-
Posts
-
@emmalush wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
Your last post contradicts your entire argument. You say spending money on interpreters is a waste of money but then you say solving crimes is not a waste of money.
Whilst there here, using them to defend decency is ok. BUT, WE DO NOT NEED ASYLUM SEEKERS HERE, so we shouldn’t be spending 1p on ANY of them.
So what you’re now saying is that no money should be spent on solving a crime if an asylum seeker is involved in any way, or if an asylum seeker has any information relating to a crime.
No country NEEDS asylum seekers, it’s just what civilized people do i.e. give a helping hand to the less fortunate. Michael Howard, Albert Einstein and Madeleine Albright have all benefitted from the fact that countries have been willing to accept refugees.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
So what you’re now saying is that no money should be spent on solving a crime if an asylum seeker is involved in any way, or if an asylum seeker has any information relating to a crime.
No. Im saying whilst there here, if they can help us solve a crime, great. BUT, successive governments have allowed asylum seekers here, and that is wrong. We should be encouraging them to leave, stopping any getting here from now on by bringing our troops home to control our borders, thus eventually we wont be wasting upto £66 ph on them.
No country NEEDS asylum seekers, it’s just what civilized people do i.e. give a helping hand to the less fortunate.
Do you help all those less fortunate than you?
@emmalush wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
So what you’re now saying is that no money should be spent on solving a crime if an asylum seeker is involved in any way, or if an asylum seeker has any information relating to a crime.
No. Im saying whilst there here, if they can help us solve a crime, great. BUT, successive governments have allowed asylum seekers here, and that is wrong. We should be encouraging them to leave, stopping any getting here from now on by bringing our troops home to control our borders, thus eventually we wont be wasting upto £66 ph on them.
No country NEEDS asylum seekers, it’s just what civilized people do i.e. give a helping hand to the less fortunate.
Do you help all those less fortunate than you?
Troops…control our borders….a military state!!!!! ffs, what planet are you on
@slayer wrote:
Troops…control our borders….a military state!!!!! ffs
Are you smoking LSD tonight :shock:
There are people here illegaly you idiot…
There are people here illegaly you idiot…
With idiotic statements like yours…i cant believe you support it :roll: Makes sense though, your a tory.
@emmalush wrote:
Are you smoking LSD tonight :shock:
smoking lsd? you could never take it like that in my day lol! :shock: :wink:
Emma I do help the less fortunate. I regularly try to help you come to rational conclusions on issues that your drink-addled brain can’t cope with. It’s not your fault that you’re a congenital idiot. It’s ok though, you don’t need to thank me for my generous help.
So your attitude is that nobody should ever be granted refugee status. So I guess you would like to see the white people who came here from Zimbabwe sent back. I also guess that you opposed Cyprus having to take all those British refugees who were fleeing Lebanon (yes it was only temporary but still must have been an inconvenience for Cyprus).
You probably would have opposed General de Gaulle, General Sikorski and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands seeking refuge in the UK during WWII. However, that’s not too surprising since you would have supported the other side.
she would more likely have been in auschwitz, nothing happened there anyway it was all a myth so id say that place would of been the nicest to stay in
I wonder how much tonys tax on his income,,,,,,,,,,,,any one know, who blair
u know the prime minister, the boss off the land,
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
So your attitude is that nobody should ever be granted refugee status.
At 11.45am october 06 2006, we have English born people living on the street, old folk who fought in wars, risked their lives to give us the chance to live a better life, are living in poverty.
THEY deserve better, and if that means we stop asylum seekers coming here (who havn’t put owt in the kitty) to give our elders a better life, the people on the streets a better chance, SO BE IT.
When our good folk are living in decency, then we can help others.
So I guess you would like to see the white people who came here from Zimbabwe sent back.
YES!
I also guess that you opposed Cyprus having to take all those British refugees who were fleeing Lebanon (yes it was only temporary but still must have been an inconvenience for Cyprus).
Foreign rules dont apply to me in that way.
That’s interesting, you’re now saying that you would welcome asylum seekers if Britain went through a boom period. It’s also interesting that you as someone who supports the far-right are now pressing for more state benefits to be given to the less fortunate. What could be more socialist and more Labour-like than the Welfare State? Yet, here you are saying that the state should look after the homeless and the elderly.
Somehow, I don’t think that your average WWII veteran would look to the BNP as their saviour. They risked their lives to keep your sh1tty ideology out of this country. The last thing they want is to be governed by a bunch of Hitler-worshipping miscreants.
If you’re so concerned about how public money is being spent then maybe you should speak to your BNP friends and tell them to stop going to prison. Then the taxpayer wouldn’t have to pay for their upkeep.
Anyway, the UK is signed up to an international treaty regarding refugees and if we pulled out of it then everyone would. That would mean people caught up in a conflict or disaster would be doomed. So imagine if Brits on holiday abroad got caught up in a conflict. If there were no flights out of that country then those people would probably be unable to cross into a neighbouring country to escape (they probably wouldn’t have the right paperwork to enter that country). Any evacuation of those people would depend on the warring parties granting permission (as we saw in Lebanon). So the long and short of it would be that those people would be stuck in a war-zone. Are you happy to see British people die Emma?
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!