The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was reading in New Statesman Magazine... The recon that nearly 1/3 of the White British Population in the next General Election will vote either BNP or UKIP, as they believe that New Labour have given very little to the British People... instead more money goes to imigrants. Even today those 4 terrorists are being allowed back into the UK.. SCREW THAT... should have left them at Cuba. I'm not a facist, but I can see their point about controlling imigration, you have not got the slightest clue who the hell the people are coming in; they might bomb a school (like what happened in Russia), or commit acts of evil things against the British citizens.
Page:
kevstar wrote:
>
> 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, 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.
See, I think immigration does need to be properly discussed because at the moment, any and all problems in the UK are instantly blamed on the darker hued people from abroad. I'm *&(%ing sick of reading "I'm not racist, but...(insert hugely ill informed statement that has it's roots in a vague discomfort at the increasing number of non-white faces in the crowd)" from people who should either know better, or should actually think about why they possess the prejudices they do.
And, of course, if there is proper discussion, we might find that the current level of immigration is causing more problems than it resolves. In which case, something can be done with the background of having factual evidence about the situation, rather than on the basis of "Bloke down the pub says there's too many goddamn brownfaces".
And, of course, if there is proper discussion, we might find that the current level of immigration is causing more problems than it resolves. In which case, something can be done with the background of having factual evidence about the situation, rather than on the basis of "Bloke down the pub says there's too many goddamn brownfaces".
It's because when people think of immigration, they immediately think of illgal immigration, becaus that's all the news reports. Daily Mail reports that there has been a 10% increase in illegal immigration so everyone says "IMMIGRANTS OUT! But I'm not racist".
You throw out all the immigrants, or stop any new ones come in, and see how our country collapses then. Because without immigration it WOULD collapse. White middle class families (not the immigrants) are increasingly having less and less children, so without immigration we'll end up with 2x as many OAPs as working people. You can't run a top heavy country efficiently, and you build up massive debts trying to support all the old people.
You throw out all the immigrants, or stop any new ones come in, and see how our country collapses then. Because without immigration it WOULD collapse. White middle class families (not the immigrants) are increasingly having less and less children, so without immigration we'll end up with 2x as many OAPs as working people. You can't run a top heavy country efficiently, and you build up massive debts trying to support all the old people.
And a for terrorism, if terrorists wanted to blow up London, or wherever you live, they could, easily. MI5 isn't that good, it doesn't stop all terrorism. Why do you think that there hasn't been a major UK attack yet? If the UK is so rife with terrorists, why hasn't anything happened yet?
If you don't care if you die: There's very little anyone can do to stop you. You can make a variety of lethal/harmful explosives, liquids and gases from products found in any supermarket.
Light wrote:
> See, I think immigration does need to be properly discussed because at
> the moment, any and all problems in the UK are instantly blamed on
> the darker hued people from abroad. I'm *&(%ing sick of reading
> "I'm not racist, but...(insert hugely ill informed statement
> that has it's roots in a vague discomfort at the increasing number of
> non-white faces in the crowd)" from people who should either
> know better, or should actually think about why they possess the
> prejudices they do.
>
> And, of course, if there is proper discussion, we might find that the
> current level of immigration is causing more problems than it
> resolves. In which case, something can be done with the background of
> having factual evidence about the situation, rather than on the basis
> of "Bloke down the pub says there's too many goddamn
> brownfaces".
Exactly. That's exactly what I think.
I laugh, because people automaticaly talk about 'over crowding' and this somehow disregards the UK 'White kid birthrate' which of course, just makes people who are invisible, made of air and never eat anything.
As for The Confederate, the more I've seen of him, the more I've come to pity the poor child. 'One thing I've learned from history, it's to prevent problems' - and yet, he evidently hasn't picked up one bit of analytical skill in terms of deciphering arguments - rather he just picks the ones that say 'TERROR ALERT' and uses them. And then somehow links them to immigration and decides that actually, we really are in danger. Because the press told him so. And consequently, anyone who disagrees is a lefty wimp. Has he been working in Mark Steyn's office?!!
+
What Gerrid and Hedfix said.
Isn't it a hideous paradox, this mentality? As Hedfix said, it's relatively easy to cause havoc with very little complicated equipment. Hell, I could take a knife, swear my life to Allah/God/Satan/My First PlayGod and be called an Islamic/Christian/Satanic/religious extremist after I kill some people - not difficult to do, if a little against character ;)
Yet, we're told it's so dangerous, so so possible that we must be scared. -and at the same time, it's evidently 'so easy' for terrorists to come in, that we must be close to 'meltdown Britain', to 'Terror Atrocities'. And yet the reality is very little has changed at all.
> See, I think immigration does need to be properly discussed because at
> the moment, any and all problems in the UK are instantly blamed on
> the darker hued people from abroad. I'm *&(%ing sick of reading
> "I'm not racist, but...(insert hugely ill informed statement
> that has it's roots in a vague discomfort at the increasing number of
> non-white faces in the crowd)" from people who should either
> know better, or should actually think about why they possess the
> prejudices they do.
>
> And, of course, if there is proper discussion, we might find that the
> current level of immigration is causing more problems than it
> resolves. In which case, something can be done with the background of
> having factual evidence about the situation, rather than on the basis
> of "Bloke down the pub says there's too many goddamn
> brownfaces".
Exactly. That's exactly what I think.
I laugh, because people automaticaly talk about 'over crowding' and this somehow disregards the UK 'White kid birthrate' which of course, just makes people who are invisible, made of air and never eat anything.
As for The Confederate, the more I've seen of him, the more I've come to pity the poor child. 'One thing I've learned from history, it's to prevent problems' - and yet, he evidently hasn't picked up one bit of analytical skill in terms of deciphering arguments - rather he just picks the ones that say 'TERROR ALERT' and uses them. And then somehow links them to immigration and decides that actually, we really are in danger. Because the press told him so. And consequently, anyone who disagrees is a lefty wimp. Has he been working in Mark Steyn's office?!!
+
What Gerrid and Hedfix said.
Isn't it a hideous paradox, this mentality? As Hedfix said, it's relatively easy to cause havoc with very little complicated equipment. Hell, I could take a knife, swear my life to Allah/God/Satan/My First PlayGod and be called an Islamic/Christian/Satanic/religious extremist after I kill some people - not difficult to do, if a little against character ;)
Yet, we're told it's so dangerous, so so possible that we must be scared. -and at the same time, it's evidently 'so easy' for terrorists to come in, that we must be close to 'meltdown Britain', to 'Terror Atrocities'. And yet the reality is very little has changed at all.
Light wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
Yeahh, right. I assume your one of theese people who live on there own land, who don't have to worry about theese sort of problems, private health care etc. Prisons are well overcrowded, schools are overcrowded, the NHS is now struggling to cope, the pension system is in trouble and not forgetting the housing problems we have. I see you must be very short sighted.
>
> 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?
Bllaaahh, money has always been pumped into our services, if anything, it's the spending of the money whats gone to waste. Even if that is the case, Tony Blair has now had 8 years to sort the problem out, and has things got better? I think not.
>
> 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.
I dont have a problem with this, what you'll find is that a lot of immigants are sending the money they earn back to the country's they came from, hows that good for the economy apart from the tax we take off them?
Yes, I agree we may need more of them, but we must also know the point when our Country is at full capacity, and we don't. And what when theese immigrants age themselves? Bring more in, then what? Bring more in etc?
>
> 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?
Yes, I do, and accept that people in need should be welcome, but it has to be done in the right way, and the way now is not working.
>
>
> 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?
Well your linking one topic with another and were not talking about the way they become refugees or asylum sekkers, were talking about what happens once they enter our shores.
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
Yeahh, right. I assume your one of theese people who live on there own land, who don't have to worry about theese sort of problems, private health care etc. Prisons are well overcrowded, schools are overcrowded, the NHS is now struggling to cope, the pension system is in trouble and not forgetting the housing problems we have. I see you must be very short sighted.
>
> 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?
Bllaaahh, money has always been pumped into our services, if anything, it's the spending of the money whats gone to waste. Even if that is the case, Tony Blair has now had 8 years to sort the problem out, and has things got better? I think not.
>
> 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.
I dont have a problem with this, what you'll find is that a lot of immigants are sending the money they earn back to the country's they came from, hows that good for the economy apart from the tax we take off them?
Yes, I agree we may need more of them, but we must also know the point when our Country is at full capacity, and we don't. And what when theese immigrants age themselves? Bring more in, then what? Bring more in etc?
>
> 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?
Yes, I do, and accept that people in need should be welcome, but it has to be done in the right way, and the way now is not working.
>
>
> 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?
Well your linking one topic with another and were not talking about the way they become refugees or asylum sekkers, were talking about what happens once they enter our shores.
light wrote
>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?
Well if you take the rise in the Tory's have gained since making there immigration plans known thats a good indication, the 93% backing of Sun readers, a YouGov poll in the telegraph shows strong support for strickter controlls.
>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?
Well if you take the rise in the Tory's have gained since making there immigration plans known thats a good indication, the 93% backing of Sun readers, a YouGov poll in the telegraph shows strong support for strickter controlls.
kevstar wrote:
> Yeahh, right. I assume your one of theese people who live on there
> own land, who don't have to worry about theese sort of problems,
> private health care etc. Prisons are well overcrowded, schools are
> overcrowded, the NHS is now struggling to cope, the pension system is
> in trouble and not forgetting the housing problems we have. I see you
> must be very short sighted.
Assume all you like; you'll be wrong. I live in a council estate and have no private health plan. Funny really; the only way you seem capable of answering my arguments is to create a little fantasy world in order to allow your fairly ill-informed version of reality to survive.
The reason for the 'overcrowding' (as I explained in the post you've just replied to, in the point that you cleverly ignored with your cunning argument of "blaaaaahhh"; which of us is shortsighted exactly?) is 30 years of underinvestment in public services. Yet you don't seem willing to admit that; you'd far rather point your finger at those nasty foreign types whilst ignoring completely what I and others have said about the lack of investment in public services and infrastructure.
> Bllaaahh, money has always been pumped into our services, if
> anything, it's the spending of the money whats gone to waste. Even if
> that is the case, Tony Blair has now had 8 years to sort the problem
> out, and has things got better? I think not.
Mwahahahahahaaaa! Wow, you have a firm understanding of this, I can tell; "we've always pumped money into our services"? Okay then; why don't you use your vast knowledge of economics to explain to me just how the falling investment over the last 30 years has kept up to date with the increasing spending needs of the NHS and the Education sector? Could you then go on to tell me how the massive cuts in public spending over the course of the 80's (the money saved was used to fund tax cuts) constitutes "money being pumped in"?
And as to your point about Tony Blair...well, as we've had 3 authoritarian Home Secretaries in a row, I can't say as I'm surprised things haven't gotten better. That's rather my point you see; the governments of the country have screwed up on public spending and now they're blaming immigrants for their oversights. Do you see?
Perhaps, once you've finished writing "blahhh" in a p!ss poor attempt to avoid addressing much of the initial point due to a massive failure in intellect, you'd like to read this government archive document detailing the reduced public spending immediately after the 97 election;
[URL]http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hmt/budget95/chap6.htm[/URL]
Or perhaps, if you're through creating imaginary scenario's that still allow you to cling to your prejudices without bothering to question them, you can have a look at this review of long term spending and note that it points out how, in real terms, public spending has fallen.
[URL]http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf[/URL]
Then maybe you'd like to think a little.
> I dont have a problem with this, what you'll find is that a lot of
> immigants are sending the money they earn back to the country's they
> came from, hows that good for the economy apart from the tax we take
> off them?
> Yes, I agree we may need more of them, but we must also know the
> point when our Country is at full capacity, and we don't.
Oh really. And tell me, what are you basing this assumption on? Did a bloke tell you down the pub? Or do you have access to the mailing records of every immigrant that ever there was? Any evidence at all, or is this another petty prejudice on your part?
I'll repeat again, since you seem to have avoided the initial question by getting lost in some sort of bizarre "Ah, but you're the lord of your local manor" fantasy; where is your evidence that the country is overcrowded?
> Yes, I do, and accept that people in need should be welcome, but it
> has to be done in the right way, and the way now is not working.
Two things:
1. What is "the right way"?
2. What is the way we have now? After all, you seem very sure it's not working so I presume you can tell me what it actually is. In your own time...
> Well your linking one topic with another and were not talking about
> the way they become refugees or asylum sekkers, were talking about
> what happens once they enter our shores.
Ah, I see; so the fact that our country may be in part responsible for making them refugees; that's not our problem eh? The fact that the west has helped keep the standard of living low in developing nations; that's their issue to deal with, and we shouldn't have to take in any immigrants because of it eh?
Why on earth do you think people become immigrants anyway?
> Well if you take the rise in the Tory's have gained since making
> there immigration plans known thats a good indication, the 93%
> backing of Sun readers, a YouGov poll in the telegraph shows strong
> support for strickter controlls.
So In other words, yes; it's based on scaremongering. I asked for evidence my dear boy. Hard facts. I didn't ask for you to confirm that the general public are fearful of and resistant to change of any kind. Nor did I deny that immigration is an issue to be discussed. Had you read much of what I said rather than rushing to ignore it, you might have noticed that.
Jesus Christ kevstar you really do take the proverbial. I've never seen such a pathetic attempt to overintellectualise a collection of petty prejudices since...well, since Belldandy.
> Yeahh, right. I assume your one of theese people who live on there
> own land, who don't have to worry about theese sort of problems,
> private health care etc. Prisons are well overcrowded, schools are
> overcrowded, the NHS is now struggling to cope, the pension system is
> in trouble and not forgetting the housing problems we have. I see you
> must be very short sighted.
Assume all you like; you'll be wrong. I live in a council estate and have no private health plan. Funny really; the only way you seem capable of answering my arguments is to create a little fantasy world in order to allow your fairly ill-informed version of reality to survive.
The reason for the 'overcrowding' (as I explained in the post you've just replied to, in the point that you cleverly ignored with your cunning argument of "blaaaaahhh"; which of us is shortsighted exactly?) is 30 years of underinvestment in public services. Yet you don't seem willing to admit that; you'd far rather point your finger at those nasty foreign types whilst ignoring completely what I and others have said about the lack of investment in public services and infrastructure.
> Bllaaahh, money has always been pumped into our services, if
> anything, it's the spending of the money whats gone to waste. Even if
> that is the case, Tony Blair has now had 8 years to sort the problem
> out, and has things got better? I think not.
Mwahahahahahaaaa! Wow, you have a firm understanding of this, I can tell; "we've always pumped money into our services"? Okay then; why don't you use your vast knowledge of economics to explain to me just how the falling investment over the last 30 years has kept up to date with the increasing spending needs of the NHS and the Education sector? Could you then go on to tell me how the massive cuts in public spending over the course of the 80's (the money saved was used to fund tax cuts) constitutes "money being pumped in"?
And as to your point about Tony Blair...well, as we've had 3 authoritarian Home Secretaries in a row, I can't say as I'm surprised things haven't gotten better. That's rather my point you see; the governments of the country have screwed up on public spending and now they're blaming immigrants for their oversights. Do you see?
Perhaps, once you've finished writing "blahhh" in a p!ss poor attempt to avoid addressing much of the initial point due to a massive failure in intellect, you'd like to read this government archive document detailing the reduced public spending immediately after the 97 election;
[URL]http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hmt/budget95/chap6.htm[/URL]
Or perhaps, if you're through creating imaginary scenario's that still allow you to cling to your prejudices without bothering to question them, you can have a look at this review of long term spending and note that it points out how, in real terms, public spending has fallen.
[URL]http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf[/URL]
Then maybe you'd like to think a little.
> I dont have a problem with this, what you'll find is that a lot of
> immigants are sending the money they earn back to the country's they
> came from, hows that good for the economy apart from the tax we take
> off them?
> Yes, I agree we may need more of them, but we must also know the
> point when our Country is at full capacity, and we don't.
Oh really. And tell me, what are you basing this assumption on? Did a bloke tell you down the pub? Or do you have access to the mailing records of every immigrant that ever there was? Any evidence at all, or is this another petty prejudice on your part?
I'll repeat again, since you seem to have avoided the initial question by getting lost in some sort of bizarre "Ah, but you're the lord of your local manor" fantasy; where is your evidence that the country is overcrowded?
> Yes, I do, and accept that people in need should be welcome, but it
> has to be done in the right way, and the way now is not working.
Two things:
1. What is "the right way"?
2. What is the way we have now? After all, you seem very sure it's not working so I presume you can tell me what it actually is. In your own time...
> Well your linking one topic with another and were not talking about
> the way they become refugees or asylum sekkers, were talking about
> what happens once they enter our shores.
Ah, I see; so the fact that our country may be in part responsible for making them refugees; that's not our problem eh? The fact that the west has helped keep the standard of living low in developing nations; that's their issue to deal with, and we shouldn't have to take in any immigrants because of it eh?
Why on earth do you think people become immigrants anyway?
> Well if you take the rise in the Tory's have gained since making
> there immigration plans known thats a good indication, the 93%
> backing of Sun readers, a YouGov poll in the telegraph shows strong
> support for strickter controlls.
So In other words, yes; it's based on scaremongering. I asked for evidence my dear boy. Hard facts. I didn't ask for you to confirm that the general public are fearful of and resistant to change of any kind. Nor did I deny that immigration is an issue to be discussed. Had you read much of what I said rather than rushing to ignore it, you might have noticed that.
Jesus Christ kevstar you really do take the proverbial. I've never seen such a pathetic attempt to overintellectualise a collection of petty prejudices since...well, since Belldandy.
Page: