 sj |
||
|
||
BS: UK immigration too high?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 01 Jul 11 - 01:09 PM You point being? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:46 PM Bonzo (note promotion) - "HORDES". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:47 AM We can easily lose the easyjet tattooed and BNP hoardes to other countries to compensate for the decent immigrant population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:47 AM Spot the inconsistency (and the ignorance of multiplier theory)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:08 AM Also in today's news. While stressing that immigration plays a vital role in British society, he (Duncan-Smith)will argue that many immigrants end up doing jobs that could easily be done by British citizens. Official figures unearthed by the Labour MP Frank Field show that 87% of the 400,000 jobs created over the first year of the coalition government went to workers from abroad. Extracts released in advance show Duncan Smith will insist that the government is "reforming welfare to make work pay, and to help people back to work ... and we are toughening sanctions against those who refuse to take jobs when they are available." He will add: "But we also need an immigration system that gives the unemployed a level playing field. "If we do not get this right, then we risk leaving more British citizens out of work, and the most vulnerable group, who will be the most affected, are young people." Gordon Brown was criticised after his 2007 pledge to provide "British jobs for British workers" was followed by figures which showed that around 80% of jobs created during Labour's time in power went to migrants. Duncan Smith will say that controlling immigration is "critical" to avoid "losing another generation to dependency and hopelessness", but will appeal for help in ensuring that British citizens are awarded jobs http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/01/duncan-smith-appeals-businesses-employ-young-britons |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 05:53 AM Almost half a million people were added to the UK population last year – the highest level since 1962 and the start of the last baby boom, figures revealed yesterday. New migrants accounted for almost half the increase while the number of births hit a 20 year high. However, the increase in children was also partly down to a rise in migrant mothers meaning immigration had both a direct and indirect impact on population growth, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) The trend means enough people to fill the city of Manchester were added to the country last year and, if it that rate continues, the population will hit the 70 million mark by 2026. The growing figures are a fresh headache for the Government which has pledged to slash immigration. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8608777/UK-population-growing-at-fastest-rate-for-50-years.html |
|
Subject: RE: Oh, and another one From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 May 11 - 03:07 PM Do you think they have any idea how stupid they look? Gundulf Morris Someone sent me a link 29 May 2011 02:57 PM Message: Richard, some guy sent me this link, no idea why http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000680862086 |
|
Subject: RE: No lying messages? What are these then? From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 May 11 - 02:01 PM Geordie UK Richard 28 May 2011 02:29 PM Message: Such a nasty thing to say "From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 May 11 - 05:52 AM Geordie UK - I do hope you experience living on incapacity benefit, soon. But not for too long. " I just googled you a moment ago, "Richard Bridge folk musician" and "Richard Bridge Mudcat Cafe." Holy Christ, you are all over the internet. You one dirty filthy old bastard. Photographs of girl ladies with massive breasts on all your social network sites and music forums. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have the nerve to come onto a folk music forum and preach the rule of law, have you never heard of obscene images ? You need a good cold shower. A man of your age putting such images on site that minors could come across and sitting proudly with your guitar. People like you turn my stomach. I will report you now to Mr. Joe Offer. Dirty bastard. Mrs, Bridge Thank you 29 May 2011 05:16 AM Message: Well well Richard, you naughty naughty boy. Sending your friend Joe little messages unable to stand up like a man and deal with such matters yourself. Well Hoff, I am shocked at the number of social websites you are on. I imagine the messages you receive from friends of bygone days make interesting reading once they receive a "friends request" that is from you. I imagine the young ladies that live in your area write some nasty replies to your requests. So Richard Black is getting the rap, suits me man haha. I was in the Good Intent in Rochester three weeks ago. I had a wonderful evening, met a few friends of Don Thompson, two knew you. Neither ever hear of Roger the Chorister, but one guy in the Nags Head in lower Stoke had. Richard, it amazes me why you have multiple social web pages ? As I was telling Bill Woodcock and Ralph Jordan recently, so many people tend to refrain from making derogatory comments on forums these days and in return they live peaceful lives, take Joe Offer for example. That carefully worded post exonerates him. He wasn't impolite, he wasn't making personal attacks (although he blamed that bloke Black) it is most unlikely Joe will have to send another one of him messages to flickr. As I see it, only two guys seem to be irritating members of this forum, Hoff and Fred Mc. Royston, Bruce, Haritt Tam, Don Thompson, Bill Woodcock, Michael Meyer, Jeri Carlew, Lorcan Otway, Keith Acheson , Carol C, Bill, John and a host others all saw sense and stay out of it. (Let us not forget Gervase Webb). Richard wouldn't it be nice if Joe would make a public ruling that to threads attacking the British National Party or English Defence League would no longer be allowed. That would see every thing you all dislike and get upset about vanish , I imagine you know what I mean. Oliver Geordie UK Re: Re: Richard 29 May 2011 05:41 AM Message: Well well Richard, you naughty naughty boy. Sending your friend Joe little messages unable to stand up like a man and deal with such matters yourself. Well Hoff, I am shocked at the number of social websites you are on. I imagine the messages you receive from friends of bygone days make interesting reading once they receive a "friends request" that is from you. I imagine the young ladies that live in your area write some nasty replies to your requests. So Richard Black is getting the rap, suits me man haha. I was in the Good Intent in Rochester three weeks ago. I had a wonderful evening, met a few friends of Don Thompson, two knew you. Neither ever hear of Roger the Chorister, but one guy in the Nags Head in lower Stoke had. Richard, it amazes me why you have multiple social web pages ? As I was telling Bill Woodcock and Ralph Jordan recently, so many people tend to refrain from making derogatory comments on forums these days and in return they live peaceful lives, take Joe Offer for example. That carefully worded post exonerates him. He wasn't impolite, he wasn't making personal attacks (although he blamed that bloke Black) it is most unlikely Joe will have to send another one of him messages to flickr. As I see it, only two guys seem to be irritating members of this forum, Hoff and Fred Mc. Royston, Bruce, Haritt Tam, Don Thompson, Bill Woodcock, Michael Meyer, Jeri Carlew, Lorcan Otway, Keith Acheson , Carol C, Bill, John and a host others all saw sense and stay out of it. (Let us not forget Gervase Webb). Richard wouldn't it be nice if Joe would make a public ruling that to threads attacking the British National Party or English Defence League would no longer be allowed. That would see every thing you all dislike and get upset about vanish , I imagine you know what I mean. Geordie UK Good morning 29 May 2011 07:09 AM Message: Gut gut Richard, Sie ungezogener ungezogener Junge. Schicken von den Joe kleinen Nachrichten von Ihrem Freund, der unfähig ist, wie ein Mann und Geschäft mit solchen Materien sich aufzustehen. Gut sind Hoff, ich an die Anzahl von sozialen Websites Sie sind an schockiert. Ich stelle mir die Nachrichten, dass Sie empfangen von Freunden von längst vergangenen Tagen macht interessante Vorlesung einmal sie empfangen vor „eine Freunde erbitten", der von Ihnen ist. Ich stelle mir den jungen Damen vor, die in Ihrem Gebiet leben, schreiben Ihren Bitten einige ekelhaften Antworten. So erhält Richard Schwarz das Klopfen, Prozesse, die mich haha besetzt. Ich war in der Guten Absicht in Rochester vor drei Wochen. Ich habe einen wunderbaren Abend gehabt, hat ein paar Freunde des Don Thompson getroffen, haben zwei Sie gewusst. Keiner hört je des Roger des Chorsängers, aber ein Bursche in den Gäulen Führt hinein niedriger Stochert hat gehabt. Richard, es überrascht mich, warum Sie mehrfache soziale Web-Seiten haben? Als ich Bill Woodcock und Ralph Jordanien kürzlich erzählte, damit viele Leute dazu neigen, sich von Machen von beeinträchtigenden Bemerkungen auf Foren heutzutage und in zurückkehrt sie leben friedliche Leben zu enthalten, nehmen Sie Joe Angebot zum Beispiel. Der vorsichtig Posten formuliert hat, entlastet ihn. Er war nicht unhöflich, machte er persönliche Angriffe (obwohl er jenen Kerlschwarz) es der unwahrscheinlichst Joe einem anderem einen von ihm Nachrichten zu flickr nicht hat getadelt ist schicken muss. Während ich es sehe, scheinen nur zwei Burschen, Mitglieder dieses Forums zu reizen, Hoff und Fred Mc. Royston, Bruce, Haritt Tam, Don Thompson, Bill Woodcock, Michael Meyer, Jeri Carlew, Lorcan Otway, Keith Acheson, Carol C, Bill, John und ein Gastgeber andere alle gesehene Sinn und hält sich daraus heraus. (Lassen Sie uns Gervase Webb vergessen nicht). Richard würde es ist nett nicht, wenn Joe eine Öffentlichkeit machen würde, die regiert, dass zu Fäden, die die britische Nationale Partei oder die englische Verteidigung Liga nicht mehr angreifen, erlaubt werden würde. Das würde sehen, dass jedes Ding Sie alle Abneigung und wird umgestürzt um verschwindet, stelle ich mir vor, dass Sie wissen, was ich bedeute". Geordie UK Re: Re: Richard 29 May 2011 10:58 AM Message: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63453117@N03/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: kendall Date: 29 May 11 - 12:29 PM I have nothing against immigrants. My ancestors came here in 1635, but as far as I know, none of them ever made anyone miss his flight through incompetence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max) Date: 29 May 11 - 10:57 AM One of the most off-putting things about Mudcat is if your views don't fit in, the inner circle here go flat out to attempt to discredit you. I HAVE NOT send Richard Bridge any message, I AM NOT A TROLL. I was a "GUEST" then I joined, now I am renamed by Mr. Offer ! This site is slowly becoming boring as it caters for views of around six members. If your post expresses a view they don't like, they delete it. If you express it again and again, they attempt to discredit you. Very very sad -----------Troll ALert! As if it were really necessary.... JoeClone----- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 May 11 - 10:01 AM The twerps are still sending foolish and inaccurate messages. I wonder when they will learn that if they want to achieve any of their objectives, accurate and well reasoned debate is less unlikely to succeed. Kendall (I wonder if you are really Kendall) I once nearly missed a flight out of Kennedy because the taxi driver first did not know where Kennedy Airport was and second could not find the Pan-Am terminal. It's no reason to sound off about immigrants. What was that bit about "Bring me your... ... ..."? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 29 May 11 - 06:53 AM J boy, I am well aware of their problems, but when one of them is giving me directions to the proper waiting area and he is wrong, and I almost miss my flight, I don't give a rats ass why. Furthermore, 8 out of 10 of these people is a bit much. When I was working if a man couldn't do the job he was out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 29 May 11 - 05:51 AM I was told by a hotel owner in Dingle Ireland that the Poles are skipping England and coming to Ireland because the benefits are more. Interesting sort of statement given the fact most of the hospitality industry in Ireland runs on underpaid Eastern European labour. It's also not true, around 200.000 Eastern Europeans, mostly Poles, left Ireland after the boom was over and work got scarce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 29 May 11 - 05:28 AM it was Martin Gibson who ran rampant here and feasted on the deliciously self-righteous indignation of Mudcatters Interesting to see that, a Martin Gibson was ejected from Concertina.net because he was banned under his real name (and thrown off under a number of other aliases). The same man runs a number of aliases on session.org. A bully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 29 May 11 - 05:02 AM Just to say that my husband entered the UK legitimately from Ivory Coast. We had to spend a fortune on Marriage Visa Application, flights to the UK Embassy in Ghana (none in Ivory Coast), fund an Appeal in London due to a simple error in Ghana, which was successful but cost even more money (over £1000). We then had to obtain a Further Leave to Remain biometric card, involving a journey to Cambridge, more money for the FLR Application. In December, we'll need to find OVER £1000 again!!! for his Indefinite Leave to Remain (Settlement) He's paid also for the Life in the UK Test (which is very difficult, even I couldn't answer all the questions!) and passed it. To finally obtain Citizenship and the right to a UK Passport, he'll have to pay more huge amounts of money, and my Bank Account, finances, assets, etc will be scrutinised. He is not entitled to a PENNY of Public Funds, (It says so on his Biometric Identity Card) no Jobseeker's Allowance, nothing. He IS permitted to work, but would pay full Tax and National Insurance. I have to be prepared to keep him on my Pension, with no Tax Relief for this. We will not be having any children to be a burden on the State (too old!) So far, he's only had a bit of work picking up stones in a paddock for a few hours, nobody else would do it so he got the job. I'm telling you all this to point out that SOME immigrants have struggled, waited, and paid a great deal of money to come here, do not cost the State anything and are an asset. My husband does Voluntary work for the church here, and helps many elderly neighbours with small jobs for no money. So far, he's met with only kindness and a big welcome from all. He will make (IMO, biased of course!) an excellent Citizen, and he adores Great Britain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: J-boy Date: 29 May 11 - 12:10 AM Kendall. I have the utmost respect and admiration for you but please recognize that it takes time for immigrants to assimilate and learn the language and culture of a foreign land. That is what our ancestors did after all. When they weren't killing Native Americans that is. But that's a sticky wicket I won't go into tonight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Joe Offer Date: 28 May 11 - 06:56 PM OK, and all I can do is tell you that "Geordie UK" is another iteration of "Richie Black," a troll who has been plaguing us for years. I can't do anything about him. If I delete his messages, it goads him to post more. If I delete his membership, he'll post under another membership. No matter what I do, he can come up with a counter-move. The only thing that can frustrate him, is if we do not respond to him at all...and so I ask you to respond to him with silence instead of giving him the attention he craves. And no matter how distasteful he is, he does serve to express a hateful point of view that is present and increasingly popular in Europe - and in the United States. I'm disgusted with all of you who get so bent out of shape about our putative failure to control trolls here. We moderators really try hard to keep trolls under control, and I think we do a better job than a lot of commercial Websites - U.S. newspaper Websites, for example. We do find it's best to do it slowly and quietly and subtly - and with the cooperation of our regular posters. You people dumped all over me last week because you couldn't ignore a two-line troll message in the thread on the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder - and I'm sick of it. Hell, I've even had people threaten to take legal action against me because I failed to do thus-and-such. [I wonder how far you'd get in a lawsuit against a volunteer moderator.] I just can't understand why you people can't accept the fact that troll messages are part of being on the Internet. This is an imperfect world, and you can't expect every person in it to post according to your specifications. If Richie Black posts (under whatever name), I'm likely to leave his posts right where they are. If Mudcatters can't resist responding, I'm likely to simply close the thread. Now, if that's not good enough, contact Max directly and ask him to develop systems to keep "Richie" under control. I've contacted Max many times and suggested members-only posting in the non-music section, MAC tracking in addition to IP tracking, and verification of membership by issuing passwords by e-mail. I warn you, however, that no amount of control is going to work perfectly; and every added control will limit the freedom we've all enjoyed here. But if you don't have what it takes to ignore our trolls, then contact Max and get after him to set up controls. But before Richie Black, it was Martin Gibson who ran rampant here and feasted on the deliciously self-righteous indignation of Mudcatters. And before him, it was that woman from Minnesota. And no matter what controls Max institutes, there will be other trolls. Therefore, the best solution is to accept it that trolls are a fact of life on the Internet, and learn to ignore them. As Keith said in the original post:
Let's ignore trolling guests who will try to cause friction. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 May 11 - 05:32 PM Oh goodness me - Geordie UK is sending me messages referring to the fakes of me promulgated by a thing that thinks it's a political party. WHAT a surprise. Come on coward, give us your real name. Joe - you know what you need to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 28 May 11 - 05:07 PM Can I ask a question then? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the levels of immigration but even if we stop all immigration now, what do we do with the immigrants who are already here? I know one Polish chap in particular who hasn't worked for at neary 25 years yet he still gets benefits from the state, lives rent free, gets more health care than I do and has his family look after his every need. What shall we do with him and his sort? Send them home I reckon... DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 28 May 11 - 02:05 PM Seems to me that the winners of WW 2 are having a tough go of it while the losers are prospering. Let's let them win next time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 May 11 - 05:52 AM Geordie UK - I do hope you experience living on incapacity benefit, soon. But not for too long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max) Date: 28 May 11 - 03:43 AM Evidence that the system of social security benefits is one factor in attracting large numbers of foreign workers to the UK. An in depth analysis of the operation of the current benefit system, by think tank Migrationwatch, has shown that the effect of benefit levels combined with means testing of benefits for those who are working means that there is little financial incentive for people with families living on benefits to find employment. This may partly explain why, despite there being 3.5 million people on Jobseekers Allowance or Incapacity Benefit, most of the 1.6 million immigrants have come to work in the UK in the past ten years went onto benefits within months of arrival. There would be considerable benefits in getting our own population into work rather than encouraging immigration. It has been suspected for some time that benefit levels are a real disincentive for the Polish, not the work that is on offer. Poles have very strong financial motivation. Those that do decide to work are earning 4-5 times what they would earn at home and, by living in multi-occupancy, they can afford to send considerable sums of money back to their families - according to the National Bank of Poland, Polish migrants in the UK are sending home about £9 million a day. A family with two children and one working member receives £89.50 of Working Tax Credit, intended to cushion the impact of means testing of benefits and be an incentive to work. All working families with children and one working member on the minimum wage are worse off than the same Polish family receiving the maximum Incapacity Benefit. The maximum level of Incapacity Benefit has effectively been brought very close to the minimum wage, the Polish have spotted this. There are good reasons of social equity for this but it does mean that there is very little financial incentive for such persons to return to paid employment, especially as they are allowed some earnings. This means it is particularly important to ensure that claimants are genuine cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: kendall Date: 27 May 11 - 08:52 PM I was told by a hotel owner in Dingle Ireland that the Poles are skipping England and coming to Ireland because the benefits are more. Just what Ireland doesn't need! A few fleas are no problem to a healthy dog, but a thousand can kill it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 May 11 - 07:51 PM Er - yes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Ebbie Date: 27 May 11 - 03:32 PM "None of them work now, they get their rent and council tax paid for them and live off generous state benefits." Geordie I don't know how the Poles are now, I only know they have been. It would surprise me very much if they- or even half of them- fit that description. I expect that Richard Bridge is being satirical. I should hope so, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Big Phil Date: 27 May 11 - 02:14 PM Geordie "On the whole, immigration has made this country a better place to live in than it was before" Clearly you don't live near families of nine living in one house speaking no English, drinking beer all day and selling dope near you. Raising their glasses to the British Social Security Benefit system. Europeans come here to breed, Claim benefits, bring their granny over and get the N.H.S. to run an M.O.T. on her." A harsh post, but very true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 May 11 - 11:41 AM Ja, ve must more "Schower rooms" machen und darein the schvein tueren. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Geordie UK (troll alert contact max) Date: 27 May 11 - 10:40 AM I agree Kendall, but in these times too many are willing to jump down your throat for making such a comment. There is a major problem in the area I live. The Polish used to come to the UK to seek employment, now they have discovered having children is more profitable. None of them work now, they get their rent and council tax paid for them and live off generous state benefits. They are now bringing their elderly family members into the UK for free health care The Health Service simply can't copy with the numbers. The government must deal with this problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 27 May 11 - 08:19 AM I'm not going to stick my neck out and comment on the EU or immigration, but I will say that on my recent visit to Ireland and England I was surprised and irritated by the large numbers of service people who were unable to speak or even understand English. If I move to another country would I expect them to cater to me and speak my language? Well, yes, I will comment on immigration; many people I talked to lament the joining of the EU. Both England and Ireland came out on the short end of the deal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 May 11 - 07:39 AM This thread ran before our government changed. Our current immigration minister this week: The Government blamed the previous Labour administration. Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'These statistics show that immigration was out of control thanks to the old system. All parties now agree that immigration was and is too high, and the losers are the low paid workers. Yesterday Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/net-migration-uk-immigration |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 10 - 07:14 AM The wages of British workers were forced down because the Labour government failed to restrict immigration from eastern Europe, Ed Balls claims today. In a provocative article in the Observer, the Labour leadership hopeful says the party will rebuild trust only if it admits "what we got wrong". http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/06/ed-balls-labour-immigration-wages |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:35 AM I hope Royston follows my link. It is a piece by a progressive leftie who heads the immigration section of a left wing think tank, who has reconsidered his position on immigration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Apr 10 - 10:09 AM Sorry Good Soldier Schweik (I read the book once). I have not said that immigration is the cause of recession. I only suggested that there might be an optimum level and that we may well have passed that. I also pointed out some of the problems associated with a rapid large influx, e.g. housing, schooling, health care resources, employment, etc. I also pointed out that the burden falls unequally on the already poor and disavantaged, while the already rich benefit even more. Like the Rochdale pensioner, I was called a bigot for daring to express such views, which are completely mainstream and middle of the road. http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/tim-finch/is-progressive-case-for-migration-truly-progressive |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: The Sandman Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:25 PM KEITH please spell my name correctly ,I am schweik. multi national capitalists believe all immigration controls should be abolished,they wish to be able to get labour as cheaply as possible. however sending immigrants back and preventing immigration will not solve any economic depression. the BNP and the other anti immgration parties do not seem to have an understanding of how to manage the capitalist system efficiently. KEITH, please explain how you think restricting immigration will help to get England out of an economic depression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Gervase Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:40 AM Troll alert! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: GUEST,Geordie Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:07 AM Prime Minister Gordon Brown has telephoned a woman for calling her "bigoted" while out on the campaign trail. The PM's comments came as he was driven away from an event in Rochdale at which 65-year-old widow Gillian Duffy tackled him in front of the cameras about Britain's financial problems, taxes, student financing and immigration. Unaware that his radio mic was still connected, Mr Brown told an aide that the encounter had been "a disaster" and said he should never have been made to speak with Mrs Duffy, adding: "She was just a bigoted woman." You can't open your mouth or expression an opinion about these fucks pouring into the UK without some arsehole calling you a bigot or racist. The word they should be called is a realist. Ship them out if they are here to scrounge benefits as 95% of them are, 29 Polish nationals have committed murder in the UK within the last 23 months. The lady expressed what a lot of us think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Lox Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:44 AM "Perfectly simple, test six months before entry and again on entry! Isn't this all getting a little too complicated for you?" And if they pass the first test, how do you propose ensuring that they do not become infected before the second test? There would still be a risk of them developing it, passing both tests and then being admitted wouldn't there? What a waste of money that would be ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:12 AM Could someone tell us how USA has imposed its ban on HIV infected people entering? Now that Obama is to reverse that policy, do we know if anyone is going to pay for their treatment? If the answer is no, they will not be living in USA for long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:40 PM Perfectly simple, test six months before entry and again on entry! Isn't this all getting a little too complicated for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:20 PM ""You test them BEFORE they are allowed into the fuckin' country. If they are hiv positive, they should not be allowed in....Seemples! And if they're new infections it's still six months after after they arrive that they have a sufficient viral load to test positive. And shouldn't you be grubbing up bugs in the Kalahari? Not so seemples (the tests I mean) You?.......Well, if the cap fits............. Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM Don....for fuck sake waky! waky! You test them BEFORE they are allowed into the fuckin' country. If they are hiv positive, they should not be allowed in....Seemples! Even for you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:35 PM ""During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections. Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?"" On second thought this does deserve some expansion beyond a simple no. Right Ake, listen up, so you won't miss anything. You have pointed out that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections. Now, stay with me on this, right? How do you think they know this???? Because they have tested them for, guess what,....YES! HIV. DUH! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM Answer? NO! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:25 PM I apologise for missing the fact that I had posted twice...I even checked to make sure....must be the auld eyes! I see you've forgotten to answer my question!....must be the auld brain cells! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM ""Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton - PM Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM I see I have been mis-called on this thread despite never having posted here. In other threads on this subject I have spoken against Govt sponsered "economic immigration" which I have always regarded as a vicious con perpetrated against the poorest UK residents. I have never been against the movement of people to other countries per se. During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections. Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test?"" Slight terminological inexactitude there Ake. Below are the other times when you haven't posted to this thread. _____________________________________________________________________ Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton - PM Date: 08 Oct 09 - 01:31 AM Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton - PM Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:25 AM Just thought you might like to acknowledge the fact that you ARE not as infallible as you try to make out. Mind you, there wasn't much of substance in those two posts, but hey! Why change the habits of a lifetime. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM "You will like to know that I have met many educated folks from eastern Europe who have settled here. They are polite and speak better English than a good proportion of the sluggage one comes across in the south of England."" I agree, and they often work a bloody sight harder too. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:20 PM You will like to know that I have met many educated folks from eastern Europe who have settled here. They are polite and speak better English than a good proportion of the sluggage one comes across in the south of England. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: akenaton Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM I see I have been mis-called on this thread despite never having posted here. In other threads on this subject I have spoken against Govt sponsered "economic immigration" which I have always regarded as a vicious con perpetrated against the poorest UK residents. I have never been against the movement of people to other countries per se. During the course of the Ugandan thread, it was revealed that Sub Saharan African immigrants account for 36% of new hiv infections. Would you all agree that these infection rates are unacceptable, and that immigrants from at risk groups should be compelled to take the hiv/aids test? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:59 PM ""Dodgy Factoid: A piece of hard evidence that weakens or destroys your argument."" No Mate!.......A so-called fact from a source or origin with a serious axe to grind, a fixed political bias, or a somewhat iffy mental capacity only equalled by those who believe, and quote, said source. Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK immigration too high? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:55 PM Yeah! Big Nasty Pong. Don T. |