City's population rockets (From Daily Echo)

OceansofRed wrote:
It's a bit rich for Richard Williams to complain when it was his party that let everyone in!

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said.

It does feel like we are the minority in our own country.

Simple immigration policies would help;

1. Speak fluent English or no entry!
2. Understand English culture and heritage
3. No work - No stay!
4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country!

We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past?
I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

Raxx wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said.

It does feel like we are the minority in our own country.

Simple immigration policies would help;

1. Speak fluent English or no entry!
2. Understand English culture and heritage
3. No work - No stay!
4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country!

We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past?
I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

A large number of our indigenous population would fail your tests 1, 2 and 3.

Perhaps we/you should get our/your own house in order first. The alternative is gross hypocrisy.

southy wrote:

Raxx wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said.

It does feel like we are the minority in our own country.

Simple immigration policies would help;

1. Speak fluent English or no entry!
2. Understand English culture and heritage
3. No work - No stay!
4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country!

We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past?
I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

A large number of our indigenous population would fail your tests 1, 2 and 3.

Perhaps we/you should get our/your own house in order first. The alternative is gross hypocrisy.

We are Historically a Pagan country, But the Pagans did not moan when the Christians first came here and force there Riligion onto the Pagans.

And now this Country is what you call an Christian Atheist Country.

southy wrote:

Raxx wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said.

It does feel like we are the minority in our own country.

Simple immigration policies would help;

1. Speak fluent English or no entry!
2. Understand English culture and heritage
3. No work - No stay!
4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country!

We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past?
I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

A large number of our indigenous population would fail your tests 1, 2 and 3.

Perhaps we/you should get our/your own house in order first. The alternative is gross hypocrisy.

We are Historically a Pagan country, But the Pagans did not moan when the Christians first came here and force there Riligion onto the Pagans.

And now this Country is what you call an Christian Atheist Country.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Raxx wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said.

It does feel like we are the minority in our own country.

Simple immigration policies would help;

1. Speak fluent English or no entry!
2. Understand English culture and heritage
3. No work - No stay!
4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country!

We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past?
I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

A large number of our indigenous population would fail your tests 1, 2 and 3.

Perhaps we/you should get our/your own house in order first. The alternative is gross hypocrisy.

We are Historically a Pagan country, But the Pagans did not moan when the Christians first came here and force there Riligion onto the Pagans.

And now this Country is what you call an Christian Atheist Country.

How do you know the Pagans didn't complain?

What is a 'Christian Atheist Country'? Surely that's a contradiction? I did a quick search on 'Christian Aetheist Country' and no results were returned. Did you paste that in because you've managed to spell it right?

I was under the impression that it was introduced by the Romans after the Pagan Anglo Saxan invaders in the 5th Century.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Raxx wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss...

I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals.

Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said.

It does feel like we are the minority in our own country.

Simple immigration policies would help;

1. Speak fluent English or no entry!
2. Understand English culture and heritage
3. No work - No stay!
4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country!

We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past?
I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

A large number of our indigenous population would fail your tests 1, 2 and 3.

Perhaps we/you should get our/your own house in order first. The alternative is gross hypocrisy.

We are Historically a Pagan country, But the Pagans did not moan when the Christians first came here and force there Riligion onto the Pagans.

And now this Country is what you call an Christian Atheist Country.

How do you know the Pagans didn't complain?

What is a 'Christian Atheist Country'? Surely that's a contradiction? I did a quick search on 'Christian Aetheist Country' and no results were returned. Did you paste that in because you've managed to spell it right?

I was under the impression that it was introduced by the Romans after the Pagan Anglo Saxan invaders in the 5th Century.

southy wrote:
Georgem Constantine was Emperor Eastern Roman Empire and of such Britian did not come under his Rule at any time, Britian the last place the Roman conquered and the first place they abandon, the worse thing the Romans done for them selfs was to invade Britian, Britian was treated like an Holy Island to Pagan Europe and united the Gaelic tribes in Europe.
Georgem you should not belive those computor games to be true.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
Georgem Constantine was Emperor Eastern Roman Empire and of such Britian did not come under his Rule at any time, Britian the last place the Roman conquered and the first place they abandon, the worse thing the Romans done for them selfs was to invade Britian, Britian was treated like an Holy Island to Pagan Europe and united the Gaelic tribes in Europe.
Georgem you should not belive those computor games to be true.

Where did I state that Constantine ruled Britain? I credited him with making Christianity more tolerable in the Empire, which he did. Tolerance of all religions, throughout the whole Roman empire, was decreed by him in the Edict of Milan. Go look it up.

Southy, rather than constantly trying to discredit others with sneaky little tricks like suggesting they get their history from computer games, maybe you should stop operating under the assumption that everything everyone else says is always wrong.

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
Georgem Constantine was Emperor Eastern Roman Empire and of such Britian did not come under his Rule at any time, Britian the last place the Roman conquered and the first place they abandon, the worse thing the Romans done for them selfs was to invade Britian, Britian was treated like an Holy Island to Pagan Europe and united the Gaelic tribes in Europe.
Georgem you should not belive those computor games to be true.

Where did I state that Constantine ruled Britain? I credited him with making Christianity more tolerable in the Empire, which he did. Tolerance of all religions, throughout the whole Roman empire, was decreed by him in the Edict of Milan. Go look it up.

Southy, rather than constantly trying to discredit others with sneaky little tricks like suggesting they get their history from computer games, maybe you should stop operating under the assumption that everything everyone else says is always wrong.

You started it Georgem with your sly sneeky words of comic books I suggest to you do not start some you can not handle.
Edict of Milan was more about the persecution going on in the eastern mediterterran, in the western Roman Empire from nortern spain west France and west wards there was no persecution going on as the Romans adopted many of the Gaelic tribes pagan gods, as for Christains in Britian there is no real proff there was any till after the Romans had gone, and you come to King Athelstan when there is proff of Christians in Britian, any thing writen about Christian in Britian before this time did not get writen about till after King William I, most write ups are around King Henry II era about Christains in Britian before King Athelstan and this was done to enforce Catholicism into the people even deeper as there was still more Pagans around than Christians.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
Georgem Constantine was Emperor Eastern Roman Empire and of such Britian did not come under his Rule at any time, Britian the last place the Roman conquered and the first place they abandon, the worse thing the Romans done for them selfs was to invade Britian, Britian was treated like an Holy Island to Pagan Europe and united the Gaelic tribes in Europe.
Georgem you should not belive those computor games to be true.

Where did I state that Constantine ruled Britain? I credited him with making Christianity more tolerable in the Empire, which he did. Tolerance of all religions, throughout the whole Roman empire, was decreed by him in the Edict of Milan. Go look it up.

Southy, rather than constantly trying to discredit others with sneaky little tricks like suggesting they get their history from computer games, maybe you should stop operating under the assumption that everything everyone else says is always wrong.

You started it Georgem with your sly sneeky words of comic books I suggest to you do not start some you can not handle.
Edict of Milan was more about the persecution going on in the eastern mediterterran, in the western Roman Empire from nortern spain west France and west wards there was no persecution going on as the Romans adopted many of the Gaelic tribes pagan gods, as for Christains in Britian there is no real proff there was any till after the Romans had gone, and you come to King Athelstan when there is proff of Christians in Britian, any thing writen about Christian in Britian before this time did not get writen about till after King William I, most write ups are around King Henry II era about Christains in Britian before King Athelstan and this was done to enforce Catholicism into the people even deeper as there was still more Pagans around than Christians.

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

.. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

.. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

.. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.

There is room for all labels, it just takes understanding and tolerance, labelling people just clouds the issue, whatever their race, creed, colour, religion or lack of, they are still human beings, differing opinions should never be a reason for hate and distrust.

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

.. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.

I can't wait to see how he backs out of this one. I know he'll do it, I'm just fascinated by how he'll attempt to explain what amounts to 5 counts of "down is up".

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

.. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.

I can't wait to see how he backs out of this one. I know he'll do it, I'm just fascinated by how he'll attempt to explain what amounts to 5 counts of "down is up".

No its not Free, think about a lot longer, i give you a hint.
Christian Atheist is one with no God but carrys on with the same sort culture morals, little things in life like 1 man one wife, and dresses in the western world way. those who pass generations was Christians.

Don't mix up Culture with Religion, and thats one of the big proplems many do mix up Religion with Culture.
There plenty of Muslim Atheist here in Southampton. go and talk to a Female Muslim Atheist.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

Classic southy straw man. "I can't actually respond to this post without admitting I'm wrong, so I'll pretend he said something I CAN respond to". Doesn't work, southy. I never said anything about who believed Jesus was the son of God, only pointed out that it's perfectly clear WHICH God he was supposedly the son of.

Sikhs do indeed believe in the same one God as Judaism et al.

Hindus believe in many gods, yes, but also in the one God.

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss... I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals. Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Yes sorry about that Osprey, was making a point that this country is Christian Atheist mainly. some do not realise the subsection to Atheist, like you can get Hebrew Atheist, Hindu Atheist, Muslim Atheist and so on.

.. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.

I can't wait to see how he backs out of this one. I know he'll do it, I'm just fascinated by how he'll attempt to explain what amounts to 5 counts of "down is up".

No its not Free, think about a lot longer, i give you a hint.
Christian Atheist is one with no God but carrys on with the same sort culture morals, little things in life like 1 man one wife, and dresses in the western world way. those who pass generations was Christians.

Don't mix up Culture with Religion, and thats one of the big proplems many do mix up Religion with Culture.
There plenty of Muslim Atheist here in Southampton. go and talk to a Female Muslim Atheist.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

Classic southy straw man. "I can't actually respond to this post without admitting I'm wrong, so I'll pretend he said something I CAN respond to". Doesn't work, southy. I never said anything about who believed Jesus was the son of God, only pointed out that it's perfectly clear WHICH God he was supposedly the son of.

Sikhs do indeed believe in the same one God as Judaism et al.

Hindus believe in many gods, yes, but also in the one God.

Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India

Taskforce 141 wrote:

Portswoodfoke wrote: Years of labour's "multicultural" policies have led us to the abyss... I would have no problem with the immigration in the city if like France we enforced our culture and language on those who came here instead of allowing street after street to become no-go areas for locals. Why can we not have a debate on this without the race card, or the racists showing up to ruin things on the two extremes.

Well said. It does feel like we are the minority in our own country. Simple immigration policies would help; 1. Speak fluent English or no entry! 2. Understand English culture and heritage 3. No work - No stay! 4. No benefits to be paid to those working here who have children in other countries! an unbelievable amount of people are claiming benefits for children who are not in this country! We are historically a Christian country so why on earth are we building Mosques and other places of worship which have nothing to do with Britain's past? I'm a firm believer of science so any places of worship are a waste of space, time and lead to brainwashing (so i am not picking on anyone in particular, just taking aspiration from what the Australian Prime Minister said in a public speech.) We were founded as a Christian country so if we have to endure any religion it should only be that one.

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

On the inside wrote:
In you race to debate race as the issue you numptys have all missed the point. The bulk of the increase is students.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

Classic southy straw man. "I can't actually respond to this post without admitting I'm wrong, so I'll pretend he said something I CAN respond to". Doesn't work, southy. I never said anything about who believed Jesus was the son of God, only pointed out that it's perfectly clear WHICH God he was supposedly the son of.

Sikhs do indeed believe in the same one God as Judaism et al.

Hindus believe in many gods, yes, but also in the one God.

Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India

Oh boy. I hate to break this to you, southy, but in your frantic googling for a quick response, you overlooked one vital detail that gives away the fact that you're bluffing here:

Rahit Maryada is not a person. It is a document, the Sikh code of conduct.

I'll just sit here while you wipe that egg off your face.

Condor Man wrote:

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

UKIP, had you and other voters for that party stuck with the Tories 2 years ago we'd have at least 1 Tory MP in this city. I can't for the life of me understand why people vote UKIP, it is really a vote for Labour.

On the inside wrote:
In you race to debate race as the issue you numptys have all missed the point. The bulk of the increase is students.

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

100%HANTSBOY wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

Good for you!!! So do I!
I shave my own head,drink copious amounts of vodka,and abuse my wife :)

Georgem wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

Worse, why do they consider it an achievement? It's not like they *decided* to be born here.

Hate to point out the one flaw in your comment, though: the UK coastline is not artificial!

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

Worse, why do they consider it an achievement? It's not like they *decided* to be born here.

Hate to point out the one flaw in your comment, though: the UK coastline is not artificial!

.. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial.

Ferrick wrote:
Official figures released a while ago suggested Southampton's population was already 10% Eastern European alone. This happened within a very short space of time. Nobody was consulted or asked their opinion on the effects of British peoples quality of life. No provisions were made to services to cope with, what is in anyones terms an overwhelming influx. I can remember being sat in a pub when 5 British people walked in from 4 different trades announcing they had lost their jobs to Eastern Europeans. That was in one afternoon. They weren't consulted about this beforehand or given time to make adjustments. We can assume that the earnings of foreigners will mostly escape the country they were earned in.
I also doubt if the police were given extra funding to cope with the new levels and types of crime that seem to be part and parcel of accommodating influxes of foreigners. Particularly crimes against women. And to my eye, just from reading the headlines non British 'residents' seem to be shockingly over represented in sexual assault investigations. (This is just my observation but please feel free to show me statistics that suggest differently if you disagree)

I watch the older generation wander around places they grew up like strangers. The communities that they were once part of and contributed to broken and fractured. Did anyone ask their opinion on whether they would like to trade their quality of life and the efficiency of the government services that they contributed to in exchange for the opportunity to have a 'multi cultural' town or City?
I left Britain 2 years ago. I was born there but they wouldn't give a passport to get out because of a rather paranoid system of proof. So i had to change my nationality to obtain one to leave. I did observe many Non British getting their British passports while I was in the process of being denied mine. (My Indian Lawyer thought this was so crazy it was hilarious.)
Your are being denied any reasonable debate on the matter fear of being called a racist...the alternative is to join a moronic group of professional haters such as the EDL or something to air a view.

Thats not for me. I'm glad I left. Great Britain only exists in imaginations now and I dont see it being reversed. In fact I see any will to reverse it being suppressed.

IronLady2010 wrote:
The response rate was 93%. Am I to assume this means 7% of properties in Southampton didn't complete a Census?

That's an awful lot of empty properties.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
The response rate was 93%. Am I to assume this means 7% of properties in Southampton didn't complete a Census?

That's an awful lot of empty properties.

Who says they are empty?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:
Official figures released a while ago suggested Southampton's population was already 10% Eastern European alone. This happened within a very short space of time. Nobody was consulted or asked their opinion on the effects of British peoples quality of life. No provisions were made to services to cope with, what is in anyones terms an overwhelming influx. I can remember being sat in a pub when 5 British people walked in from 4 different trades announcing they had lost their jobs to Eastern Europeans. That was in one afternoon. They weren't consulted about this beforehand or given time to make adjustments. We can assume that the earnings of foreigners will mostly escape the country they were earned in.
I also doubt if the police were given extra funding to cope with the new levels and types of crime that seem to be part and parcel of accommodating influxes of foreigners. Particularly crimes against women. And to my eye, just from reading the headlines non British 'residents' seem to be shockingly over represented in sexual assault investigations. (This is just my observation but please feel free to show me statistics that suggest differently if you disagree)

I watch the older generation wander around places they grew up like strangers. The communities that they were once part of and contributed to broken and fractured. Did anyone ask their opinion on whether they would like to trade their quality of life and the efficiency of the government services that they contributed to in exchange for the opportunity to have a 'multi cultural' town or City?
I left Britain 2 years ago. I was born there but they wouldn't give a passport to get out because of a rather paranoid system of proof. So i had to change my nationality to obtain one to leave. I did observe many Non British getting their British passports while I was in the process of being denied mine. (My Indian Lawyer thought this was so crazy it was hilarious.)
Your are being denied any reasonable debate on the matter fear of being called a racist...the alternative is to join a moronic group of professional haters such as the EDL or something to air a view.

Thats not for me. I'm glad I left. Great Britain only exists in imaginations now and I dont see it being reversed. In fact I see any will to reverse it being suppressed.

We had the same problem when the Romans invaded, bloody Italians coming over here pinching all our jobs. Not to mention the Normans, Frenchies would you believe it. I believe us Anglo Saxons have outlived them all.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Yes I do occasionally, but prefer them in Bounty bars.

Ferrick wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:
Official figures released a while ago suggested Southampton's population was already 10% Eastern European alone. This happened within a very short space of time. Nobody was consulted or asked their opinion on the effects of British peoples quality of life. No provisions were made to services to cope with, what is in anyones terms an overwhelming influx. I can remember being sat in a pub when 5 British people walked in from 4 different trades announcing they had lost their jobs to Eastern Europeans. That was in one afternoon. They weren't consulted about this beforehand or given time to make adjustments. We can assume that the earnings of foreigners will mostly escape the country they were earned in.
I also doubt if the police were given extra funding to cope with the new levels and types of crime that seem to be part and parcel of accommodating influxes of foreigners. Particularly crimes against women. And to my eye, just from reading the headlines non British 'residents' seem to be shockingly over represented in sexual assault investigations. (This is just my observation but please feel free to show me statistics that suggest differently if you disagree)

I watch the older generation wander around places they grew up like strangers. The communities that they were once part of and contributed to broken and fractured. Did anyone ask their opinion on whether they would like to trade their quality of life and the efficiency of the government services that they contributed to in exchange for the opportunity to have a 'multi cultural' town or City?
I left Britain 2 years ago. I was born there but they wouldn't give a passport to get out because of a rather paranoid system of proof. So i had to change my nationality to obtain one to leave. I did observe many Non British getting their British passports while I was in the process of being denied mine. (My Indian Lawyer thought this was so crazy it was hilarious.)
Your are being denied any reasonable debate on the matter fear of being called a racist...the alternative is to join a moronic group of professional haters such as the EDL or something to air a view.

Thats not for me. I'm glad I left. Great Britain only exists in imaginations now and I dont see it being reversed. In fact I see any will to reverse it being suppressed.

We had the same problem when the Romans invaded, bloody Italians coming over here pinching all our jobs. Not to mention the Normans, Frenchies would you believe it. I believe us Anglo Saxons have outlived them all.

And that makes it OK? Did the Anglo Saxon citizens have a conference and decide that the Romans did it and so they should shut up and take it?
Did they decide that the mixing of genes that has gone on since the dawn of time is synonymous with their citizens trying to get a doctors appointment too? So they gave up?

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

Worse, why do they consider it an achievement? It's not like they *decided* to be born here.

Hate to point out the one flaw in your comment, though: the UK coastline is not artificial!

.. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial.

IronLady2010 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
The response rate was 93%. Am I to assume this means 7% of properties in Southampton didn't complete a Census?

That's an awful lot of empty properties.

Who says they are empty?

Wasn't it a legal requirement? Can't remember but was it a £1000 fine?

How many people have been fined I wonder or was it a hollow threat?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
The response rate was 93%. Am I to assume this means 7% of properties in Southampton didn't complete a Census?

That's an awful lot of empty properties.

Who says they are empty?

Wasn't it a legal requirement? Can't remember but was it a £1000 fine?

How many people have been fined I wonder or was it a hollow threat?

No, they are full of unregistered illegals, keep up.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:
Official figures released a while ago suggested Southampton's population was already 10% Eastern European alone. This happened within a very short space of time. Nobody was consulted or asked their opinion on the effects of British peoples quality of life. No provisions were made to services to cope with, what is in anyones terms an overwhelming influx. I can remember being sat in a pub when 5 British people walked in from 4 different trades announcing they had lost their jobs to Eastern Europeans. That was in one afternoon. They weren't consulted about this beforehand or given time to make adjustments. We can assume that the earnings of foreigners will mostly escape the country they were earned in.
I also doubt if the police were given extra funding to cope with the new levels and types of crime that seem to be part and parcel of accommodating influxes of foreigners. Particularly crimes against women. And to my eye, just from reading the headlines non British 'residents' seem to be shockingly over represented in sexual assault investigations. (This is just my observation but please feel free to show me statistics that suggest differently if you disagree)

I watch the older generation wander around places they grew up like strangers. The communities that they were once part of and contributed to broken and fractured. Did anyone ask their opinion on whether they would like to trade their quality of life and the efficiency of the government services that they contributed to in exchange for the opportunity to have a 'multi cultural' town or City?
I left Britain 2 years ago. I was born there but they wouldn't give a passport to get out because of a rather paranoid system of proof. So i had to change my nationality to obtain one to leave. I did observe many Non British getting their British passports while I was in the process of being denied mine. (My Indian Lawyer thought this was so crazy it was hilarious.)
Your are being denied any reasonable debate on the matter fear of being called a racist...the alternative is to join a moronic group of professional haters such as the EDL or something to air a view.

Thats not for me. I'm glad I left. Great Britain only exists in imaginations now and I dont see it being reversed. In fact I see any will to reverse it being suppressed.

We had the same problem when the Romans invaded, bloody Italians coming over here pinching all our jobs. Not to mention the Normans, Frenchies would you believe it. I believe us Anglo Saxons have outlived them all.

And that makes it OK? Did the Anglo Saxon citizens have a conference and decide that the Romans did it and so they should shut up and take it?
Did they decide that the mixing of genes that has gone on since the dawn of time is synonymous with their citizens trying to get a doctors appointment too? So they gave up?

Did what make what OK?

Ferrick wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:
Official figures released a while ago suggested Southampton's population was already 10% Eastern European alone. This happened within a very short space of time. Nobody was consulted or asked their opinion on the effects of British peoples quality of life. No provisions were made to services to cope with, what is in anyones terms an overwhelming influx. I can remember being sat in a pub when 5 British people walked in from 4 different trades announcing they had lost their jobs to Eastern Europeans. That was in one afternoon. They weren't consulted about this beforehand or given time to make adjustments. We can assume that the earnings of foreigners will mostly escape the country they were earned in.
I also doubt if the police were given extra funding to cope with the new levels and types of crime that seem to be part and parcel of accommodating influxes of foreigners. Particularly crimes against women. And to my eye, just from reading the headlines non British 'residents' seem to be shockingly over represented in sexual assault investigations. (This is just my observation but please feel free to show me statistics that suggest differently if you disagree)

I watch the older generation wander around places they grew up like strangers. The communities that they were once part of and contributed to broken and fractured. Did anyone ask their opinion on whether they would like to trade their quality of life and the efficiency of the government services that they contributed to in exchange for the opportunity to have a 'multi cultural' town or City?
I left Britain 2 years ago. I was born there but they wouldn't give a passport to get out because of a rather paranoid system of proof. So i had to change my nationality to obtain one to leave. I did observe many Non British getting their British passports while I was in the process of being denied mine. (My Indian Lawyer thought this was so crazy it was hilarious.)
Your are being denied any reasonable debate on the matter fear of being called a racist...the alternative is to join a moronic group of professional haters such as the EDL or something to air a view.

Thats not for me. I'm glad I left. Great Britain only exists in imaginations now and I dont see it being reversed. In fact I see any will to reverse it being suppressed.

We had the same problem when the Romans invaded, bloody Italians coming over here pinching all our jobs. Not to mention the Normans, Frenchies would you believe it. I believe us Anglo Saxons have outlived them all.

And that makes it OK? Did the Anglo Saxon citizens have a conference and decide that the Romans did it and so they should shut up and take it?
Did they decide that the mixing of genes that has gone on since the dawn of time is synonymous with their citizens trying to get a doctors appointment too? So they gave up?

Did what make what OK?

I'm not completely sure of your point. I don't see how the historical military invasions of ancient serfdom's and dictatorships from a 1000 years ago relates to the right of a citizen in a 21st century democracy to influence major decisions that affect them.

IronLady2010 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
The response rate was 93%. Am I to assume this means 7% of properties in Southampton didn't complete a Census?

That's an awful lot of empty properties.

Who says they are empty?

Wasn't it a legal requirement? Can't remember but was it a £1000 fine?

How many people have been fined I wonder or was it a hollow threat?

No, they are full of unregistered illegals, keep up.

Well as you're so sure, I hope you've reported each and every one of them ;-)

cantthinkofone wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
I fail to understand what people think is so inherently great about people who happen to have been born within this country's artificially constructed boundaries.

I have far more in common with a left-leaning middle-income working man/woman from Poland than I do with an English man/woman working in the city for a 6-figure sum, or a member of the EDL in Southampton.

Worse, why do they consider it an achievement? It's not like they *decided* to be born here.

Hate to point out the one flaw in your comment, though: the UK coastline is not artificial!

.. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial.

Which was precisely what was in my mind at the time of posting! Tut tut Georgem, must do better. ;-)

Ferrick wrote:
I suspect that the left leaning defenders of immigration on here are a little detached from some of the open door immigration policy consequences.

I suspect that your job has never been at risk from an immigrant.
I suspect that you choose not to live among recent immigrant communities.
I suspect that you dont have to traverse Shirley High Street after midnight.
I suspect that you dont have much trouble getting your children into the schools you prefer.
I suspect that you are not in a position where you have to rely on social housing.
I suspect that you haven't become a bit alienated in your own community.

I suspect that you are 'above' all of this. Lucky you.

I suspect that in your world, cultures that have evolved for survival in very different environments over thousands of years are transplanted magically to modern day England where these cultures are maintained in a completely alien environment like palm trees in a Scottish fir forest where they thrive and everybody is multiculturally happy in a lovely cultural zoo.

I too love the idea of middle class leftie people visiting Mrs Akosua Kwame and buying her lovely yams for an organic vegetarian hotpot then on to Mr Andrzj for a cracking loaf of polish bread and everybody cycles home nourished by there multicultural experience. (I say cycle home because after all...the lefties who have this ideal wont want to actually live NEAR them. Fluck that. The adoringly cute and racist working classes can do that.)

However there are other consequences. Bad consequences that for the vast majority of people I speak to, outweigh the good. And if thats the majorities opinion then they dont need to justify it with reason if they choose not to. Thats the majorities right in a democracy.

What happened?

loosehead wrote:
I printed a few posts but they seem to have disappeared from this morning.
In Thailand where I lived for one year I would find it impossible to become a citizen as Thailand say's Thailands for the Thais so I was only there as a long stay tourist & could be told to go at any time.
Here we allow any bleeding heart in.
I can understand a French man/woman wanting to come here & seek refuge from their tax system.
But the whole world accord on asylum/refugees is the seek it in the nearest safe country so are you telling me that we are it?
I witnessed a lady signing up for another UNi course & she was getting tax credits on any earnings yet she hadn't been here for long?
It was a total B*lls up by Brown that let in so many Polish people no other EU country would allow them in,not in so many numbers & they had conditions for at least two years we didn't.
But all I tried to say is that when you let in 3million+ instead of 300,000 the population is sure to rise isn't it?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Georgem wrote:

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

UK net migration dropped last year. Source: Office of National Statistics

http://www.ons.gov.u

k/ons/rel/migration1

/migration-statistic

s-quarterly-report/m

ay-2012/msqr.html

There are still more people coming in than going out, but it IS dropping.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

Plenty of room especially if the UKIP voters moved out, would be at least three or more homes available.

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

Classic southy straw man. "I can't actually respond to this post without admitting I'm wrong, so I'll pretend he said something I CAN respond to". Doesn't work, southy. I never said anything about who believed Jesus was the son of God, only pointed out that it's perfectly clear WHICH God he was supposedly the son of.

Sikhs do indeed believe in the same one God as Judaism et al.

Hindus believe in many gods, yes, but also in the one God.

Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India

Oh boy. I hate to break this to you, southy, but in your frantic googling for a quick response, you overlooked one vital detail that gives away the fact that you're bluffing here:

Rahit Maryada is not a person. It is a document, the Sikh code of conduct.

I'll just sit here while you wipe that egg off your face.

.. you'll probably wait a long while.

This is the point southy backs out of the thread.

After all, he wouldn't want to actually admit he's wrong - well, not after: -

southy, redbridge, 5:26pm Sat 8 Jan 11. says: -

“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that"

IronLady2010 wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

Classic southy straw man. "I can't actually respond to this post without admitting I'm wrong, so I'll pretend he said something I CAN respond to". Doesn't work, southy. I never said anything about who believed Jesus was the son of God, only pointed out that it's perfectly clear WHICH God he was supposedly the son of.

Sikhs do indeed believe in the same one God as Judaism et al.

Hindus believe in many gods, yes, but also in the one God.

Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India

Oh boy. I hate to break this to you, southy, but in your frantic googling for a quick response, you overlooked one vital detail that gives away the fact that you're bluffing here:

Rahit Maryada is not a person. It is a document, the Sikh code of conduct.

I'll just sit here while you wipe that egg off your face.

.. you'll probably wait a long while.

This is the point southy backs out of the thread.

After all, he wouldn't want to actually admit he's wrong - well, not after: -

southy, redbridge, 5:26pm Sat 8 Jan 11. says: -

“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that"

I think Southy said he was busy tonight and may not be able to reply.

NOW, tomorrow he said he will be back to true form, to answer all the new articles.

I'm excited as it's been entertaining to say the least, roll on coffee at 6am.

Let's see what the massive population of Southampton can give us news wise. Hopefully something positive!

IronLady2010 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Why are you targeting Loosehead? I'm sure he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else.

Labour bashing? I think Local Labour are bashing themselves, they don't need us to intervene lol. x

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Ferrick wrote:
I suspect that the left leaning defenders of immigration on here are a little detached from some of the open door immigration policy consequences.

I suspect that your job has never been at risk from an immigrant.
I suspect that you choose not to live among recent immigrant communities.
I suspect that you dont have to traverse Shirley High Street after midnight.
I suspect that you dont have much trouble getting your children into the schools you prefer.
I suspect that you are not in a position where you have to rely on social housing.
I suspect that you haven't become a bit alienated in your own community.

I suspect that you are 'above' all of this. Lucky you.

I suspect that in your world, cultures that have evolved for survival in very different environments over thousands of years are transplanted magically to modern day England where these cultures are maintained in a completely alien environment like palm trees in a Scottish fir forest where they thrive and everybody is multiculturally happy in a lovely cultural zoo.

I too love the idea of middle class leftie people visiting Mrs Akosua Kwame and buying her lovely yams for an organic vegetarian hotpot then on to Mr Andrzj for a cracking loaf of polish bread and everybody cycles home nourished by there multicultural experience. (I say cycle home because after all...the lefties who have this ideal wont want to actually live NEAR them. Fluck that. The adoringly cute and racist working classes can do that.)

However there are other consequences. Bad consequences that for the vast majority of people I speak to, outweigh the good. And if thats the majorities opinion then they dont need to justify it with reason if they choose not to. Thats the majorities right in a democracy.

What happened?

What happened? Well not a lot really and you are absolutely correct with your first eight bullet points, have any affected you personally?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

UKIPsouthampton wrote:

Georgem wrote:

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
This cannot be allowed to continue, as a City we just cannot sustain it. The issue of immigration needs to addressed, sensibly, and maturely. The uncontrolled immigration of the last two decades has left a strain on jobs, housing and local services. Child maintenance needs to be reviewed also, it shouldn’t be a right, if you wish to have a family that is something that needs to be earned and worked for, if you’re not in a strong position to raise a family, then don’t!

UK net migration dropped last year. Source: Office of National Statistics

http://www.ons.gov.u


k/ons/rel/migration1


/migration-statistic


s-quarterly-report/m


ay-2012/msqr.html

There are still more people coming in than going out, but it IS dropping.

Those figures cannot be trusted. The Gov. has already admitted that they do not have a grasp of the actual figures and the census form only provides the figures as a minimum as not everybody would have filled them in and been accounted for.

IronLady2010 wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
It's a pity a lot of the influx didn't include innovative and dynamic people who would create jobs and wealth. All we seem to have got is an influx of poor people, we had plenty of those before.

I agree with you that due to your woman Thatcher and her followers, including those from NuLabour who implemented her crazy policies, lots of people were driven into poverty.

Your other point is who our immigration system lets in. But you are conveniently quite about who took Britain into Europe. Was it not your Tory Party?

As unlike me you are a religious man, I am surprised at your attitude towards the poor, wonder what Mr. Christ would have made of your statement.

You seem to be content to let a doctor in but are concerned if his wife who may be a cleaner accompanies her husband. But at the same time your Cameron keeps on lecturing us upon values of marriage.

the Bible teaches that people who can should work, not rely on others if they don't need to. Jesus worked as a carpenter before his main job started.

I know a lot of doctors and I've never met one whose wife (or husband) works as a cleaner.

I have a friend who's come over from India, he's a professional and has assimilated well into UK culture. The problem is that too few incomers are assimilating and all the progress in we've made over the past 40 years in terms of race relations have been affected. As a former councillor you have clearly taken part in society has a lot of your Sikh friends have. Sadly new people to the area are not so keen on taking part. Perhaps because they don't have a mutual connection- like cricket (or the Empire)?

And his main job was, going around the country bumming off people, is it not only in the bible that says he was the son of god, but which god i wonder.

Why do you wonder? It's pretty clear from all the texts that mention him. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism: all worshipping the same deity.

Judaism and Islam do not worship him as the Son of God, to them he just a profit, Hind and Sikh do not worship the same deity as Judaism or Islam.

"A Sikh is any woman or man whose faith consists of belief in one God (not the Christian God), the ten Gurus, the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and of the ten Gurus, who has faith in the amrit of the tenth Guru, and who adheres to no other religion."
Hindu "Worshippers repeat the names of their favourite gods and goddesses, and repeat mantras. Water, fruit, flowers and incense are offered to god."
--Rahit Maryada

Classic southy straw man. "I can't actually respond to this post without admitting I'm wrong, so I'll pretend he said something I CAN respond to". Doesn't work, southy. I never said anything about who believed Jesus was the son of God, only pointed out that it's perfectly clear WHICH God he was supposedly the son of.

Sikhs do indeed believe in the same one God as Judaism et al.

Hindus believe in many gods, yes, but also in the one God.

Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India

Oh boy. I hate to break this to you, southy, but in your frantic googling for a quick response, you overlooked one vital detail that gives away the fact that you're bluffing here:

Rahit Maryada is not a person. It is a document, the Sikh code of conduct.

I'll just sit here while you wipe that egg off your face.

.. you'll probably wait a long while.

This is the point southy backs out of the thread.

After all, he wouldn't want to actually admit he's wrong - well, not after: -

southy, redbridge, 5:26pm Sat 8 Jan 11. says: -

“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that"

I think Southy said he was busy tonight and may not be able to reply.

NOW, tomorrow he said he will be back to true form, to answer all the new articles.

I'm excited as it's been entertaining to say the least, roll on coffee at 6am.

Let's see what the massive population of Southampton can give us news wise. Hopefully something positive!

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

Ferrick wrote:
I suspect that the left leaning defenders of immigration on here are a little detached from some of the open door immigration policy consequences.

I suspect that your job has never been at risk from an immigrant.
I suspect that you choose not to live among recent immigrant communities.
I suspect that you dont have to traverse Shirley High Street after midnight.
I suspect that you dont have much trouble getting your children into the schools you prefer.
I suspect that you are not in a position where you have to rely on social housing.
I suspect that you haven't become a bit alienated in your own community.

I suspect that you are 'above' all of this. Lucky you.

I suspect that in your world, cultures that have evolved for survival in very different environments over thousands of years are transplanted magically to modern day England where these cultures are maintained in a completely alien environment like palm trees in a Scottish fir forest where they thrive and everybody is multiculturally happy in a lovely cultural zoo.

I too love the idea of middle class leftie people visiting Mrs Akosua Kwame and buying her lovely yams for an organic vegetarian hotpot then on to Mr Andrzj for a cracking loaf of polish bread and everybody cycles home nourished by there multicultural experience. (I say cycle home because after all...the lefties who have this ideal wont want to actually live NEAR them. Fluck that. The adoringly cute and racist working classes can do that.)

However there are other consequences. Bad consequences that for the vast majority of people I speak to, outweigh the good. And if thats the majorities opinion then they dont need to justify it with reason if they choose not to. Thats the majorities right in a democracy.

What happened?

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

"So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them."

On a drama scale of sensationalism of 1 to 10 thats probably about a 9.

I would be very surprised if anybody on this thread was suggesting that we shouldn't give refuge to people who have been in this situation...or people whose life was in danger if they returned to their country.

Most immigrants are very open about the fact that they are economic migrants. Thats the key phrase right there. Economic migrants. The UK makes no provisions or promises to economic migrants. We have no responsibly to them or their families.
We know that.
They know that.
Liberals find it difficult to know that with their dreamy UK cultural theme park idea of Britain

You can congratulate yourself all you like about saving hutus and tutsis and Bosnian Serbian muslims and whoever you think you are contributing to.
And you can pat yourself on the back for being able to effortlessly swan through different thriving cultures in the UK.

But the majority's opinion and experience with this is different and no amount of smug scoffing at the 'blinkered and xenophobic' masses, who's experience is different than yours is going to change that.

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

"So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them."

On a drama scale of sensationalism of 1 to 10 thats probably about a 9.

I would be very surprised if anybody on this thread was suggesting that we shouldn't give refuge to people who have been in this situation...or people whose life was in danger if they returned to their country.

Most immigrants are very open about the fact that they are economic migrants. Thats the key phrase right there. Economic migrants. The UK makes no provisions or promises to economic migrants. We have no responsibly to them or their families.
We know that.
They know that.
Liberals find it difficult to know that with their dreamy UK cultural theme park idea of Britain

You can congratulate yourself all you like about saving hutus and tutsis and Bosnian Serbian muslims and whoever you think you are contributing to.
And you can pat yourself on the back for being able to effortlessly swan through different thriving cultures in the UK.

But the majority's opinion and experience with this is different and no amount of smug scoffing at the 'blinkered and xenophobic' masses, who's experience is different than yours is going to change that.

Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"?

Wait, I think you did!

Rather negates the rest of your post really.

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

"So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them."

On a drama scale of sensationalism of 1 to 10 thats probably about a 9.

I would be very surprised if anybody on this thread was suggesting that we shouldn't give refuge to people who have been in this situation...or people whose life was in danger if they returned to their country.

Most immigrants are very open about the fact that they are economic migrants. Thats the key phrase right there. Economic migrants. The UK makes no provisions or promises to economic migrants. We have no responsibly to them or their families.
We know that.
They know that.
Liberals find it difficult to know that with their dreamy UK cultural theme park idea of Britain

You can congratulate yourself all you like about saving hutus and tutsis and Bosnian Serbian muslims and whoever you think you are contributing to.
And you can pat yourself on the back for being able to effortlessly swan through different thriving cultures in the UK.

But the majority's opinion and experience with this is different and no amount of smug scoffing at the 'blinkered and xenophobic' masses, who's experience is different than yours is going to change that.

Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"?

Wait, I think you did!

Rather negates the rest of your post really.

loosehead wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

"So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them."

On a drama scale of sensationalism of 1 to 10 thats probably about a 9.

I would be very surprised if anybody on this thread was suggesting that we shouldn't give refuge to people who have been in this situation...or people whose life was in danger if they returned to their country.

Most immigrants are very open about the fact that they are economic migrants. Thats the key phrase right there. Economic migrants. The UK makes no provisions or promises to economic migrants. We have no responsibly to them or their families.
We know that.
They know that.
Liberals find it difficult to know that with their dreamy UK cultural theme park idea of Britain

You can congratulate yourself all you like about saving hutus and tutsis and Bosnian Serbian muslims and whoever you think you are contributing to.
And you can pat yourself on the back for being able to effortlessly swan through different thriving cultures in the UK.

But the majority's opinion and experience with this is different and no amount of smug scoffing at the 'blinkered and xenophobic' masses, who's experience is different than yours is going to change that.

Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"?

Wait, I think you did!

Rather negates the rest of your post really.

No I posted it.
do you know the International law about Asylum seekers or so called Refugees?
They are to go to the nearest safe country.
Bosnian Serbs coming here?No safe Muslim country near them then?
If you sat back & looked at where many are coming from then looked at all the countries between them & us you could see they're not bothered with a safe place to live they want the UK why?
Many will tell you it's because of our welfare system. France offered may illegals in the camps trying to get here the right to stay in France until their country was safe for them to return but they would not be able to move to any other EU country they all refused Does that sound like real Asylum Seekers or Refugees?
Ask a jewish family if they could have got into any safe country would they have turned it down unless it was the UK or the US?
Please get real!

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

loosehead wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

"So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them."

On a drama scale of sensationalism of 1 to 10 thats probably about a 9.

I would be very surprised if anybody on this thread was suggesting that we shouldn't give refuge to people who have been in this situation...or people whose life was in danger if they returned to their country.

Most immigrants are very open about the fact that they are economic migrants. Thats the key phrase right there. Economic migrants. The UK makes no provisions or promises to economic migrants. We have no responsibly to them or their families.
We know that.
They know that.
Liberals find it difficult to know that with their dreamy UK cultural theme park idea of Britain

You can congratulate yourself all you like about saving hutus and tutsis and Bosnian Serbian muslims and whoever you think you are contributing to.
And you can pat yourself on the back for being able to effortlessly swan through different thriving cultures in the UK.

But the majority's opinion and experience with this is different and no amount of smug scoffing at the 'blinkered and xenophobic' masses, who's experience is different than yours is going to change that.

Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"?

Wait, I think you did!

Rather negates the rest of your post really.

No I posted it.
do you know the International law about Asylum seekers or so called Refugees?
They are to go to the nearest safe country.
Bosnian Serbs coming here?No safe Muslim country near them then?
If you sat back & looked at where many are coming from then looked at all the countries between them & us you could see they're not bothered with a safe place to live they want the UK why?
Many will tell you it's because of our welfare system. France offered may illegals in the camps trying to get here the right to stay in France until their country was safe for them to return but they would not be able to move to any other EU country they all refused Does that sound like real Asylum Seekers or Refugees?
Ask a jewish family if they could have got into any safe country would they have turned it down unless it was the UK or the US?
Please get real!

I think you are being a bit simplistic, I see it as our job to convert these people to our way of life if we are to survive as a multi-cultural nation, it must be difficult for some to change their ways and traditions but it is essential that if they want to be part of out Nation they should at least allow some compromise to match our ways. I have never understood the need for some of the more fanatical among them to bite the hand that feeds them. There is nothing stranger than folk but we are all equal human beings in the greater scene.

Ferrick wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

loosehead wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Sorry folks I am off for bath and bed, 5 o clock start in the morning as a colleague has gone off sick. LH if you can hold the fort for a few hours with your Labour bashing balancing act I would be much obliged.

Osprey the matter of immigration is that both major parties have failed to tackle Refugee/Asylum seekers.
as I've said no way is the UK the nearest safe haven so if not back to their homeland they should be sent to the nearest safe country.
as for the Eastern Europeans this wasn't so much Labour's c*ck up but Gordan Browns.
all over Europe they put up the full signs to stop mass immigration we didn't want to listen & let them in only to admit we got our sums wrong

So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them.

You see that as a problem.

I see it as a rare reason to be proud of the UK.

"So our country is giving refuge to people that have seen their entire families butchered in front of them."

On a drama scale of sensationalism of 1 to 10 thats probably about a 9.

I would be very surprised if anybody on this thread was suggesting that we shouldn't give refuge to people who have been in this situation...or people whose life was in danger if they returned to their country.

Most immigrants are very open about the fact that they are economic migrants. Thats the key phrase right there. Economic migrants. The UK makes no provisions or promises to economic migrants. We have no responsibly to them or their families.
We know that.
They know that.
Liberals find it difficult to know that with their dreamy UK cultural theme park idea of Britain

You can congratulate yourself all you like about saving hutus and tutsis and Bosnian Serbian muslims and whoever you think you are contributing to.
And you can pat yourself on the back for being able to effortlessly swan through different thriving cultures in the UK.

But the majority's opinion and experience with this is different and no amount of smug scoffing at the 'blinkered and xenophobic' masses, who's experience is different than yours is going to change that.

Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"?

Wait, I think you did!

Rather negates the rest of your post really.

No I posted it.
do you know the International law about Asylum seekers or so called Refugees?
They are to go to the nearest safe country.
Bosnian Serbs coming here?No safe Muslim country near them then?
If you sat back & looked at where many are coming from then looked at all the countries between them & us you could see they're not bothered with a safe place to live they want the UK why?
Many will tell you it's because of our welfare system. France offered may illegals in the camps trying to get here the right to stay in France until their country was safe for them to return but they would not be able to move to any other EU country they all refused Does that sound like real Asylum Seekers or Refugees?
Ask a jewish family if they could have got into any safe country would they have turned it down unless it was the UK or the US?
Please get real!

I think you are being a bit simplistic, I see it as our job to convert these people to our way of life if we are to survive as a multi-cultural nation, it must be difficult for some to change their ways and traditions but it is essential that if they want to be part of out Nation they should at least allow some compromise to match our ways. I have never understood the need for some of the more fanatical among them to bite the hand that feeds them. There is nothing stranger than folk but we are all equal human beings in the greater scene.

I agree Osprey,
As I mentioned in a roundabout way before. Cultures evolve from necessity and the environment they are in.
You cannot transplant a highly evolved and complex culture from one environment to another different one and expect it to continue in the same way no matter how much you try to preserve it with funding and ringfencing.

Real cultures throughout the the world and through time were not 'funded' if a culture needs funding or protecting its dead..and its not a culture.

To have real multiculturalism (More than one culture in one environment) you have to essentially divide communities and keep them divided. (Or 'protected' depending on your view) This just alienates one from another and...obviously highlights divisions.

Basically if you change your environment you have to change your way of life to suit it to get on.

Is it any wonder that second generation immigrants turn to crime and dont feel part of mainstream society when they have been schooled in multiculturalism and told that they must preserve their languages and customs (For the entertainment of smug liberalists to observe them in their manufactured 'natural habitats' perhaps?)

My point?

If you come over here you do you best to fit in. You integrate, learn the language and respect the laws and customs. For your own benefit and the benefit of the people who have given you refuge and opportunity.

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.

cantthinkofone wrote:
Great. Two answers, both of which run to the tone of "But THEY do it TOO mummy!!!"

loosehead wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.

Try telling the Thais that! Thailand belongs to the Thai's & yes you can live there but only on a work visa or as a long stay tourist

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.

opera phantom wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.

Rubbish

Ferrick wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
Great. Two answers, both of which run to the tone of "But THEY do it TOO mummy!!!"

You seem to be missing the point

"They do it too" ....because they choose to and that's their prerogative and I accept it because they have decent reasoning behind it.

Your theories about open door immigration are well intentioned and quaint but nieve and impractical.

The fact is the majority of people in any country are only willing to accommodate and finance immigrants and their needs and wants up to a certain point. There comes a point where the problems outweigh the benefits (Did I say benefits! Whoops!)

Its the opinion of most people in the UK that we are way way beyond the point of whats reasonable in terms of immigration.

To follow your logic to the extreme would be to invite an unlimited number of people to the UK who have a lower living standard than we do (4 billion people?) and to finance their housing, medical care, education, culture, religion etc with wealth that they haven't contributed to. To the detriment of the living standard and quality of life of UK born citizens.

Foreigners, and even immigrants accept that this is an unreasonable and impractical expectation. Why cant you?