The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light, he's obviously gone out and asked every member of the British public, as well as all those asylum seekers abroad - that's how he possesses these startling facts. The dick-eye.
kevstar wrote:
>
> Says the majority of the public including myself. If you take every
> person who wants to come to Britain, add the amount of Asylum seekers
> and the Illegal immigrants, it's obvious we don't have the space to
> do it, or the services to cope with the influx. I don't have a
> problem with immigration as such, but what the goverment is doing is
> stretching our already stretched services, to the point of a
> breakdown. We can't take them all.
And just what exactly are you and the majority of the public basing that on? Scaremongering? Being constantly told "There are too many of 'them' and we want them out"? What are you basing this opinion on? Have you any evidence to back it up?
If it's obvious we don't have the space to do it, how come the country has singularly failed to collapse in a broken heap? Looking around me, I'm not really seeing an overcrowding problem.
Services to cope with an influx? Well no, we don't have very good services. 2 or 3 decades of successive governments failing to fund public services will tend to do that. Amazing how the immigration scapegoat is used rather than making a commitment to actually increase taxes to fund public services, innit?
More to the point, bearing in mind that immigrants come here to work, and thus improve our economy, wouldn't you say there's a case to be made for saying that we need more of them? After all, we're losing skilled people to overseas markets at a frightening rate.
We can't take them all? But we don't take them all. Tell me, do you have any idea how many people are refused immigration, or do you imagine that anyone who turns up is accepted?
>
>
> Plus, as icarus says, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many
> refugees if the western world didn't do such a good job of keeping
> the developing world in a state of poverty.
>
> This I totally agree with, but thats a different matter.
How is it different? What, should people just stay where they are and live in poverty? Why on earth do you think they want to emigrate here anyway?
>
> Says the majority of the public including myself. If you take every
> person who wants to come to Britain, add the amount of Asylum seekers
> and the Illegal immigrants, it's obvious we don't have the space to
> do it, or the services to cope with the influx. I don't have a
> problem with immigration as such, but what the goverment is doing is
> stretching our already stretched services, to the point of a
> breakdown. We can't take them all.
And just what exactly are you and the majority of the public basing that on? Scaremongering? Being constantly told "There are too many of 'them' and we want them out"? What are you basing this opinion on? Have you any evidence to back it up?
If it's obvious we don't have the space to do it, how come the country has singularly failed to collapse in a broken heap? Looking around me, I'm not really seeing an overcrowding problem.
Services to cope with an influx? Well no, we don't have very good services. 2 or 3 decades of successive governments failing to fund public services will tend to do that. Amazing how the immigration scapegoat is used rather than making a commitment to actually increase taxes to fund public services, innit?
More to the point, bearing in mind that immigrants come here to work, and thus improve our economy, wouldn't you say there's a case to be made for saying that we need more of them? After all, we're losing skilled people to overseas markets at a frightening rate.
We can't take them all? But we don't take them all. Tell me, do you have any idea how many people are refused immigration, or do you imagine that anyone who turns up is accepted?
>
>
> Plus, as icarus says, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many
> refugees if the western world didn't do such a good job of keeping
> the developing world in a state of poverty.
>
> This I totally agree with, but thats a different matter.
How is it different? What, should people just stay where they are and live in poverty? Why on earth do you think they want to emigrate here anyway?
Light wrote:
>
> Says who? Don't get me wrong; I think the issue needs to be discussed
> because the only thing certain about it is that there is no objective
> information about it. Yet people still feel qualified to say that
> this country cannot possibly take in refugees (even though you don't
> actually know how many we do take in).
Says the majority of the public including myself. If you take every person who wants to come to Britain, add the amount of Asylum seekers and the Illegal immigrants, it's obvious we don't have the space to do it, or the services to cope with the influx. I don't have a problem with immigration as such, but what the goverment is doing is stretching our already stretched services, to the point of a breakdown. We can't take them all.
> Plus, as icarus says, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many
> refugees if the western world didn't do such a good job of keeping
> the developing world in a state of poverty.
This I totally agree with, but thats a different matter.
>
> Says who? Don't get me wrong; I think the issue needs to be discussed
> because the only thing certain about it is that there is no objective
> information about it. Yet people still feel qualified to say that
> this country cannot possibly take in refugees (even though you don't
> actually know how many we do take in).
Says the majority of the public including myself. If you take every person who wants to come to Britain, add the amount of Asylum seekers and the Illegal immigrants, it's obvious we don't have the space to do it, or the services to cope with the influx. I don't have a problem with immigration as such, but what the goverment is doing is stretching our already stretched services, to the point of a breakdown. We can't take them all.
> Plus, as icarus says, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many
> refugees if the western world didn't do such a good job of keeping
> the developing world in a state of poverty.
This I totally agree with, but thats a different matter.
Hedfix wrote:
> I'm guessing his
> slogan will be "You have to decide whether to share or
> shaft"
A perfect description of pro vs anti immigration stances really...
> I'm guessing his
> slogan will be "You have to decide whether to share or
> shaft"
A perfect description of pro vs anti immigration stances really...
Lucky for the world racist chavs can waste their vote on UKIP (I think), BNP or Conservatives. Effectively dividing their number into 3, I'm all for free speech apart from when it's uneducated racist BS.
and if Kilroy gets enough money there'll be a 4. I'm guessing his slogan will be "You have to decide whether to share or shaft"
and if Kilroy gets enough money there'll be a 4. I'm guessing his slogan will be "You have to decide whether to share or shaft"
kevstar wrote:
> I still get the feeling that something still needs to be done to
> reduce the flow of immigrants coming into our country. The fact is,
> there's no way a Country of our size could or should take every
> person who wants to come here.
Says who? Don't get me wrong; I think the issue needs to be discussed because the only thing certain about it is that there is no objective information about it. Yet people still feel qualified to say that this country cannot possibly take in refugees (even though you don't actually know how many we do take in).
Plus, as icarus says, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many refugees if the western world didn't do such a good job of keeping the developing world in a state of poverty.
> I still get the feeling that something still needs to be done to
> reduce the flow of immigrants coming into our country. The fact is,
> there's no way a Country of our size could or should take every
> person who wants to come here.
Says who? Don't get me wrong; I think the issue needs to be discussed because the only thing certain about it is that there is no objective information about it. Yet people still feel qualified to say that this country cannot possibly take in refugees (even though you don't actually know how many we do take in).
Plus, as icarus says, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many refugees if the western world didn't do such a good job of keeping the developing world in a state of poverty.
Maybe they'd be more inclined to stay in their country if we didn't blow up their homes a few months ago, eh?
I still get the feeling that something still needs to be done to reduce the flow of immigrants coming into our country. The fact is, there's no way a Country of our size could or should take every person who wants to come here. Now, I don't know the best way to limit them without sounding racist, but what I do know, is that it needs to be done.
The Confederate wrote:
> ok, I might be a bit paranoid, but there is nothing wrong with being
> prepared. And teaching history would be good. I dont think that it
> would be a bad idea, as my political views would not be shown in the
> classroom
How is working yourself up into a frenzy about foreigners the same as "being prepared"?
> ok, I might be a bit paranoid, but there is nothing wrong with being
> prepared. And teaching history would be good. I dont think that it
> would be a bad idea, as my political views would not be shown in the
> classroom
How is working yourself up into a frenzy about foreigners the same as "being prepared"?
I personnally don't see whats wrong with immigrants. they do the stuff i don't want to.
Plus if they screw up we can revoke their visa'a or somthing and send them packing. nice and easy.
But what confederate is saying about the "terrorists" released by America is so wrong. they were not charged, they were allegedly tortured to confess to terrorist acts they were going to do. and I quote from a newpaper i was reading at the dentists one of them " confesses to planning to blow up the houses of parliament in a suicide mission" this terrorist happened to have 4 kids and a wife, do you think he really would of killed himself.
Also think of what having your father locked up for no good reason was like for his kids. the only reason they were detained (and held in solitary confinement) I can discern was that they were wandering aroung Afghanistan at the wrong when the Americans started bombing it into the ground.
And now they are going to be under house arrest or something and followed by the security services for the rest of their lives. Thats if they are not assasinated by some jumped up CIA agent or something.
One peice of good news though, thy are apparently sueing America for £22 million. Good on you. Fight the capatalist dogs. just not us OK
The Confederate Wrote:
> evil things
I titter. so cliched
Plus if they screw up we can revoke their visa'a or somthing and send them packing. nice and easy.
But what confederate is saying about the "terrorists" released by America is so wrong. they were not charged, they were allegedly tortured to confess to terrorist acts they were going to do. and I quote from a newpaper i was reading at the dentists one of them " confesses to planning to blow up the houses of parliament in a suicide mission" this terrorist happened to have 4 kids and a wife, do you think he really would of killed himself.
Also think of what having your father locked up for no good reason was like for his kids. the only reason they were detained (and held in solitary confinement) I can discern was that they were wandering aroung Afghanistan at the wrong when the Americans started bombing it into the ground.
And now they are going to be under house arrest or something and followed by the security services for the rest of their lives. Thats if they are not assasinated by some jumped up CIA agent or something.
One peice of good news though, thy are apparently sueing America for £22 million. Good on you. Fight the capatalist dogs. just not us OK
The Confederate Wrote:
> evil things
I titter. so cliched
Page: