FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > David Cameron, the origin of our chaos
David Cameron, the origin of our chaos
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe." Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent." Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. " Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity..." Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe." Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. " I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP " Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist." I don’t have any extreme views to express. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance." Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain  | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express." I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance." Good to see you're pro immigration. | |||
| |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain "Not all, and it comes at a cost. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Good to see you're pro immigration. "Why wouldn’t I be? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain
Not all, and it comes at a cost."The majority, financially they are beneficial , so no ‘cost’  | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? " You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed." What was the context? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain "I can’t think of any real cultural benefits. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? " Too far back. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. " What is? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain
I can’t think of any real cultural benefits. "There are plenty, we have already established that thousands of immigrants have contributed more to this country than you have | |||
| |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude " Are you happy with the current Tory governments ‘mini budget’ ? | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude " You are not going to get anything sensible back from this post! Maybe a barbed comment that is thought to be clever and witty, a one liner that is for the win but you are very unlikely to get a conversation going that can flow with ideas. You see, it is all or nothing, no negotiation or any type of reasoning, it never really computes, it can be very confusing for some people on here. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain
I can’t think of any real cultural benefits.
There are plenty, we have already established that thousands of immigrants have contributed more to this country than you have "You have established that. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and culture of Great Britain
I can’t think of any real cultural benefits.
There are plenty, we have already established that thousands of immigrants have contributed more to this country than you have
You have established that. " | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? " My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate." You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they helped to increase GDP Some are indeed. Not all though of course. I’ve never expressed an anti immigration stance. Good to see you're pro immigration.
Why wouldn’t I be? "Well quite! Only the weak minded are distracted by the anti-immigrant propaganda. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact " wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? " Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude " There was a chance with a new Government to steady the ship, to be pragmatic and to act in the best interests of the country. The first actions taken by the new Government were to create an additional £200 billion worth of debt to fund tax cuts and to (inadvertently) more than double the cost of borrowing not just that £200 billion, but the entire national debt. Any more interest rate rises because the “free marketeers” have spooked the free markets and the government will be at risk of being unable to repay the debt and calling in the IMF for a bailout. We have been here before and it took nearly 59 years to clawback the strength and status of the economy. Brexit, Covid, Ukraine related energy issues and the most recent mini-budget have all been grotesquely mishandled by the Party in power. I’d like to know who you would like to blame if not those in charge of the decisions made at the very top of Government. | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude There was a chance with a new Government to steady the ship, to be pragmatic and to act in the best interests of the country. The first actions taken by the new Government were to create an additional £200 billion worth of debt to fund tax cuts and to (inadvertently) more than double the cost of borrowing not just that £200 billion, but the entire national debt. Any more interest rate rises because the “free marketeers” have spooked the free markets and the government will be at risk of being unable to repay the debt and calling in the IMF for a bailout. We have been here before and it took nearly 59 years to clawback the strength and status of the economy. Brexit, Covid, Ukraine related energy issues and the most recent mini-budget have all been grotesquely mishandled by the Party in power. I’d like to know who you would like to blame if not those in charge of the decisions made at the very top of Government." 50 years (typo) | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe." Sorry but the country and the national economy was in the best place it has ever been in the Tony Blair years. GDP per capita has never been as high again since 2007 and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown presided over a fully functioning National Health Service. Food banks hadn’t yet been invented and by 2007 homelessness had all but been eradicated. Importantly there weren’t lobbyists and think tanks back then who were employed purely to sew division and create scapegoats. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now." It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? " We live in the year 2022 not 1922 | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? We live in the year 2022 not 1922 "To be fair, you made a 1 line statement about something he apparently said and he completely shot you down I dunno the context because I haven’t seen it all, but from this thread, it looks like you r tried your best to take his words out of context and now look like an idiot Like I said, I dunno the full context, just what’s been says here | |||
"In 2010 - Dave (Spiv) Cameron fought and partially won an election on the back of using the right wing press to propagate some nonsense about Ed Milliband and chaos and a referendum on our Membership of the EU. Twelve years on and through entirely Conservative inflicted actions our country and our economy is in peril. A peril whose origins can fairly and squarely be laid at the feet of Dave (Spiv) Cameron. This unprecedented disaster lives with us today in the shape of a person more unsuited to be PM than Boris Johnson was, a Chancellor who is nothing more than the nodding dog of 55 Tufton Street and a Government that would be out of its depth in ankle deep water. The truly terrifying thing is that things are going to get a lot, lot worse in the coming months as people lose their homes to high interest rates and get cut off from their electricity and gas supplies because they can’t afford those either. What was the point of a tax giveaway if any kind of benefit would be lost 10x over in higher mortgage payments and pension pot losses because of a collapsing stock market? It’s really serious stuff and it is entirely self inflicted by the Party that. Roughy you Spiv Cameron and Brexit. CUNTS" It did seem to start from Cameron but I would say his action was actually a reaction to what had happened previously. I am referring to the then UKIP gaining popularity at an ever increasing rate. As it happened UKIP never won much at the GE with FPTP system but consistently done well at the European elections, sometimes being the largest UK party. This also emboldened certain factions of the Tory party and I think Cameron came to the conclusion he needed to address the situation. Possibly I'm wrong but that's my thoughts | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude Are you happy with the current Tory governments ‘mini budget’ ? " That's a different question for a different thread. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? We live in the year 2022 not 1922
To be fair, you made a 1 line statement about something he apparently said and he completely shot you down
I dunno the context because I haven’t seen it all, but from this thread, it looks like you r tried your best to take his words out of context and now look like an idiot
Like I said, I dunno the full context, just what’s been says here "I have tried to find the original post, he basically wanted immigrants to be put in armed camps away from other people. I suggest you have a look at his posting history (green arrow) and then make up your own mind and reasons for continually positing abd starting threads that are anti immigration | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude Are you happy with the current Tory governments ‘mini budget’ ? That's a different question for a different thread. " It is relevant to this thread | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude There was a chance with a new Government to steady the ship, to be pragmatic and to act in the best interests of the country. The first actions taken by the new Government were to create an additional £200 billion worth of debt to fund tax cuts and to (inadvertently) more than double the cost of borrowing not just that £200 billion, but the entire national debt. Any more interest rate rises because the “free marketeers” have spooked the free markets and the government will be at risk of being unable to repay the debt and calling in the IMF for a bailout. We have been here before and it took nearly 59 years to clawback the strength and status of the economy. Brexit, Covid, Ukraine related energy issues and the most recent mini-budget have all been grotesquely mishandled by the Party in power. I’d like to know who you would like to blame if not those in charge of the decisions made at the very top of Government." Covid and Putin are the main reasons for the shit situation. It's not entirely conservative inflicted. Why can you not concede that? I am happy to concede that, despite Labour being in charge during the global crash, it wasn't their fault and that's the difference between us. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? We live in the year 2022 not 1922
To be fair, you made a 1 line statement about something he apparently said and he completely shot you down
I dunno the context because I haven’t seen it all, but from this thread, it looks like you r tried your best to take his words out of context and now look like an idiot
Like I said, I dunno the full context, just what’s been says here
I have tried to find the original post, he basically wanted immigrants to be put in armed camps away from other people. I suggest you have a look at his posting history (green arrow) and then make up your own mind and reasons for continually positing abd starting threads that are anti immigration "You can’t throw crazy accusations around then tell the audience to do their own research And looking at his reply, I don’t think your 1 line summary of his words is authentic. Feels like you don’t like his view so your being purposely vague in an attempt to make it sound worse Just calling it as I see it | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Sorry but the country and the national economy was in the best place it has ever been in the Tony Blair years. GDP per capita has never been as high again since 2007 and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown presided over a fully functioning National Health Service. Food banks hadn’t yet been invented and by 2007 homelessness had all but been eradicated. Importantly there weren’t lobbyists and think tanks back then who were employed purely to sew division and create scapegoats. " I agree and if the Labour party was offering the same I'd be on board BUT the spectre of the far left that has kept them out of govt remaibs | |||
"In 2010 - Dave (Spiv) Cameron fought and partially won an election on the back of using the right wing press to propagate some nonsense about Ed Milliband and chaos and a referendum on our Membership of the EU. Twelve years on and through entirely Conservative inflicted actions our country and our economy is in peril. A peril whose origins can fairly and squarely be laid at the feet of Dave (Spiv) Cameron. This unprecedented disaster lives with us today in the shape of a person more unsuited to be PM than Boris Johnson was, a Chancellor who is nothing more than the nodding dog of 55 Tufton Street and a Government that would be out of its depth in ankle deep water. The truly terrifying thing is that things are going to get a lot, lot worse in the coming months as people lose their homes to high interest rates and get cut off from their electricity and gas supplies because they can’t afford those either. What was the point of a tax giveaway if any kind of benefit would be lost 10x over in higher mortgage payments and pension pot losses because of a collapsing stock market? It’s really serious stuff and it is entirely self inflicted by the Party that. Roughy you Spiv Cameron and Brexit. CUNTS It did seem to start from Cameron but I would say his action was actually a reaction to what had happened previously. I am referring to the then UKIP gaining popularity at an ever increasing rate. As it happened UKIP never won much at the GE with FPTP system but consistently done well at the European elections, sometimes being the largest UK party. This also emboldened certain factions of the Tory party and I think Cameron came to the conclusion he needed to address the situation. Possibly I'm wrong but that's my thoughts" You're right and this is the attraction of voting for a smaller party. Puts pressure on the government to move in a direction. IE UKIP pulled the Tories further to the right in order to try to win back voters. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? We live in the year 2022 not 1922
To be fair, you made a 1 line statement about something he apparently said and he completely shot you down
I dunno the context because I haven’t seen it all, but from this thread, it looks like you r tried your best to take his words out of context and now look like an idiot
Like I said, I dunno the full context, just what’s been says here
I have tried to find the original post, he basically wanted immigrants to be put in armed camps away from other people. I suggest you have a look at his posting history (green arrow) and then make up your own mind and reasons for continually positing abd starting threads that are anti immigration "Why would I or anyone else want to put immigrants in camps? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? We live in the year 2022 not 1922
To be fair, you made a 1 line statement about something he apparently said and he completely shot you down
I dunno the context because I haven’t seen it all, but from this thread, it looks like you r tried your best to take his words out of context and now look like an idiot
Like I said, I dunno the full context, just what’s been says here
I have tried to find the original post, he basically wanted immigrants to be put in armed camps away from other people. I suggest you have a look at his posting history (green arrow) and then make up your own mind and reasons for continually positing abd starting threads that are anti immigration
You can’t throw crazy accusations around then tell the audience to do their own research
And looking at his reply, I don’t think your 1 line summary of his words is authentic. Feels like you don’t like his view so your being purposely vague in an attempt to make it sound worse
Just calling it as I see it "He wants immigrants put into armed camps, this is a fact that he has admitted to being true on this thread, just have a read at his post | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Sorry but the country and the national economy was in the best place it has ever been in the Tony Blair years. GDP per capita has never been as high again since 2007 and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown presided over a fully functioning National Health Service. Food banks hadn’t yet been invented and by 2007 homelessness had all but been eradicated. Importantly there weren’t lobbyists and think tanks back then who were employed purely to sew division and create scapegoats. " Alastair Campbell did a pretty decent job of creating scapegoats and twisting the truth, I thought. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle " I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? We live in the year 2022 not 1922
To be fair, you made a 1 line statement about something he apparently said and he completely shot you down
I dunno the context because I haven’t seen it all, but from this thread, it looks like you r tried your best to take his words out of context and now look like an idiot
Like I said, I dunno the full context, just what’s been says here "
Winston | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude There was a chance with a new Government to steady the ship, to be pragmatic and to act in the best interests of the country. The first actions taken by the new Government were to create an additional £200 billion worth of debt to fund tax cuts and to (inadvertently) more than double the cost of borrowing not just that £200 billion, but the entire national debt. Any more interest rate rises because the “free marketeers” have spooked the free markets and the government will be at risk of being unable to repay the debt and calling in the IMF for a bailout. We have been here before and it took nearly 59 years to clawback the strength and status of the economy. Brexit, Covid, Ukraine related energy issues and the most recent mini-budget have all been grotesquely mishandled by the Party in power. I’d like to know who you would like to blame if not those in charge of the decisions made at the very top of Government. Covid and Putin are the main reasons for the shit situation. It's not entirely conservative inflicted. Why can you not concede that? I am happy to concede that, despite Labour being in charge during the global crash, it wasn't their fault and that's the difference between us. " In the weeks before The Truss administration the country was faring pretty badly but not failing. Despite having the lowest exposure to Russian gas, we were facing the highest price increases because of political decisions. However last week, the Truss administration took a political course of action that had nothing to do with Ukraine or Covid. They decided that the way to get out of the vicious spiral of debt and lack of productivity was to to give uncosted tax breaks to the wealthiest in society and put the burden on the the already gigantic debt mountain that successive Conservative Governments have exponentially grown since 2010. The Times has estimated that the mini-budget on Friday has already cost the country £500 billion but as yet the full long-term cost cannot be calculated because Government bond rates are still going up meaning that the service cost to the debt mountain is also going up. This was nothing to do with anyone else. This was a Truss own goal because she (and Kwarteng) are puppets of 55 Tufton Street and the libertarians in that building wanted to try this experiment on us all. That’s it - massive own goal that will either become much, much worse or we have to think that Kwarteng gets forced to resign as a face saving exercise and there is some kind of massive U-Turn. It shouldn’t take me to remind you that the whole world has Ukraine and Covid issues to deal with but few have economies that are eeeling like ours is at the moment… and it is going to get worse. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with?" No, | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, " Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me." Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? " The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. " Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? " Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here "Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved | |||
"In 2010 - Dave (Spiv) Cameron fought and partially won an election on the back of using the right wing press to propagate some nonsense about Ed Milliband and chaos and a referendum on our Membership of the EU. Twelve years on and through entirely Conservative inflicted actions our country and our economy is in peril. A peril whose origins can fairly and squarely be laid at the feet of Dave (Spiv) Cameron. This unprecedented disaster lives with us today in the shape of a person more unsuited to be PM than Boris Johnson was, a Chancellor who is nothing more than the nodding dog of 55 Tufton Street and a Government that would be out of its depth in ankle deep water. The truly terrifying thing is that things are going to get a lot, lot worse in the coming months as people lose their homes to high interest rates and get cut off from their electricity and gas supplies because they can’t afford those either. What was the point of a tax giveaway if any kind of benefit would be lost 10x over in higher mortgage payments and pension pot losses because of a collapsing stock market? It’s really serious stuff and it is entirely self inflicted by the Party that. Roughy you Spiv Cameron and Brexit. CUNTS" who did you vote for in 2010 then? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved "Great. Only downside - millions more would come. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come. "I thought you were pro immigration now? Surely that would be a good thing? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come. "And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum | |||
| |||
"Immigrants? I think the ones costing the country at the moment are the ones running it...." There's no way that any of the problems facing this country are caused by those with all power, influence and money. They're exclusively caused by some poor people in a small boat looking for a better life. | |||
"Immigrants? I think the ones costing the country at the moment are the ones running it...." Just astonishing how the thread got so easily derailed. Those bogeymen immigrants - everything is their fault. | |||
| |||
"The Daily Mail does astonishing work on behalf of this shit show government..." Does it really? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved "Provide safe passage and them what? What if asylum claims are rejected? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum "Wrong again. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
I thought you were pro immigration now? Surely that would be a good thing?"I understand and appreciate the need for sensible managed immigration. Who wouldn’t? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
I thought you were pro immigration now? Surely that would be a good thing?"I’ve never been anti. But even you would agree that any mad bad dangerous person that wants to try his luck in another country poses a threat? | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude Are you happy with the current Tory governments ‘mini budget’ ? That's a different question for a different thread. It is relevant to this thread " No, the accusation is that the current situation is entirely conservative inflicted. Btw your apparently natural argumentative nature to anyone who has voted Tory or has a positive comment towards anything Tory is a serious issue. I, however, have positive comments about all non extreme parties | |||
"The Daily Mail does astonishing work on behalf of this shit show government... Does it really? " Satire, I like it... | |||
| |||
"Immigrants? I think the ones costing the country at the moment are the ones running it.... Just astonishing how the thread got so easily derailed. Those bogeymen immigrants - everything is their fault." Migrants or immigrants? Do we have the money to support them and us? £5 million per day on hotels alone. Thoughts? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again. "These are facts, | |||
"Immigrants? I think the ones costing the country at the moment are the ones running it.... Just astonishing how the thread got so easily derailed. Those bogeymen immigrants - everything is their fault. Migrants or immigrants? Do we have the money to support them and us? £5 million per day on hotels alone. Thoughts?" Yes, we are the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts, "Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly. You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here. Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633 | |||
""entirely conservative inflicted actions"? Covid? Invasion of Ukraine? Was the global crash the fault of the incumbent Labour govt? Of course not. Neither is our current situation entirely conservative inflicted. This isn't a political forum, it's a labour bandwagon. Good luck getting Tory voters to help Labour I to power with that attitude Are you happy with the current Tory governments ‘mini budget’ ? That's a different question for a different thread. It is relevant to this thread No, the accusation is that the current situation is entirely conservative inflicted. Btw your apparently natural argumentative nature to anyone who has voted Tory or has a positive comment towards anything Tory is a serious issue. I, however, have positive comments about all non extreme parties" I am not anti Tory, I like and admire many conservative voters and MPs, this current lot are a more akin to UKIP though . There are many reasons for the current shit show including 12 years of Conservative governments | |||
| |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts,
Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly.
You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here.
Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633"Over 70 % of immigrants entering the UK are granted asylum | |||
"Trickle down economics appears to be: give money back to the high earners who will spend it and fuel the economy and eventually get into the less well.off pockets. But heavens forbud you give money to hoteliers. As they will give some to staff who will spend it. Some to suppliers who will spend it. And they will spend some them self. Thats bad economics And you give a person in need a new home. Better to send that money to Rwanda. " Truss and Kwasis trickle down economy ‘experiment’ won’t last much longer, I am expecting another humiliating U turn soon | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts,
Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly.
You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here.
Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633
Over 70 % of immigrants entering the UK are granted asylum "You say nothing, you prove nothing other than you can't understand or accept other views, it has been mentioned before by others too, it took me a while realise it. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts,
Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly.
You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here.
Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633
Over 70 % of immigrants entering the UK are granted asylum
You say nothing, you prove nothing other than you can't understand or accept other views, it has been mentioned before by others too, it took me a while realise it.
"I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’ | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts,
Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly.
You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here.
Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633
Over 70 % of immigrants entering the UK are granted asylum
You say nothing, you prove nothing other than you can't understand or accept other views, it has been mentioned before by others too, it took me a while realise it.
I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’ "You don't have any facts. Read or watch the programme supplied in my link. Facts are there | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts,
Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly.
You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here.
Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633
Over 70 % of immigrants entering the UK are granted asylum
You say nothing, you prove nothing other than you can't understand or accept other views, it has been mentioned before by others too, it took me a while realise it.
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Worrying about foreigners again, eh? At least you're consistent. Hardly. But if that’s what you like to think for some unknown reason. Can't imagine where I got the idea you go on about foreigners at every opportunity... Yawn. It’s not off topic or forbidden you know. Why does it bother you so much. As I said, strange. I just find it v strange you so often go on about foreigners on here. On occasion, even letting extreme views slip out. Especially since you also claim you're not racist. I don’t have any extreme views to express. I guess you don't need to express ny extreme views about immigration since you have already done so on here. Remember when you said all immigrants/refugess should be put in heavily guarded camps? Or what about the time you asked if we should be worried about babies called Mohammed? You are picking out certain lines and not showing the full context. Again. Strange indeed. What was the context? Too far back. What is? My posts where the other guy likes to pick out certain lines instead of saying what he feels is wrong with my post. I know, it doesn’t lead to much of a debate. You wanted immigrants putting in armed camps, this is a fact wrong and you know it. Here we go again. If you remember it was related to a great British example of how we helped refugees in WW1. They were given old army camps to live in. They were very grateful and had a moment of thanks for the help & hospitality they received. I also drew reference to an awful example local to me where Libyan soldiers left an unguarded camp where they were staying (thanks again to Blair) and went on a crime spree, ending in cases of r@pe. Camp was then lockdown and they fed flown home, apart from a handful that are in prison. I suggested that unknown illegal immigrants would better be housed in these camps than in hotels. As we have no idea who they are they would need guards. You pointed out however that they are ‘all good people’. I took you at your word if you remember, and then said they could police themselves. Of course, any genuine refugees would be grateful of somewhere warm, dry , safe. They may even be like the Belgians and build a monument of thanks when they return home but I wouldn’t bet on it. We already have examples of Afghan refugees turning down council homes in Scotland and Wales as they want to be with ‘their own’ in London. Not much hope of integration there is there? Might be a good idea, watching tv last night the Gov are saying they are paying £5 million a day in hotel costs alone, for migrants crossing the channel. 150 million a month! That is a lot of money we could do with right now. It is good for the hotels involved and means the money stays within the UK economy, unlike the crazy (and unlawful) Rwanda debacle I understand that logic, but isn't that approach the same a Truss's trickle down economics that you are not happy with? No, Can you explain why it is different, seem exactly the same to me. Simple, the money is paid directly to the hotels who will require extra staff to cater for the increase in hotel guest creating job for the lower paid workers . Liz Truss is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large companies , can you explain how this will ‘trickle down ‘? The government are giving £1.8billion a year to hotels (companies) or their owners (wealthy after the payments), to house people who are not native to this country. That money you say will be spent on employment, will it? Truss's trickle down gives tax breaks to people to allow them to spend more of the money they earn in hotels or restaurants, promoting employment, will it? It is exactly the same, you just don't want to see that, because it what you want, you are happy to let £1.8 billion go into the hands of hotels and their owners from the pockets of the tax payers, when we the as a country can least afford it. Where do you get £1.8 billion from? I am happy for the money to stay in the uk rather than be spent on a pathetic and unlawful scheme to send them to Rwanda. Over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum, they are legally entitled to be here, so that money isn’t ‘wasted’ it is spent helping people who are net contributors to our economy. Do you think the ‘armed camps ‘ idea will be cheaper? Reducing the people crossing is the only logical conclusion. Loss of life, cost to the tax payer, lining criminals pockets, it needs preventing. You and I are not going to agree on this in a million years, so I will leave it here
Provide them with safe passage, no gangs needed, no more drownings, problem solved
Great. Only downside - millions more would come.
And? Do you want to get rid of these gangs and stop the drownings? Over 70 % are granted asylum
Wrong again.
These are facts,
Facts that 70% of people are answering the questions correctly.
You would expect that education as part of the £15000 fee to get here.
Facts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62832633
Over 70 % of immigrants entering the UK are granted asylum
You say nothing, you prove nothing other than you can't understand or accept other views, it has been mentioned before by others too, it took me a while realise it.
I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’
You don't have any facts. Read or watch the programme supplied in my link. Facts are there"https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html Read it, educate yourself and you will be a better person | |||
"I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’ You don't have any facts. Read or watch the programme supplied in my link. Facts are there https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html Read it, educate yourself and you will be a better person " Thanks, any chance you could also educate yourself? I'm guessing you feel you don't need to  | |||
"I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’ You don't have any facts. Read or watch the programme supplied in my link. Facts are there https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html Read it, educate yourself and you will be a better person Thanks, any chance you could also educate yourself? I'm guessing you feel you don't need to "We all need education , but let’s stick to the facts , over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. " I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. | |||
"I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’ You don't have any facts. Read or watch the programme supplied in my link. Facts are there https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html Read it, educate yourself and you will be a better person Thanks, any chance you could also educate yourself? I'm guessing you feel you don't need to
We all need education , but let’s stick to the facts , over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum "I'm starting to see your problem | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. "no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling. I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market. I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help Do you ? | |||
"I prefer to stick to facts rather than a persons ‘views’ You don't have any facts. Read or watch the programme supplied in my link. Facts are there https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html Read it, educate yourself and you will be a better person Thanks, any chance you could also educate yourself? I'm guessing you feel you don't need to
We all need education , but let’s stick to the facts , over 70% of immigrants are granted asylum
I'm starting to see your problem "And I can see yours | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ? "You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time. | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
"I haven't though have I. Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ? And companies can't go check you aren't lying ! You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0. But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit. | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
I haven't though have I.
Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ?
And companies can't go check you aren't lying !
You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0.
But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit.
"There you go, bingo! 70% is not a trusted figure, but one that is being used as fact | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
I haven't though have I.
Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ?
And companies can't go check you aren't lying !
You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0.
But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit.
There you go, bingo! 70% is not a trusted figure, but one that is being used as fact "It is fact , unless you have the figures that prove otherwise | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
I haven't though have I.
Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ?
And companies can't go check you aren't lying !
You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0.
But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit.
There you go, bingo! 70% is not a trusted figure, but one that is being used as fact
It is fact , unless you have the figures that prove otherwise "Of course | |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
I haven't though have I.
Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ?
And companies can't go check you aren't lying !
You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0.
But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit.
There you go, bingo! 70% is not a trusted figure, but one that is being used as fact "I did say even if. You need to do some work to show it can't be "trusted". It is a fact that 70pc are given asulym. Your claim is that it's less than 70pf that really are asylum seekers rather than imposters. So far, you've given us a story supported by weak "evidence" that relies on criminals being trustworthy. And those who grant asylum being easily hoodwinked. | |||
| |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
I haven't though have I.
Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ?
And companies can't go check you aren't lying !
You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0.
But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit.
There you go, bingo! 70% is not a trusted figure, but one that is being used as fact I did say even if. You need to do some work to show it can't be "trusted". It is a fact that 70pc are given asulym. Your claim is that it's less than 70pf that really are asylum seekers rather than imposters. So far, you've given us a story supported by weak "evidence" that relies on criminals being trustworthy. And those who grant asylum being easily hoodwinked. "I don't need to do anything, the government needs to take control of our expenditures that have an impact on our standard of living. If you believe it is okay that people can be smuggled over the med, 2000 deaths this year and then charged £15000 to cross the channel, would suggest you need to consider an alternative for these people that will slow down the transfer of migrants and remove the reliance of criminals. Crack that nut and everyone will be happy. Over to you | |||
"In 2010 - Dave (Spiv) Cameron fought and partially won an election on the back of using the right wing press to propagate some nonsense about Ed Milliband and chaos and a referendum on our Membership of the EU. Twelve years on and through entirely Conservative inflicted actions our country and our economy is in peril. A peril whose origins can fairly and squarely be laid at the feet of Dave (Spiv) Cameron. This unprecedented disaster lives with us today in the shape of a person more unsuited to be PM than Boris Johnson was, a Chancellor who is nothing more than the nodding dog of 55 Tufton Street and a Government that would be out of its depth in ankle deep water. The truly terrifying thing is that things are going to get a lot, lot worse in the coming months as people lose their homes to high interest rates and get cut off from their electricity and gas supplies because they can’t afford those either. What was the point of a tax giveaway if any kind of benefit would be lost 10x over in higher mortgage payments and pension pot losses because of a collapsing stock market? It’s really serious stuff and it is entirely self inflicted by the Party that. Roughy you Spiv Cameron and Brexit. CUNTS" No. Whilst I agree with much of what you've said; as far as origins go, it's all down to Nick Clegg. If that self-serving, useless cunt hadn't enabled the coalition, Cameron wouldn't have lasted long enough to shit himself and cave in to Farage for fear of UKIP taking a few (very few, under FPTP) seats in Parliament from the Tories. If you think I'm misjudging Nick; consider who he works for now. However, as you say - CUNTS. Who, just lately, have proven that they are irredeemably toxic to everyone but their wealthiest friends. | |||
| |||
"is there any evidence that HMG/Home Office/Border Control are incompetent and so allow non refugees through because they had seen a question in advance? I can give a few for free "Where are you from?" "Why are you claiming asylum?" Shit, I've probably put the pass rate up to 72pc now. I 'm guessing you took no time out to look at the BBC investigation link I attached, because if you had, you probably would not have asked that question and made yourself look a little silly. no, I did. They said in the black market there Yiu could buy sample Home Office questions to prepare for a grilling.
I saw no evidence of what those questions were. Or if they were legit. Could be Wish standard questions. It is the black market.
I also wonder how much knowing questions in advance would help
Do you ?
You have just answered your own question! You read the evidence that the info is provided but you have still managed to answer and argue at the same time.
I haven't though have I.
Does knowing some of the questions you will get at a job interview guarantee you a job ?
And companies can't go check you aren't lying !
You are trying to cast aspersions on the 70pc stat. Even if the questions allowed some false claims in, I have no idea if the real stat should be 69pc or 0.
But you have yet to show it has an effect at all. Or that the questions are legit.
There you go, bingo! 70% is not a trusted figure, but one that is being used as fact I did say even if. You need to do some work to show it can't be "trusted". It is a fact that 70pc are given asulym. Your claim is that it's less than 70pf that really are asylum seekers rather than imposters. So far, you've given us a story supported by weak "evidence" that relies on criminals being trustworthy. And those who grant asylum being easily hoodwinked.
I don't need to do anything, the government needs to take control of our expenditures that have an impact on our standard of living.
If you believe it is okay that people can be smuggled over the med, 2000 deaths this year and then charged £15000 to cross the channel, would suggest you need to consider an alternative for these people that will slow down the transfer of migrants and remove the reliance of criminals.
Crack that nut and everyone will be happy. Over to you
"okay. We've moved on from your article and the point you were making.
Clearly I don't believe it is okay. Feels a non sequitur from what we were discussing.
But my starter for ten, stolen from others.
Set up processing centres near refugee hotspots. That will make it easier to validate claims and also prevent the trafficing.
Work collaboratively across countries. The refugee problem is a global one. Turning out back on it is selfish imo.
Seek to integrate and educate those we accept. There is no reason to think they aren't a good crows representation of society. While some hark on about "what if we let a bad guy in" the flip side is we are turning away future captainw of industry. Future large employers. Future game changing scientists.
| |||
"In 2010 - Dave (Spiv) Cameron fought and partially won an election on the back of using the right wing press to propagate some nonsense about Ed Milliband and chaos and a referendum on our Membership of the EU. Twelve years on and through entirely Conservative inflicted actions our country and our economy is in peril. A peril whose origins can fairly and squarely be laid at the feet of Dave (Spiv) Cameron. This unprecedented disaster lives with us today in the shape of a person more unsuited to be PM than Boris Johnson was, a Chancellor who is nothing more than the nodding dog of 55 Tufton Street and a Government that would be out of its depth in ankle deep water. The truly terrifying thing is that things are going to get a lot, lot worse in the coming months as people lose their homes to high interest rates and get cut off from their electricity and gas supplies because they can’t afford those either. What was the point of a tax giveaway if any kind of benefit would be lost 10x over in higher mortgage payments and pension pot losses because of a collapsing stock market? It’s really serious stuff and it is entirely self inflicted by the Party that. Roughy you Spiv Cameron and Brexit. CUNTS" you may have missed it so i'll ask again .... who did you vote for in 2010? | |||
"it appears that the far-righty fascist types are still arguing that our economic woes highlighted in the op are caused by immigration or free movement .... if only we could take back control of our borders they might shut-up then. "Who is arguing that? | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe." Thing is - if you understand our history, and appreciate facts, mass immigration began in the John Major years, and was a result of Margaret Thatcher's influence upon the European Union. Don't get me wrong, Blair was kind of a slimeball - but the only blame he takes is not doing anything about what the Tories lumbered us with. Freedom of Movement is the most basic and fundamental principle of Free Market Conservatism - never forget that | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Thing is - if you understand our history, and appreciate facts, mass immigration began in the John Major years, and was a result of Margaret Thatcher's influence upon the European Union. Don't get me wrong, Blair was kind of a slimeball - but the only blame he takes is not doing anything about what the Tories lumbered us with. Freedom of Movement is the most basic and fundamental principle of Free Market Conservatism - never forget that" But the EU (or common market) was much smaller in Thatchers day. Pre expansion to Eastern Europe. | |||
"I think you can go back further, to Blair. His “to stick it up the Tories in the shires “ use of mass immigration from east Europe. Thing is - if you understand our history, and appreciate facts, mass immigration began in the John Major years, and was a result of Margaret Thatcher's influence upon the European Union. Don't get me wrong, Blair was kind of a slimeball - but the only blame he takes is not doing anything about what the Tories lumbered us with. Freedom of Movement is the most basic and fundamental principle of Free Market Conservatism - never forget that But the EU (or common market) was much smaller in Thatchers day. Pre expansion to Eastern Europe." EU and non EU patterns are remarkably similar before Brexit. There probably was a slight trend to more from the EU, but id say our willingness to embrace immigration trumped FOM causing a flood we didn't want. | |||
| |||
" But the EU (or common market) was much smaller in Thatchers day. Pre expansion to Eastern Europe." Indeed and Thacher was very keen on expanding it to include former eastern bloc countries - she made a particular thing about speaking out to get Poland to join. She knew what she was doing | |||
