on change.
Ri-ight. And I suppose you've read about all the trouble that this proposed pension increase is causing, yes? You show an almost touching naivety about politics kevstar; you seem to think that, just as Labour are trying to prove how nasty they can be to immigrants in order to win votes, they're going to do something that will lose them the majority of the age group most likely to vote.
>
>
> If no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a
> bad thing for both the country and the immigrants, then why won't you
> accept that changes need to be made, just like the ones propossed?
Two reasons;
- Because you've not actually explained what any of the changes are, and whether or not they apply to illegal immigrants or economic immigrants
- You've only just started to claim "Oh, I was always talking about illegal immigrants", when just last week you were continually trying to lump them both in together.
Plus this is the most appalling attempt to try and salvage some sort of dignity in a debate you've utterly humiliated yourself in that I've ever seen.
>
>
> One thing it does say in the report that you missed when taking about
> the conclusion of immigrants, it states that the high earning
> immigrants are more or less covering the low end of immigrants, so in
> other words if you had 3 immigrants on benefits, the one immigrant on
> high earnings will cover thoose other 3 on benefits. So all in all,
> it still means there making a net contribution, does that mean its
> working? I would dissagree. Look, I do (believe it or not) think
> immigration is good for our economy, no doubt, but it shows the
> system has potentual flaws which need to be adressed.
Well...yes, it does. Because you see, net gain means that even after we take off all the losses of the immigrants being virtually enslaved, the nation makes money. Do you understand that kevstar? Do you know what "net profit" means, or do you think it's something involving fishermen?
You're also forgetting that the report you linked to in order to try and prove yourself correct stated that immigrants who are at the lower end of the earning scale and who do cost the state money are of a benefit to the country (presumably because they do the appalling, morale sapping, demeaning jobs that, in an ideal world, bigots like you would have to do).
> Rubbish, the poll in the Sun was asking do you think Britain should
> have tighter controls over immigration, not should we throw them out.
> As for the News of the World, well it was a sting, a undercover
> opperation, you know the person involved got caught and all evidence
> was handed to the police, Again this is not spin, this is something
> that actually happened. Now Light seems to think that you shouldn't
> read to much into things like that from papers such as theese
> mentioned. I say look at the paper where your getting your
> information from, the Gaurdian, it's always the same stuff, as soon
> as someone mentions "immigration has some problems in the
> system" there the first to back immigrants up, no matter how
> wrong they are. You could in fact call yourself a hypocrite wouldn't
> you agree?
Mwahahahahaaaaa! A desperate attempt to defend the 'news' in the Sun? And a staunch defence of the News of the World? Yeah, if it's in those papers it must be true eh? And they definitely wouldn't report it in a sensationalist, self-aggrandising manner eh? Wow..."it actually happened". I would love to live in your world; you seem so much happier in your pig-ignorance.
Oh, and my dear boy; I gave you one link from the Guardian. And a number of others from various different sources. Because, you see, we people in the thinking world like to gather as much info and evidence as possible. Rather than just believing whatever Rupert Murdoch has decided he wants the pleb scum to believe in any given week. So no, I wouldn't call myself a hypocrite. In fact, I'd call the fact that you're trying to now slate the Guardian for no reason other than I linked to it as further proof (as if any were needed) that I'm infinitely better than you in every conceivable way.
gerrid wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for
> immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system,
>
> But you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the
> system. How exactly can you see holes in a system you don't
> understand?
>
> I know - it's because they MUST be abusing it, isn't it?
Isn't it not more like, I said I didn't know all of the system not the full system, see how you twist things. I do know whats wrong with the system which is all I need to know.
>
> And kevstar you're still being incredibly stupid. This argument
> wasn't about illegal immigrants. You can't put a quota on illegal
> immigrants. That's not what you were arguing about.
Well i'm not just talking about illegal immigrants am I, have you actually listned to anything i've said or has it just went out the other ear, cos I think theres nothing in between there for you to take in. My argument is all about uncontrolled immigration; the flaws in the system, the fact that you get Clarke and Blair saying that they did not know how many immigrants or failed asylum seekers were living illegally in Britain. If anyone says thats not a flaw, then they really are stupid, arn't they?
>
> You said that we should let in less immigrants because they are
> stretching our services and everyone else said actually no they
> aren't. That's it. That's the end. Give it up.
Is it, no, as I mentioned in earlier posts, how can't there be a risk when they don't know how many people is coming in? This is what you and others don't seem to take in, it's impossible for them to say "theres no risk to public services" or anyone else for that matter when they don't know what the correct numbers are.
> kevstar wrote:
> It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for
> immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system,
>
> But you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the
> system. How exactly can you see holes in a system you don't
> understand?
>
> I know - it's because they MUST be abusing it, isn't it?
Isn't it not more like, I said I didn't know all of the system not the full system, see how you twist things. I do know whats wrong with the system which is all I need to know.
>
> And kevstar you're still being incredibly stupid. This argument
> wasn't about illegal immigrants. You can't put a quota on illegal
> immigrants. That's not what you were arguing about.
Well i'm not just talking about illegal immigrants am I, have you actually listned to anything i've said or has it just went out the other ear, cos I think theres nothing in between there for you to take in. My argument is all about uncontrolled immigration; the flaws in the system, the fact that you get Clarke and Blair saying that they did not know how many immigrants or failed asylum seekers were living illegally in Britain. If anyone says thats not a flaw, then they really are stupid, arn't they?
>
> You said that we should let in less immigrants because they are
> stretching our services and everyone else said actually no they
> aren't. That's it. That's the end. Give it up.
Is it, no, as I mentioned in earlier posts, how can't there be a risk when they don't know how many people is coming in? This is what you and others don't seem to take in, it's impossible for them to say "theres no risk to public services" or anyone else for that matter when they don't know what the correct numbers are.
Page: