Fair enough but I just wanted to point out that it isn't only the stereotypical poor downtrodden refugee who is fleeing from horror and genocide. It is just as likely to be perfectly happy and healthy fit young men coming over from Poland. (incidentally, most so-called 'asylum seekers' are in fact economic migrants anyway but that's another story)Van_Dammesque said:
Hodge doesn't think we should send them back, but their homes shouldn't be that nice
- Thread starter cleanbluesky
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
AcidHell2 said:
obviously you can't WRITE(!!!!!!!!!) English either
perhaps you should be deported a.s.a.p.?
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 2,215
- Location
- NE England
Why is it xenophobia if you wish to put your countrymen first before the needs of foreigners? What is the concept of a country to you (as in the royal youchimaera said:
) if foreigners are put before the indiginous?OT: Do/did you support the war in Iraq?
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
chimaera said:
Abusees are given priority status anyway.
A few posts ago I could have sworn that you were convinced that a refugee should get status over *****.
I agree with you on xenophobia, we need to take an always rational response to sorting this situation out. I liken Hodge's response to a neurosis, adopting a behaviour that would become problematic simply becasue you are unwilling to deal with the real issue - that of immigration, NOT housing alone.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 2,215
- Location
- NE England
bringerofdecay said:
/Gets Coat
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
platypus said:
Yes, but presenting the idea that blacks are somehow needy is not only racist (not saying you are racist) and prejudiced but it is used as a reason to discriminate in favour of blacks.
Van_Dammesque said:Why is it xenophobia if you wish to put your countrymen first before the needs of foreigners? What is the concept of a country to you (as in the royal you
OT: Do/did you support the war in Iraq?
I've got no problem putting a countryman first as long as they've got more reason to need it. I'm not advocating putting foreigners first, but sometimes a foreigner might need it more, and to preclude them based on nationality seems a bit harsh.
I suported the war in iraq and still do, i have a few issues with how its been managed since then but i'd like to think it was the right thing to do. (wasn't sure if that Q was aimed at me
)Anyway i'm bowing out to go take the wife to dinner
enjoy the debate you arguementative sods
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 2,215
- Location
- NE England
dirtydog said:
Point taken, and to further that: I was watching the Wright Stuff this morning (don't shout at me!) and this topic was discussed. The doctor who presents Most Haunted (and is a politcian I think) made the same point, that Poles come here and get housing becasue "for EU workers there are no borders" - well if that is the case can't the councils simply say you can not have a house as there are none, maybe try the Warsaw council?
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 2,215
- Location
- NE England
Well that then boils down to what you have already said and that is immigration policy. Maybe if we didn't put immigrants first the attraction to this country would be less - I'm not holding my breathe!chimaera said:
It was and your answer if fair enough for me!I suported the war in iraq and still do, i have a few issues with how its been managed since then but i'd like to think it was the right thing to do. (wasn't sure if that Q was aimed at me
I was asking becasue I tend to find that most people who want us to sort out Darfur are the same ones critising (the initial entering of) Iraq. My bad I was trying to trip you up Heh heh enjoy your meal!Anyway i'm bowing out to go take the wife to dinner enjoy the debate you arguementative sods
Right so let me get this straight!!
We sell guns/chemicals/mines/WMDs.....etc to ruthless dictators and cruel warlords and then when civilians start running for their lives we tell them too F Off back home
The British economy has certainly not been damaged by the massively lucrative weapons industry, it would be absolutely disgusting to deny someone safe refuge from massacres we help cause
We sell guns/chemicals/mines/WMDs.....etc to ruthless dictators and cruel warlords and then when civilians start running for their lives we tell them too F Off back home
The British economy has certainly not been damaged by the massively lucrative weapons industry, it would be absolutely disgusting to deny someone safe refuge from massacres we help cause
Van_Dammesque said:
No no no. We are all equal. Doesn't matter where you come from and just because your parents, parents, parents were born in Britain doesn't make you any more British (in my eyes) then someone who's parents came from the China. All this proud to be British nonsense is a load of rubbish, very few British people do anything of use themselves these days. And I see no reason to feel pride in any of the achievments of out ancestors any more then we should feel ashamed by their use of slavery etc.
I think the decision on who to give priority too regards free housing etc should be based on potential benefits to the rest of society. In this example the girl in question is most likely going to spend her entire life living off the state and will be a huge drain. Now the immigrant family have arrived here with nothing, with a little helping hand its possible that once they get their feet they'll be productive tax paying members of society and won't be sponging us anymore.
Personally I think everyone should be entitled to benefits for a limited time. No should be intitled to a life on benefits unless they are completely incapable of working. And by that I mean they are so disabled they couldn't possible hold down a job, not just one of those people who finds the idea of work a bit stressful therefore they choose not to do it.
Last edited:
Are you prepared to support the harsh, draconian policies which would be necessary to fulfill your wishes?yak.h'cir said:
ie. if you want to stop women from having kids and then sitting back while the taxpayer provides a living for them for the rest of their life, what would you do: enforced adoption? workhouses? sterilisation?
dirtydog said:
It doesn't need to go that far. You could get a house for the first year or so, then after its deemed that you do not show any desire to actually provide a living for your family then you get moved into shared housing/hostel type arrangement. That way a lot of mums/children can be given a safe enviroment to live in at a fraction of the cost to the tax payer. If your want the luxury/privacy of your own place then you should be expected to work for it, just like everyone else.
Afterall, this is how we treat our old people even if they did work all their lives paying taxes, why should someone who has made no contribution to society expect better treatment then that for their enitre lives?!?
What you describe is akin to a workhouse then. A policy which I support incidentally. But what would you do if, once the mother and child are moved into the hostel type place, she refuses to work? Bearing in mind you could not simply cut off her benefits as the innocent child would suffer. There would need to be a sanction of taking the child into care or something.yak.h'cir said:
dirtydog said:
Well I suppose there are two options, you can either continue to provide a home in the hostel (which they should be grateful for), or you can give the mother the choice of having to get a job or give up the child for adoption and then she can fend for herself, this would be done at an age where the child was old enough for school etc so there's no excuse about staying home to raise the child. It's a pretty horrific choice to give someone, but I believe we need to get people out of the mindset where they can expect to live a life of luxury without working for it.
Personally I'd probably go for the option of a place to stay in the hostel for life. I'm sure if it was done properly you could house a huge number of people in a safe enviroment for the price of a few homes that are typically only housing one mother and child each.
If something like this isn't done soon I think we'll end up in the situation where forced abortions and children dying of stavation are common. But this is only because of my belief that we are living in small period of time where our resources are plentyfull, and that this period of time will come to an end. Bringing with it an end to the option to care for all this extra people who won't care for themselves.
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
dirtydog said:
Do you walk around with a stovepipe hat, condemning the working-classes of the day for their habit of gin consumption?
I would say that any third generation immigrant that can pass a "reasonable" citizenship test and get a C or higher at GCSE English (not English as a foreign language or any of that ********) should be considered a citizen with all the rights and responsibilities that that confers.
Remember, a GCSE comprises of reading, writing, speaking and listening.
If they can do all that to grade C or higher, they'll actually be better qualified than many of your natives.
Once they have those skills and parents born and bred in the UK, I don't see any problem with them getting the same treatment as any other "proper" British citizen.
Remember, a GCSE comprises of reading, writing, speaking and listening.
If they can do all that to grade C or higher, they'll actually be better qualified than many of your natives.
Once they have those skills and parents born and bred in the UK, I don't see any problem with them getting the same treatment as any other "proper" British citizen.