The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

Ross1234 said:
100% of 99% of 99% of this thread is a pile of poo.

Oh and look ^^ A racist comment followed by a smiley face to make it acceptable. Dirtydogs trick. Your learning fast.
Click to expand...

Woot the race card!!! It's been at least 2 pages since the last one. IIRC he'd also point out the error of using "your" instead of "you're" and I am sure there should be a possessive apostrophe when you use his username too..... :p

Not that the comment was racist as it refers to his current inability to vote on his visa, but never mind.
 
vee70 said:
Woot the race card!!! It's been at least 2 pages since the last one. IIRC he'd also point out the error of using "your" instead of "you're" and I am sure there should be a possessive apostrophe when you use his username too..... :p
Click to expand...
I dont give a **** about grammar. You brought up race by mentioning he was a foreigner.

Oh and ":p"
 
Ross1234 said:
100% of 99% of 99% of this thread is a pile of poo.

Oh and look ^^ A racist comment followed by a smiley face to make it acceptable. Dirtydogs trick. Your learning fast.
Click to expand...
If you can't even tell that he was making a good-natured joke then I don't rate your chances of understanding the issues being discussed in this thread...
 
Ross1234 said:
I give up. Hopefully the sane people will outvote the scum who vote the BNP in the elections. (:p)
Click to expand...

Well with the ever ballooning number of foreigners being allowed to vote in our elections, I agree it is hard for a pro-British party to achieve electoral success. It makes the BNP's victory in last week's elections all the more telling.
 
vee70 said:
Of course, but we can't seem to get honest debate because the sides are so polarised and entrenched. Neither seems willing to admit that the other has some value. The figures make it perfectly clear that the majority of immigrants are a net drain but the pro lobby concentrates only on the small numbers that add to the economy.
The social aspect of immigration can be measured by how the native population feel about it. 80% are unhappy therefore immigration has gone too far and is out of hand.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that you can accurately gauge the scale of the issue from public opinion. Especially in this climate where people are losing jobs left right and centre due to the 'credit crunch' I'm sure a number of them are now looking for someone to blame and so often it is the foreigners that get the first finger. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't contribute to the issue because from a purely numbers game it does, but again it's the sub groups of the immigrants that need to be addressed, not them as a whole. When you see your community going down the gurgler because of there not being enough jobs to support both the locals and the immigrants then clearly there is an issue and I can see the reasoning for the vehemence. It's also easy to make judgement calls from a position of having a good job and no financial issues but somewhere there needs to be some middle ground because that is what we signed up to when we chose to be part of a western democratic system.

Honestly it sounds like we're debating the same points and pretty much agree on the same grounds.

vee70 said:
On the plus side there are no logical reaons why an immigrant can not come here, settle in, add to the community, add a touch of their culture to ours in a way that gives a hint of flavour rather than overpowering it and so on.
However it seems to be such a divisive issue that there is no middle ground. What worries me most is the inability of people to actually back up or explain their opinions with cold hard facts. It is far too easy to scream racist at people who disagree or ask for explanation and that is almost exclusively what I am seeing. Not including you in that.
Click to expand...

Cheers

It's the extremes that bother me, the people that come over to western society and still wave around their cultural and religious beliefs like a weapon and then expect to be able to exist exactly the way they were accustomed to in their home lands. The idea that they should be able to come here and then expect to live under their own laws and do as they will without consideration for why the majority of immigrants come here in the first place is mad. BUT - this is only representative of a hard line minority, it is only an extreme few that expect to be able to do this and it seems that it's only an extreme few that feel that an extreme reaction is the only answer - that makes me sad.
 
dirtydog said:
Well with the ever ballooning number of foreigners being allowed to vote in our elections, I agree it is hard for a pro-British party to achieve electoral success. It makes the BNP's victory in last week's elections all the more telling.
Click to expand...
Victory? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They got less votes than the time before!
 
vee70 said:
You mean better as in taking more?

Table 5.1 shows less than half of Pakistanis are employed vs 78% of UK born.
Table 5.2 shows similar levels of unemployment benefit 4%UK 5%Pakistan
Table 5.4 shows average UK wage is higher than average Pakistan wage
Table 5.9 shows 1% of UK taking unemployment related benefits vs 2% pakistan
Table 5.10 shows 4% on income support vs 11% pakistani
5.11 shows 6% invalidity vs 10% pakistani
5.12 shows 14% child benefit vs 29% pakistani

I'm not sure how those figures can be pro immigration..........
Click to expand...

Ok, slightly wrong on that (my fault for posting from my phone when I couldn't read the PDF).

However, if you actually read my full post, I did say, specifically, that I wasn't pro-immigration, just that the figures being bandied about as one thing (benefit claimants) were entirely different (economic inactivity) and provided the correct ones.

I support limiting migration on an economic basis, and have done for a long time. This does not mean restricting people based on where they come from, what they believe or what colour their skin is, but on whether or not they are likely to make a positive net economic contribution.
 
Dolph said:
Ok, slightly wrong on that (my fault for posting from my phone when I couldn't read the PDF).

However, if you actually read my full post, I did say, specifically, that I wasn't pro-immigration, just that the figures being bandied about as one thing (benefit claimants) were entirely different (economic inactivity) and provided the correct ones.

I support limiting migration on an economic basis, and have done for a long time. This does not mean restricting people based on where they come from, what they believe or what colour their skin is, but on whether or not they are likely to make a positive net economic contribution.
Click to expand...

Fine but what about a positive net social contribution as well?
 
Ross1234 said:
Never heard that before, but I doubt he actually said that. If he did he is more of an idiot than I thought.
Click to expand...

I think it highlights the danger that the racist overtones that 'seem' to exist within the BNP policy are far more outright that I thought. The concern is that whilst the party is becoming more politically savvy the end result of them getting into a point of power remains fundamentally the same.

Still the statement is taken out of context and should be examined in a complete manner - altho it's a hard one to misinterpret.
 
dirtydog said:
Fine but what about a positive net social contribution as well?
Click to expand...

How do you define positive net social contribution, and why should it only be applied to immigrants? Why not test benefits based on whether someone is making a positive social contribution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom