The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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'm sure you've all read about immigrants entering the U.K. from the news and i would just like to say i am sick of all the bias against them. Apart from the fact they are trying to find somewhere decent to live, it is also blatant racism on the part of the people trying to stop it. Nobody is doing anything about the australian immigrants or other white people trying to enter the country.
Another thing is that everybody is thinking "it's not about racism, it's that we're overpopulated" That is just crap. No we are not. Over the last two hundred years, we have had more people emigrating than immigrating. If nobody was allowed to come in or leave we would have a population several million higher. In the last two hundred years the only two decades that we had more people entering than leaving was in the 1960s and 70s.
When this first started when the news first reported the immigrants passing through the tunnels, it only caught the eye of the media because it was unusual, but now it is just a source of prejudice. There is no real reason to attempt to stop them other than for the government to blame stuff such as the strain in the NHS on. The strain in the NHS is there because we have so few nurses. There are so few nurses there because they can get more money working elsewhere. The government doesn't want to increase the wages, or there would be too many nurses applying and they would have an excess of nurses and have to pay all they employ the higher price. This would put taxes up which nobody wants even though they want the NHS improved. They want it improved without spending more money.
Back to the point. I think all this should stop. I haven't found a thread about this on this website, so before anyone decides to moan about the large number of immigrants here, they should think again. OK, we are probably getting more immigrants than emigrats at the moment, but this is only temporary, and over the decade, we will probably have more people leaving than entering. We probably have more now, but nobody is paying any attention to them because "the immigrants are going to clog up the NHS" when in fact it could be getting better, as there are people who will emigrate because of the problems with the NHS. I don't know exactly, but it could be happening, so don't make these prejudices. I'm glad they haven't appeared on this website yet.
I hope they won't appear at all.
Another thing is that everybody is thinking "it's not about racism, it's that we're overpopulated" That is just crap. No we are not. Over the last two hundred years, we have had more people emigrating than immigrating. If nobody was allowed to come in or leave we would have a population several million higher. In the last two hundred years the only two decades that we had more people entering than leaving was in the 1960s and 70s.
When this first started when the news first reported the immigrants passing through the tunnels, it only caught the eye of the media because it was unusual, but now it is just a source of prejudice. There is no real reason to attempt to stop them other than for the government to blame stuff such as the strain in the NHS on. The strain in the NHS is there because we have so few nurses. There are so few nurses there because they can get more money working elsewhere. The government doesn't want to increase the wages, or there would be too many nurses applying and they would have an excess of nurses and have to pay all they employ the higher price. This would put taxes up which nobody wants even though they want the NHS improved. They want it improved without spending more money.
Back to the point. I think all this should stop. I haven't found a thread about this on this website, so before anyone decides to moan about the large number of immigrants here, they should think again. OK, we are probably getting more immigrants than emigrats at the moment, but this is only temporary, and over the decade, we will probably have more people leaving than entering. We probably have more now, but nobody is paying any attention to them because "the immigrants are going to clog up the NHS" when in fact it could be getting better, as there are people who will emigrate because of the problems with the NHS. I don't know exactly, but it could be happening, so don't make these prejudices. I'm glad they haven't appeared on this website yet.
I hope they won't appear at all.
Page:
To be honest, I've given up caring.
I'm concerned with my band, my girlfriend and my mates.
Anything else wore my passion down through years of systematic apathy.
Complain, campaign and quote all you like.
Doesn't make a lick of difference.
Really, it doesn't.
I used to be hardcore activist against pretty much all the normal social outrages, then I realised that I was screaming into blank faces.
Mark Thomas does his stuff for tv, go see his stand-up and it's nob jokes.
Well meaning but ultimately futile statements about what immigrants do or don't do to this or any other country are ways to pass the time here.
If you feel that strongly, go be an MP or join U2.
Frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn
I'm concerned with my band, my girlfriend and my mates.
Anything else wore my passion down through years of systematic apathy.
Complain, campaign and quote all you like.
Doesn't make a lick of difference.
Really, it doesn't.
I used to be hardcore activist against pretty much all the normal social outrages, then I realised that I was screaming into blank faces.
Mark Thomas does his stuff for tv, go see his stand-up and it's nob jokes.
Well meaning but ultimately futile statements about what immigrants do or don't do to this or any other country are ways to pass the time here.
If you feel that strongly, go be an MP or join U2.
Frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn
OK Sadat-X, maybe you're not the extremist I painted you as, but your's was the latest in a long line of ill-informed posts about asylum seekers (most of them only crawling as far out of the gutter as Reynolds' post below) that have been pi$$ing me off in the forums in recent weeks. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. So you might not be such a moron after all.
I still don't agree with you though. Here's why:
(1) Benefits. (This info is taken from the refugee council website). Someone entering Britain is not a refugee until they have been recognised as such. Until that time they are asylum seekers, and entitled to only 70% of benefits (a fiver a day). Until a decision (and the result of any appeal) is taken asylum seekers cannot work to supplement this meagre income. And because the system is in such a mess people are waiting on average eleven months for an initial decision - and even longer if an appeal is neccessary. That whole time asylum seekers have to survive on £35 a week. Only if asylum seekers are granted refugee status can they claim full benefits - and this is the first time they will be able to work. It doesn't matter if the government calls this 'urgent cases income support', or whatever: in practice vulnerable people are being made to live on a pittance for (on average) almost a year.
(2) The UK isn't 'soft' on asylum - or taking more than it's fair share. "According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UK ranks only 7th out of fifteen European Union countries in terms of asylum applicants per 1000 inhabitants." Only about 30% of asylum application are accepted in the UK - plus around 20% of those who appeal. The application process is actually extremely tough - especially for those who lack English or access to interpreters and legal advice. In fact a third of asylum applications are denied because of 'bureaucratic irregularities', and the actual merits of the case are never considered.
The Goatboy statistic is pretty meaningless (a bit like saying that the sky is 25% grey today), and I don't agree with his underlying argument either. As already mentioned most asylum seekers DO stay in mainland Europe, but those who choose to travel to Britain should not be discriminated against. First, Britain has been prominent in exacerbating the displacement of people in the Balkans, and we have to take responsibility for that; furthermore, its prominent role in the Balkans conflict means that many refugees think of Britain as on their side. Second, not every European asylum policy is equivalent: France for example "does not offer protection to those fleeing persecution from any group acting independently of the government", which is pretty hopeless for those fleeing from militant groups (Algerians, suspected Palestinian collaborators and so on.) Third, Britain is one of the only European countries without a far-right party as a significant political force, and becomes more attractive to African, Asian and Arab refugees as a result (I actually think this is something we should be proud of). Britain may be the only place where safe haven is available - and unless we're going to deny refugees safety all together then we have to deal with the not-so-terrible consequences of that.
(3) Looking after our own. The trouble with blaming asylum seekers for the plight of the homeless, unemployment, crime and the terrible state of our schools and hospitals, is this: they are not responsible, the politicians are. If we never accepted another asylum application would we live in a paradise where everyone had enough to eat, a nice house, the chance for a good education and the healthcare to nurse them when they're sick? Well only if you think that the relocation of 0.2% of government spending would solve this country's problems. Refugees are scapegoats for an inhumane economic system and its government. In a country as wealthy as our's, it is obscene that people are sleeping on the streets or that some areas are so poor and hopeless that the kids who grow up there are written off by the age of twelve. And who do we blame? No, not the asylum seekers who have just arrived, confused and finally safe from persecution, but the politicians, that pathetic class of whingers who this week have considered every problem the nation is facing and decided that their priority should be to allow Rupert Murdoch to buy another TV station. What a fine, fine job those people are doing. No doubt it won't be too long before David Blunkett makes a speech about the terrible strain that asylum places on our finances - to rapturous applause from the Murdoch press. Everywhere you look these days asylum seekers are the scapegoats for the ills of society: the ones peddling these myths are only too happy that their own actions are ignored because of this.
Sorry this is too long, but this is important. Short version of what I'm saying: I don't think we should refuse help to those who need it, regardless of the accident of their nationality.
I still don't agree with you though. Here's why:
(1) Benefits. (This info is taken from the refugee council website). Someone entering Britain is not a refugee until they have been recognised as such. Until that time they are asylum seekers, and entitled to only 70% of benefits (a fiver a day). Until a decision (and the result of any appeal) is taken asylum seekers cannot work to supplement this meagre income. And because the system is in such a mess people are waiting on average eleven months for an initial decision - and even longer if an appeal is neccessary. That whole time asylum seekers have to survive on £35 a week. Only if asylum seekers are granted refugee status can they claim full benefits - and this is the first time they will be able to work. It doesn't matter if the government calls this 'urgent cases income support', or whatever: in practice vulnerable people are being made to live on a pittance for (on average) almost a year.
(2) The UK isn't 'soft' on asylum - or taking more than it's fair share. "According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UK ranks only 7th out of fifteen European Union countries in terms of asylum applicants per 1000 inhabitants." Only about 30% of asylum application are accepted in the UK - plus around 20% of those who appeal. The application process is actually extremely tough - especially for those who lack English or access to interpreters and legal advice. In fact a third of asylum applications are denied because of 'bureaucratic irregularities', and the actual merits of the case are never considered.
The Goatboy statistic is pretty meaningless (a bit like saying that the sky is 25% grey today), and I don't agree with his underlying argument either. As already mentioned most asylum seekers DO stay in mainland Europe, but those who choose to travel to Britain should not be discriminated against. First, Britain has been prominent in exacerbating the displacement of people in the Balkans, and we have to take responsibility for that; furthermore, its prominent role in the Balkans conflict means that many refugees think of Britain as on their side. Second, not every European asylum policy is equivalent: France for example "does not offer protection to those fleeing persecution from any group acting independently of the government", which is pretty hopeless for those fleeing from militant groups (Algerians, suspected Palestinian collaborators and so on.) Third, Britain is one of the only European countries without a far-right party as a significant political force, and becomes more attractive to African, Asian and Arab refugees as a result (I actually think this is something we should be proud of). Britain may be the only place where safe haven is available - and unless we're going to deny refugees safety all together then we have to deal with the not-so-terrible consequences of that.
(3) Looking after our own. The trouble with blaming asylum seekers for the plight of the homeless, unemployment, crime and the terrible state of our schools and hospitals, is this: they are not responsible, the politicians are. If we never accepted another asylum application would we live in a paradise where everyone had enough to eat, a nice house, the chance for a good education and the healthcare to nurse them when they're sick? Well only if you think that the relocation of 0.2% of government spending would solve this country's problems. Refugees are scapegoats for an inhumane economic system and its government. In a country as wealthy as our's, it is obscene that people are sleeping on the streets or that some areas are so poor and hopeless that the kids who grow up there are written off by the age of twelve. And who do we blame? No, not the asylum seekers who have just arrived, confused and finally safe from persecution, but the politicians, that pathetic class of whingers who this week have considered every problem the nation is facing and decided that their priority should be to allow Rupert Murdoch to buy another TV station. What a fine, fine job those people are doing. No doubt it won't be too long before David Blunkett makes a speech about the terrible strain that asylum places on our finances - to rapturous applause from the Murdoch press. Everywhere you look these days asylum seekers are the scapegoats for the ills of society: the ones peddling these myths are only too happy that their own actions are ignored because of this.
Sorry this is too long, but this is important. Short version of what I'm saying: I don't think we should refuse help to those who need it, regardless of the accident of their nationality.
immigrants are scum why do they have to come to our country
unknown kernel wrote:
> you clearly have NO idea what you are
> talking about.
Evidently you do. I apologise profusely for daring to oppose your opinions. Evidently resistance IS futile, yet I persist.
Now, as my work for the day is done I will make a commentary on your original post for which you seem disappointed I did not do earlier.
“OK, first of all, asylum seekers receive 70% of the already low benefit levels reserved for permanent residents”
Which I believe I covered in my original post, so your point must be that the benefits they receive are low. Well fair enough, but as you condemn me for not getting my facts straight please read the following, taken from http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk
“Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain (ELR) can claim full income support from the date of their new status. “
It then goes on to saying how they can receive back dated benefits as well. A fascinating read. When you said 70% benefit levels, I believe you may have been referring to urgent cases income support, which is in fact 90%.
“Second, asylum seekers are not taking local housing from local people”
I never said anything about them taking housing, so god only knows where you got this from. If there are enough council flats for them then fair enough, but I would rather see them allocated to the homeless. Similarly I believe that should they decide to rebuild the destroyed wing of Yarls Wood the whole facility would be excellent for decreasing the local homeless problem.
Good point about them not working, I didn’t know that but do now, so I thank you for informing me. But my point is that they SHOULD work, they shouldn’t be allowed to lay idle for six months. The government is to blame for this.
For some reason you seem to be comparing me to extremists like this Littlejohn. Why I don’t know, because nothing I have said constitutes extremism in any way. I have not said boot them out, I have not said to close our gates to them in any way. My point is that we help them before we help our own, and to me that is wrong. Our asylum seeker policy is soft, and renowned for it. The UK and Germany are the top asylum seeker destinations in Europe, and with the recent political turmoil in France more have been heading our way.
To quote Goatboy – “government reports suggest that up to 75% of them are opportunistic”. Our best bet would be to tighten security and make entry requirements far stricter. Oh, and I never said we were being over-run with them either, so please stop putting words in my mouth. The closest I got was “The more that arrive on our shores the more burden is put on us”, and this is an undisputable fact.
You seem to be on some kind of personal crusade, and consequently hide behind your statistics and quotes, lashing out at those who do not see eye to eye with you. You attack me on points I have not raised, almost as if you have a scripted response to anyone daring to challenge your views.
My view is that we should take more care of our native Britons and make it more difficult for bogus asylum seekers to enter the country. I hope this makes my previous posts clear for you. I cannot see how this view is in anyway extreme.
> you clearly have NO idea what you are
> talking about.
Evidently you do. I apologise profusely for daring to oppose your opinions. Evidently resistance IS futile, yet I persist.
Now, as my work for the day is done I will make a commentary on your original post for which you seem disappointed I did not do earlier.
“OK, first of all, asylum seekers receive 70% of the already low benefit levels reserved for permanent residents”
Which I believe I covered in my original post, so your point must be that the benefits they receive are low. Well fair enough, but as you condemn me for not getting my facts straight please read the following, taken from http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk
“Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain (ELR) can claim full income support from the date of their new status. “
It then goes on to saying how they can receive back dated benefits as well. A fascinating read. When you said 70% benefit levels, I believe you may have been referring to urgent cases income support, which is in fact 90%.
“Second, asylum seekers are not taking local housing from local people”
I never said anything about them taking housing, so god only knows where you got this from. If there are enough council flats for them then fair enough, but I would rather see them allocated to the homeless. Similarly I believe that should they decide to rebuild the destroyed wing of Yarls Wood the whole facility would be excellent for decreasing the local homeless problem.
Good point about them not working, I didn’t know that but do now, so I thank you for informing me. But my point is that they SHOULD work, they shouldn’t be allowed to lay idle for six months. The government is to blame for this.
For some reason you seem to be comparing me to extremists like this Littlejohn. Why I don’t know, because nothing I have said constitutes extremism in any way. I have not said boot them out, I have not said to close our gates to them in any way. My point is that we help them before we help our own, and to me that is wrong. Our asylum seeker policy is soft, and renowned for it. The UK and Germany are the top asylum seeker destinations in Europe, and with the recent political turmoil in France more have been heading our way.
To quote Goatboy – “government reports suggest that up to 75% of them are opportunistic”. Our best bet would be to tighten security and make entry requirements far stricter. Oh, and I never said we were being over-run with them either, so please stop putting words in my mouth. The closest I got was “The more that arrive on our shores the more burden is put on us”, and this is an undisputable fact.
You seem to be on some kind of personal crusade, and consequently hide behind your statistics and quotes, lashing out at those who do not see eye to eye with you. You attack me on points I have not raised, almost as if you have a scripted response to anyone daring to challenge your views.
My view is that we should take more care of our native Britons and make it more difficult for bogus asylum seekers to enter the country. I hope this makes my previous posts clear for you. I cannot see how this view is in anyway extreme.
Sorry Sadat-X but I find it difficult to have a debate with someone so utterly ill-informed. If you are going to recycle the political analysis of the Littlejohn/Daily Mail school then I'm not going to treat with a respect you don't deserve. Every word you posted was shot through with ignorance - you clearly have NO idea what you are talking about. I posted a reasoned argument - for which you have no response - but I guessed from your tone and vocabulary that a plain and simple insult would suit you better. I stand by that decision.
Immigants! Immigants! Even when it was the bears I knew it was the immigants!
unknown kernel wrote:
> Asylum seekers walk around town wearing designer clothes and using
> mobile phones do they? Which ones? Where?
Northampton.
Mobile phones, leather jackets, designer jeans and trainers. Mostly Kosovans here.
My aunt was a social worker dealing with them, until the stress of the job lead her to a nervous breakdown.
> Asylum seekers walk around town wearing designer clothes and using
> mobile phones do they? Which ones? Where?
Northampton.
Mobile phones, leather jackets, designer jeans and trainers. Mostly Kosovans here.
My aunt was a social worker dealing with them, until the stress of the job lead her to a nervous breakdown.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Sorry but you ARE an ignorant moron. Deal with it.
You could have made your points without turning to petty insults, and this could have been a decent debate/conversation (although admittedly a heated one). If you cannot make a statement without insulting people your arguments are better suited to a playground environment. I have my opinion, you have yours. I know what I see each day, as I am sure you do.
I can't see any point in posting here if all you are going to do is call me a moron or similar. Usually I love a good argument, and would be more than happy to retort but I have more than enough to do at the moment. Maybe another day we can spar over the latest controversial topic of the month. Thank you and good afternoon.
> Sorry but you ARE an ignorant moron. Deal with it.
You could have made your points without turning to petty insults, and this could have been a decent debate/conversation (although admittedly a heated one). If you cannot make a statement without insulting people your arguments are better suited to a playground environment. I have my opinion, you have yours. I know what I see each day, as I am sure you do.
I can't see any point in posting here if all you are going to do is call me a moron or similar. Usually I love a good argument, and would be more than happy to retort but I have more than enough to do at the moment. Maybe another day we can spar over the latest controversial topic of the month. Thank you and good afternoon.
I think what the other posters are saying is that 'asylum seekers' move into our country get everything they need and because they're not pushed out they actually become citizens, which sucks as then they get more money.
There was a story in the news last year, some one popped into our country illegally made a British woman pregnant and then he was given a 3 bedroomed house and 20k a year for absolutly nothing...well he got lucky, and he gets paid for it! Pornstars don't get that much.
There was a story in the news last year, some one popped into our country illegally made a British woman pregnant and then he was given a 3 bedroomed house and 20k a year for absolutly nothing...well he got lucky, and he gets paid for it! Pornstars don't get that much.
please stop mistaking "immigrants" with "asylum seekers"
Yes, we have immigrants who are pakistani, and are good doctors - these are immigrants
Yes, we have jobless hooligans who are Hispanic or Arabic - many of these are immigrants.
Sorry to be blunt to the point of racism, but there it is.
Yes, we have immigrants who are pakistani, and are good doctors - these are immigrants
Yes, we have jobless hooligans who are Hispanic or Arabic - many of these are immigrants.
Sorry to be blunt to the point of racism, but there it is.
Page: