The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Sadat-X wrote:
If I wanted to emigrate I would have to go through a proper form of selection to make sure that my presence would be worthwhile, i.e. I would work, not just claim benefits. They don't often stop the Australian immigrants because they:
> a) Don't hide in a truck to get here and
> b) Can actually contribute to Britain and GET A JOB.
They're not the only problems, if you emigrated what would you gain, there arn't many other countrys better than the UK! You'll find that most of the 'immigrants' that moved here a while back are actually very helpful, i.e. corner shops :p and about 90% of doctors/construction coordinators are Indian
If I wanted to emigrate I would have to go through a proper form of selection to make sure that my presence would be worthwhile, i.e. I would work, not just claim benefits. They don't often stop the Australian immigrants because they:
> a) Don't hide in a truck to get here and
> b) Can actually contribute to Britain and GET A JOB.
They're not the only problems, if you emigrated what would you gain, there arn't many other countrys better than the UK! You'll find that most of the 'immigrants' that moved here a while back are actually very helpful, i.e. corner shops :p and about 90% of doctors/construction coordinators are Indian
There isn't a council in the country that doesn't have a waiting list for UK residents to have homes. The asylum seekers get ahead of the queue.
And I'm sorry, but there is NO racism involved in the asylum process.
There are very few genuine cases where asylum should be accepted n this country, most, as Goatboy said, are very questionable. The "why here" question being extraordinarilly relevant. Why do asylum seekers come here?
For the national security? No.
For the economic stability? No.
For the tax system? No.
You want to know why? Because our asylum system is SOFT. people come here because they know they have a good chance of getting in.
People like this should not be let in, not on that basis. We should be hard on asylum seekers. And until we are hard on them, asylum seekers will always be a problem.
And I'm sorry, but there is NO racism involved in the asylum process.
There are very few genuine cases where asylum should be accepted n this country, most, as Goatboy said, are very questionable. The "why here" question being extraordinarilly relevant. Why do asylum seekers come here?
For the national security? No.
For the economic stability? No.
For the tax system? No.
You want to know why? Because our asylum system is SOFT. people come here because they know they have a good chance of getting in.
People like this should not be let in, not on that basis. We should be hard on asylum seekers. And until we are hard on them, asylum seekers will always be a problem.
Asylum seekers walk around town wearing designer clothes and using mobile phones do they? Which ones? Where?
Sorry but you ARE an ignorant moron. Deal with it.
Sorry but you ARE an ignorant moron. Deal with it.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Sadat-X: you are an ignorant moron.
What a great way to start off an argument.
I am humbled to be in the presence of a higher intelligence. Allow me to apologise in advance should any of my comments below be mis-informed.
> OK, first of all, asylum seekers receive 70% of the already low
> benefit levels reserved for permanent residents: for a single adult
> this is £36.54 a week.
Yet they walk around town wearing designer clothes, with mobile phones.
> Second, asylum seekers are not taking local housing from local people:
> Refugees aren't
> shacked up in The Ritz: they're put into rotten bedsits that should
> have been condemned long ago.
Actually Yarl's Wood was a very plush facility - a nice gym and everything. Until they burnt a wing of it down, which will cost millions to fix.
However much or little we are spending on them soon adds up. The more that arrive on our shores the more burden is put on us. We shouldn't just let them in and give them money, however much or little. It is not our duty to help everyone.
> Sadat-X: you are an ignorant moron.
What a great way to start off an argument.
I am humbled to be in the presence of a higher intelligence. Allow me to apologise in advance should any of my comments below be mis-informed.
> OK, first of all, asylum seekers receive 70% of the already low
> benefit levels reserved for permanent residents: for a single adult
> this is £36.54 a week.
Yet they walk around town wearing designer clothes, with mobile phones.
> Second, asylum seekers are not taking local housing from local people:
> Refugees aren't
> shacked up in The Ritz: they're put into rotten bedsits that should
> have been condemned long ago.
Actually Yarl's Wood was a very plush facility - a nice gym and everything. Until they burnt a wing of it down, which will cost millions to fix.
However much or little we are spending on them soon adds up. The more that arrive on our shores the more burden is put on us. We shouldn't just let them in and give them money, however much or little. It is not our duty to help everyone.
Well said General Vanya.
Sadat-X: you are an ignorant moron. You say that many asylum seekers 'come over here and claim benefits, get free accommodation and do little work'.
OK, first of all, asylum seekers receive 70% of the already low benefit levels reserved for permanent residents: for a single adult this is £36.54 a week, which wouldn't even buy you that new Star Wars lunchbox you've having tantrums about. That's just over a fiver a day: for clothes, haircuts, clothes, bus tickets...EVERYTHING. A fiver a day. Think about it.
Second, asylum seekers are not taking local housing from local people: only council properties without waiting lists are used, and private housing is used as an alternative where waiting lists do exist. And, yes the accomodation is free - but have you seen it? Refugees aren't shacked up in The Ritz: they're put into rotten bedsits that should have been condemned long ago.
Third, you're right about one thing: asylum seekers don't work. Know why? They're not allowed too! No employment for six months after they arrive - by law. And, if waiting for an appeal, an asylum seeker is barred from work for even longer.
One more thing: asylum seekers are not overrunning the country and soaking up every last penny we have. This is Tony Blair (no friend of asylum seekers) speaking in parliament: "Let me give the House the facts. The total cost of asylum is less than one fifth of 1 per cent of Government spending." Not very much is it?
Sadat-X: you are an ignorant moron. You say that many asylum seekers 'come over here and claim benefits, get free accommodation and do little work'.
OK, first of all, asylum seekers receive 70% of the already low benefit levels reserved for permanent residents: for a single adult this is £36.54 a week, which wouldn't even buy you that new Star Wars lunchbox you've having tantrums about. That's just over a fiver a day: for clothes, haircuts, clothes, bus tickets...EVERYTHING. A fiver a day. Think about it.
Second, asylum seekers are not taking local housing from local people: only council properties without waiting lists are used, and private housing is used as an alternative where waiting lists do exist. And, yes the accomodation is free - but have you seen it? Refugees aren't shacked up in The Ritz: they're put into rotten bedsits that should have been condemned long ago.
Third, you're right about one thing: asylum seekers don't work. Know why? They're not allowed too! No employment for six months after they arrive - by law. And, if waiting for an appeal, an asylum seeker is barred from work for even longer.
One more thing: asylum seekers are not overrunning the country and soaking up every last penny we have. This is Tony Blair (no friend of asylum seekers) speaking in parliament: "Let me give the House the facts. The total cost of asylum is less than one fifth of 1 per cent of Government spending." Not very much is it?
Ok, you need to clear up the terms used here.
Immigrants go through a lengthy process, much the same as you do if you were to apply to live in a different country.
It's asylum seekers that are the problem, those that just turn up and expect to be housed/fed/provided for.
There's a world of difference between someone that emigrates here (immigrant) and someone that lopes in under a truck (asylum seeker).
I have no problem at all with immigrants, the more the merrier.
I do have a problem with asylum seekers, as government reports suggest that up to 75% of them are opportunistics.
Someone made this point to me today, and I agree wholeheartedly with it, ideally customs and immigration should be able to approach asylum seekers (not immigrants) and ask the following:
You are fleeing from persecution and danger, I understand that and I expect no less.
But why did you flee through several other European countries to get to England?
Why pass through hundreds of miles of persecution-free countries and decide to reach the UK, the Western-most point of Europe, the furthest away you could possibly get from wherever?
What was wrong with Germany? Italy? France?
Why try and escape from France, just as free as Britain, and risk death by legging it through a tunnel underneath the sea?
There was an incident where a plane was hijacked, an internal flight in a Middle-Eastern country and they demanded to be taken to Paris.
Instead, as is the norm, they are flown to Stansted (where all hijacked planes are directed in Europe due to it's remote location)
So this plane lands at Stansted, the hijackers are dealt with and a large number of passengers suddenly claim asylum and are allowed to stay.
This was an internal flight that, without the intervention of hijackers, would have flown a few hundred miles and landed in the same country over in The Middle East.
Refugees from persecution? With plane tickets?
I don't think so.
I welcome immigrants, they have to go through lengthy procedures and are apparently not allowed to claim benefits for a period of some-time, you have to prove you can support yourself.
I have issues with those that flee across Europe to reach these shores, simply because the British political system is either not-interested or ill-equipped to deal with this situation.
and now its late, my eyes are burning and I didnt even mean to write this much.
Immigrants go through a lengthy process, much the same as you do if you were to apply to live in a different country.
It's asylum seekers that are the problem, those that just turn up and expect to be housed/fed/provided for.
There's a world of difference between someone that emigrates here (immigrant) and someone that lopes in under a truck (asylum seeker).
I have no problem at all with immigrants, the more the merrier.
I do have a problem with asylum seekers, as government reports suggest that up to 75% of them are opportunistics.
Someone made this point to me today, and I agree wholeheartedly with it, ideally customs and immigration should be able to approach asylum seekers (not immigrants) and ask the following:
You are fleeing from persecution and danger, I understand that and I expect no less.
But why did you flee through several other European countries to get to England?
Why pass through hundreds of miles of persecution-free countries and decide to reach the UK, the Western-most point of Europe, the furthest away you could possibly get from wherever?
What was wrong with Germany? Italy? France?
Why try and escape from France, just as free as Britain, and risk death by legging it through a tunnel underneath the sea?
There was an incident where a plane was hijacked, an internal flight in a Middle-Eastern country and they demanded to be taken to Paris.
Instead, as is the norm, they are flown to Stansted (where all hijacked planes are directed in Europe due to it's remote location)
So this plane lands at Stansted, the hijackers are dealt with and a large number of passengers suddenly claim asylum and are allowed to stay.
This was an internal flight that, without the intervention of hijackers, would have flown a few hundred miles and landed in the same country over in The Middle East.
Refugees from persecution? With plane tickets?
I don't think so.
I welcome immigrants, they have to go through lengthy procedures and are apparently not allowed to claim benefits for a period of some-time, you have to prove you can support yourself.
I have issues with those that flee across Europe to reach these shores, simply because the British political system is either not-interested or ill-equipped to deal with this situation.
and now its late, my eyes are burning and I didnt even mean to write this much.
It's not blatent racism at all. Many come over here and claim benefits, get free accommodation and do little work. If I wanted to emigrate I would have to go through a proper form of selection to make sure that my presence would be worthwhile, i.e. I would work, not just claim benefits. They don't often stop the Australian immigrants because they:
a) Don't hide in a truck to get here and
b) Can actually contribute to Britain and GET A JOB .
Why should we let our country get full up of people who can't speak English and will contribute nothing? We have enough native slackers as it is, so why should we allow more? If Britain was a company would you hire people wholly inefficient for the job just because they were unemployed? It would be commercial suicide.
The immigrants won't necessarily clog up the NHS, but they will add to the burden. Monies spent on keeping them happy could be better spent on the NHS, or maybe the homeless in Britain, in indeed the elderly. Why should we take care of others above our own? If you grandmother was struggling with money, would you give her money or give it to a Kosovan refugee you had just met?
There are genuine asylum seekers who most probably need to be helped, but you cannot assume for one minute that every eastern european who hides on a ferry or runs through the channel tunnel is genuinely running away from persecution. There are many who just want the handouts our government foolishly doles out.
The more like Australia we become, the better. It is a hard country to get into to live permenantly, and in my opinion, the better for it.
a) Don't hide in a truck to get here and
b) Can actually contribute to Britain and GET A JOB .
Why should we let our country get full up of people who can't speak English and will contribute nothing? We have enough native slackers as it is, so why should we allow more? If Britain was a company would you hire people wholly inefficient for the job just because they were unemployed? It would be commercial suicide.
The immigrants won't necessarily clog up the NHS, but they will add to the burden. Monies spent on keeping them happy could be better spent on the NHS, or maybe the homeless in Britain, in indeed the elderly. Why should we take care of others above our own? If you grandmother was struggling with money, would you give her money or give it to a Kosovan refugee you had just met?
There are genuine asylum seekers who most probably need to be helped, but you cannot assume for one minute that every eastern european who hides on a ferry or runs through the channel tunnel is genuinely running away from persecution. There are many who just want the handouts our government foolishly doles out.
The more like Australia we become, the better. It is a hard country to get into to live permenantly, and in my opinion, the better for it.
They shouldn't be here in the first place. We're the idiots, not Australlia. They know what they're doing and stopping them get in now, before it gets too late and you have places where there are more immigrants living on government benefits then you have British citizens. Costing millions of tax payers money. We're basically inviting them over with the benefits.
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: