Population of Southampton rises by almost eight percent to just under 237,000

Daily Echo: Population on the rise in Southampton Population on the rise in Southampton

Southampton's population has grown by almost eight per cent in ten years, census data has revealed.

The new figures, published by the Titchfield-based Office of National Statistics, show that Southampton is a young city, with the number of people in their 20s reaching 51,200, compared to 30,800 people aged 65 and over.

The city’s population grew by 7.9 per cent, to 219,500, between 2001 and 2011, just above the national average of seven per cent.

In our region, it is Winchester that has seen the biggest increase in population at 8.7 per cent, with Fareham seeing the smallest increase of just 3.1 per cent.

The latest census took place on March 27 last year and involved about 25 million households in England and Wales.

It asked about work, health, national identity, citizenship, ethnic background, education, second homes, language, religion, marital status and so on, to build a picture of today’s society.

Southampton City Council relies on census population statistics to identify local needs for public services.

Councillor Richard Williams, leader of Southampton City Council, said: “The increase in population will have a significant impact on service issues like education and social services, especially for children.

“Funds are already tight and this level of increase will add further pressure.

Hopefully Government will listen and help with this massive challenge.”

The number of households in Southampton with at least one resident is 98,300 compared with 91,217 in 2001, an increase of 7.8 per cent.

The response rate for Southampton was 93 per cent compared to 89 per cent in 2001 and 94 per cent in England and Wales.

Professor Jane Falkingham, from the University of Southampton’s Centre for Population Change, said: “The information from the census is very important, especially in terms of planning and because it is used to determine where public funding goes, and the money given to Southampton is directly determined by the results of this census.

“I had expected the results to show that Southampton had grown a lot more than it had but what the information does tell us is that Southampton is a young city.

“I think the figures also reflect that people in their 20s and 30s are starting to have families because there is a high proportion of children in the city too.”

District 2011 2001 increase
Southampton 236,900 219,500 7.9
New Forest 176,500 169,500 4.1
Winchester 116,600 107,300 8.7
Test Valley 116,400 110,000 5.8
Eastleigh 125,200 116,300 7.7
Fareham 111,600 108,200 3.1
Gosport 82,600 76,700 7.7
Isle of Wight 138,300 132,900 4.1

Comments (118)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:44am Tue 17 Jul 12

Portswoodfoke says...

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.
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. Portswoodfoke
  • Score: -1

8:15am Tue 17 Jul 12

Higginz says...

Run to the hills! It's too late to do anything else!
Run to the hills! It's too late to do anything else! Higginz
  • Score: 0

8:28am Tue 17 Jul 12

sarfhamton says...

I worked for the Census and I know that Southampton was in chaos when it came to collecting these. Dont trust these figures.
I worked for the Census and I know that Southampton was in chaos when it came to collecting these. Dont trust these figures. sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

8:30am Tue 17 Jul 12

hulla baloo says...

And that is the figure for those already on the system, and that have returned their census forms. I wonder how much higher the true figure is.
And that is the figure for those already on the system, and that have returned their census forms. I wonder how much higher the true figure is. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

8:34am Tue 17 Jul 12

OceansofRed says...

It's a bit rich for Richard Williams to complain when it was his party that let everyone in!
It's a bit rich for Richard Williams to complain when it was his party that let everyone in! OceansofRed
  • Score: 0

8:37am Tue 17 Jul 12

bigfella777 says...

Definitely much higher, a census is only a rough guide in my opinion. If the forms are not filled in truthfully then its rubbish. I bet there were loads of HMO's where it was not done properly.
Definitely much higher, a census is only a rough guide in my opinion. If the forms are not filled in truthfully then its rubbish. I bet there were loads of HMO's where it was not done properly. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

8:37am Tue 17 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

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.
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. Condor Man
  • Score: -1

8:45am Tue 17 Jul 12

Linesman says...

OceansofRed wrote:
It's a bit rich for Richard Williams to complain when it was his party that let everyone in!
But it was not his party that took us into Europe, without the benefit of a referendum. I seem to recall that there were immigration problems during Heath's premiership, Thatcher's and Major's, so why the hell didn't they put it right?
[quote][p][bold]OceansofRed[/bold] wrote: It's a bit rich for Richard Williams to complain when it was his party that let everyone in![/p][/quote]But it was not his party that took us into Europe, without the benefit of a referendum. I seem to recall that there were immigration problems during Heath's premiership, Thatcher's and Major's, so why the hell didn't they put it right? Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:06am Tue 17 Jul 12

Come on Echo says...

The ONS' own website states the population of Southampton at the census was 236,900 (http://www.ons.gov.
uk/ons/interactive/v
p2-2011-census-compa
rator/index.html). Excellent research again...
The ONS' own website states the population of Southampton at the census was 236,900 (http://www.ons.gov. uk/ons/interactive/v p2-2011-census-compa rator/index.html). Excellent research again... Come on Echo
  • Score: 0

9:10am Tue 17 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

Cities thrive on expansion.
Cities thrive on expansion. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

9:11am Tue 17 Jul 12

Taskforce 141 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Taskforce 141
  • Score: -1

9:18am Tue 17 Jul 12

Raxx says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Raxx
  • Score: 0

9:39am Tue 17 Jul 12

Shoong says...

No-one complains about being in the minority in your own country until it actually happens.
No-one complains about being in the minority in your own country until it actually happens. Shoong
  • Score: 0

9:44am Tue 17 Jul 12

bigfella777 says...

They have changed the rules for people outside the EU coming here now.Of course this does not affect people from within the EU and dont forget from Dec 2013 our block on people from Romania and Bulgaria coming here runs out, you aint seen nothing yet trust me.
If people wonder where all the Somalians are coming from, they go to Holland first get an EU passport and then here.
They have changed the rules for people outside the EU coming here now.Of course this does not affect people from within the EU and dont forget from Dec 2013 our block on people from Romania and Bulgaria coming here runs out, you aint seen nothing yet trust me. If people wonder where all the Somalians are coming from, they go to Holland first get an EU passport and then here. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

9:45am Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

9:56am Tue 17 Jul 12

ajw1986 says...

I don't really think its about people not working or not providing, we need a system that helps our own population increase without being eardiacted at the same time.
All of the polish people i know work very hard and usually end up doing the jobs no one wants to do.
Whoever mucked up, lets help each other get back on the road to a positive indigenous population increase.
I don't really think its about people not working or not providing, we need a system that helps our own population increase without being eardiacted at the same time. All of the polish people i know work very hard and usually end up doing the jobs no one wants to do. Whoever mucked up, lets help each other get back on the road to a positive indigenous population increase. ajw1986
  • Score: 0

10:06am Tue 17 Jul 12

Shoong says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

10:37am Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
Not really. Christianity landed here in the early 2nd century, but faced enormous persecution by the resident and occupying Pagans. It wasn't until the 7th century that this persecution began to subside, and Christianity managed to begin having a foothold on these shores.

So, no, Pagans didn't 'moan', because Christians didn't 'force' religion on anyone. Christians landed, started talking about their man Jesus, and were met with 'not moaning' by resident pagans in the form of 'burnings' and 'slayings'.

That's right. This country were persecuting Christians pretty much from the day they landed here. But you can choose to twist what happened to fit in with your beliefs if you like. You know, propaganda-style.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Not really. Christianity landed here in the early 2nd century, but faced enormous persecution by the resident and occupying Pagans. It wasn't until the 7th century that this persecution began to subside, and Christianity managed to begin having a foothold on these shores. So, no, Pagans didn't 'moan', because Christians didn't 'force' religion on anyone. Christians landed, started talking about their man Jesus, and were met with 'not moaning' by resident pagans in the form of 'burnings' and 'slayings'. That's right. This country were persecuting Christians pretty much from the day they landed here. But you can choose to twist what happened to fit in with your beliefs if you like. You know, propaganda-style. Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:40am Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
It wasn't so much introduced, as gradually more tolerated, largely thanks to emperor Constantine.

It's incredibly fashionable to paint 'Christians' as a bunch of evil swine, and cite The Crusades, papal coverups of noncery and other horrors as proof. But history is never as black-and-white as the 'these are the good guys, these are the bad guys' Adventures For Boys comic book stories southy likes to tell.

Disclosure: I'm 100% atheist.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It wasn't so much introduced, as gradually more tolerated, largely thanks to emperor Constantine. It's incredibly fashionable to paint 'Christians' as a bunch of evil swine, and cite The Crusades, papal coverups of noncery and other horrors as proof. But history is never as black-and-white as the 'these are the good guys, these are the bad guys' Adventures For Boys comic book stories southy likes to tell. Disclosure: I'm 100% atheist. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:37am Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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.
there might of been one or two Christian Romans but while the Romans was in Britian the majority of Romans was Pagans, and those one or two Roman christians would of been right at the end of Roman occupation in the 6th Century, The Saxon, Danes, Jutes, Anglos and pits invasion in the later half 6th Century was pagan and they ethnically cleansed Britian off every thing that was Roman, it was the Saxon King Athelstan that interduce Christianity into Britian in 10th Century (grandson of King Alfred the Great from the Mercia house). First was Greek Orthodox Religion as the major, then later in his rule he switch to Catholicism which at the time was base in Eastern Southern Germanic country Later to become France and then move to Rome and be called Roman Catholicism
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]there might of been one or two Christian Romans but while the Romans was in Britian the majority of Romans was Pagans, and those one or two Roman christians would of been right at the end of Roman occupation in the 6th Century, The Saxon, Danes, Jutes, Anglos and pits invasion in the later half 6th Century was pagan and they ethnically cleansed Britian off every thing that was Roman, it was the Saxon King Athelstan that interduce Christianity into Britian in 10th Century (grandson of King Alfred the Great from the Mercia house). First was Greek Orthodox Religion as the major, then later in his rule he switch to Catholicism which at the time was base in Eastern Southern Germanic country Later to become France and then move to Rome and be called Roman Catholicism southy
  • Score: 0

11:58am Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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 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. southy
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Tue 17 Jul 12

TEBOURBA says...

The population has increased by 8%.
The question we should be asking is has the number of places in schools, universities, hospitals, GP practices, social care, transport, housing and most important of all, JOBS increased in proportion, the answer is a resounding NO.
We are therefore all worse off.
To paraphrase Churchill "never has so few kept so many in idleness."
We are living in a fool's paradise, it simply can't go on, with an aging population to care for, 1million 16 to 24 year olds on the dole, unrestricted immigration, the country will soon be on its knees, following the likes of Greece down the tube.
The population has increased by 8%. The question we should be asking is has the number of places in schools, universities, hospitals, GP practices, social care, transport, housing and most important of all, JOBS increased in proportion, the answer is a resounding NO. We are therefore all worse off. To paraphrase Churchill "never has so few kept so many in idleness." We are living in a fool's paradise, it simply can't go on, with an aging population to care for, 1million 16 to 24 year olds on the dole, unrestricted immigration, the country will soon be on its knees, following the likes of Greece down the tube. TEBOURBA
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Dave Juson says...

Southy, you really do need to get a copy of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, by the Venerable Bede. Fortunately, it has been translated into English, and having been in circulation since the 8th century, remains available as a Penguin Classic in all good bookshops.
As for many other posters on this site, do yourself a favour and read it as well, you would be amazed what an ethnically diverse place Britain was back then, when the English were widely regarded as unwanted foreigners.
Southy, you really do need to get a copy of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, by the Venerable Bede. Fortunately, it has been translated into English, and having been in circulation since the 8th century, remains available as a Penguin Classic in all good bookshops. As for many other posters on this site, do yourself a favour and read it as well, you would be amazed what an ethnically diverse place Britain was back then, when the English were widely regarded as unwanted foreigners. Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

I see some people who think the Romans were christian from day one which they weren't, they were part of many religions, they weren't even totally christian until at least the 4th century AD (400 years after the death of "jesus") and the diverse religions of western europe were never under the "pagan" banner before 2AD (200 years after the death of "jesus").
(Disclaimer)
I'm not religious.
I see some people who think the Romans were christian from day one which they weren't, they were part of many religions, they weren't even totally christian until at least the 4th century AD (400 years after the death of "jesus") and the diverse religions of western europe were never under the "pagan" banner before 2AD (200 years after the death of "jesus"). (Disclaimer) I'm not religious. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Shoong says...

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.
You've taken a short comment and expanded it into another rant about Thatcher, the Tories etc etc etc, and embellished into another load of backward looking trash.

It was Jesus Christ, not 'Mr Christ', try to show some of the respect that you constantly harp on about.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]You've taken a short comment and expanded it into another rant about Thatcher, the Tories etc etc etc, and embellished into another load of backward looking trash. It was Jesus Christ, not 'Mr Christ', try to show some of the respect that you constantly harp on about. Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
Cripes, this is getting too deep for me, what has it to do with an increase in the population in and around Southampton? We have seen some Europeans move in because they could, it is very difficult to introduce restrictions, as when you do you get battered with the Racist label. I am sure intergration will work in the long run and the population will settle down to one of various races and creeds living together making the best of what they can get. It won't happen overnight, but why don't you get to thinking how you could improve things, rather than sitting on your white supremacist backsides criticising anything that doesn't meet your own apparently high standards?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Cripes, this is getting too deep for me, what has it to do with an increase in the population in and around Southampton? We have seen some Europeans move in because they could, it is very difficult to introduce restrictions, as when you do you get battered with the Racist label. I am sure intergration will work in the long run and the population will settle down to one of various races and creeds living together making the best of what they can get. It won't happen overnight, but why don't you get to thinking how you could improve things, rather than sitting on your white supremacist backsides criticising anything that doesn't meet your own apparently high standards? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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.
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. southy
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
At what point am I not handling anything? I'm well-versed in the ways of Southy Rhetoric, thanks.

As you know I'm not normally one to make fun of your literacy, as I understand you have a legitimate problem with it. But I cannot, for the life of me, work out what you mean by "there is proff of Christians in Britian". Can you explain that bit?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]At what point am I not handling anything? I'm well-versed in the ways of Southy Rhetoric, thanks. As you know I'm not normally one to make fun of your literacy, as I understand you have a legitimate problem with it. But I cannot, for the life of me, work out what you mean by "there is proff of Christians in Britian". Can you explain that bit? Georgem
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
What is a Christian Atheist? How do they differ from Hebrew Atheists, or Hindu Atheists, or Muslim Atheists? Atheism is atheism. By definition, it can't be subdivided according to specific religions.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]What is a Christian Atheist? How do they differ from Hebrew Atheists, or Hindu Atheists, or Muslim Atheists? Atheism is atheism. By definition, it can't be subdivided according to specific religions. Georgem
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

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)?
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)? Condor Man
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Tue 17 Jul 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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".
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.[/p][/quote]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". Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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 southy
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

It really doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you believe.
It really doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you believe. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
But to use two entirely contradictory labels together, defies all reason. You don't see a problem with labelling someone a Christian Atheist, for example? What, exactly, are their beliefs?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]But to use two entirely contradictory labels together, defies all reason. You don't see a problem with labelling someone a Christian Atheist, for example? What, exactly, are their beliefs? Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.[/p][/quote]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".[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
Are Muslims far right wing capitalists, or socialists?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.[/p][/quote]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".[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Are Muslims far right wing capitalists, or socialists? Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Tue 17 Jul 12

southy says...

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
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India southy
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Tue 17 Jul 12

sottondave says...

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.
which streets are no go areas, please name them
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]which streets are no go areas, please name them sottondave
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

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.
I remember listening to a conversation between Ricky Gervais and Rowan Williams. Gervais said that he was an atheist but observed many of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure most people out there observe the moral foundations extolled in the Bible/Koran etc but perhaps don't believe in the God bit.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. and every one of your labels is a total contradiction.[/p][/quote]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".[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I remember listening to a conversation between Ricky Gervais and Rowan Williams. Gervais said that he was an atheist but observed many of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure most people out there observe the moral foundations extolled in the Bible/Koran etc but perhaps don't believe in the God bit. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India[/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Tue 17 Jul 12

sottondave says...

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.
Would these rules also apply to the 6 million British people living outside Britain.
would your rules on non christian religous places also include non christian religions such as hinduism, sikhism, judaism and other religions or are you only prejudice against muslims.
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Would these rules also apply to the 6 million British people living outside Britain. would your rules on non christian religous places also include non christian religions such as hinduism, sikhism, judaism and other religions or are you only prejudice against muslims. sottondave
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Tue 17 Jul 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

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!
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
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Tue 17 Jul 12

On the inside says...

In you race to debate race as the issue you numptys have all missed the point. The bulk of the increase is students.
In you race to debate race as the issue you numptys have all missed the point. The bulk of the increase is students. On the inside
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
Confirmed. Source? Office of national statistics, report linked above.

And, no, southy, it has not been hacked by evil right wing atheist lesbian capitalist fundamentalist muslims or anything.
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: In you race to debate race as the issue you numptys have all missed the point. The bulk of the increase is students.[/p][/quote]Confirmed. Source? Office of national statistics, report linked above. And, no, southy, it has not been hacked by evil right wing atheist lesb[bold][/bold]ian capitalist fundamentalist muslims or anything. Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Tue 17 Jul 12

freefinker says...

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"
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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" freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
UKIP + Labour. You jest, where did you get that crackpot idea from? Who wants a Tory MP here anyway apart from you and the Iron Lady and perhaps LH?
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]UKIP + Labour. You jest, where did you get that crackpot idea from? Who wants a Tory MP here anyway apart from you and the Iron Lady and perhaps LH? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
With grammar and spelling like that it is obvious you were never a student of English! Like 'em or not, Students are a good source of finance for the local shops and businesses, not to mention Landlords.
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: In you race to debate race as the issue you numptys have all missed the point. The bulk of the increase is students.[/p][/quote]With grammar and spelling like that it is obvious you were never a student of English! Like 'em or not, Students are a good source of finance for the local shops and businesses, not to mention Landlords. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Plenty of room especially if the UKIP voters moved out, would be at least three or more homes available. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Tue 17 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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! Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Tue 17 Jul 12

100%HANTSBOY says...

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 :)
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Good for you!!! So do I! I shave my own head,drink copious amounts of vodka,and abuse my wife :) 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 17 Jul 12

100%HANTSBOY says...

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 :)
Not really,it was just a joke! ;)
[quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Good for you!!! So do I! I shave my own head,drink copious amounts of vodka,and abuse my wife :)[/p][/quote]Not really,it was just a joke! ;) 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Tue 17 Jul 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote].. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial. freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
Lol yes, I'll have to give you that.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote].. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial.[/p][/quote]Lol yes, I'll have to give you that. Georgem
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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.
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. Ferrick
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Tue 17 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

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.
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. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Who says they are empty? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Tue 17 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Who says they are empty?[/p][/quote]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? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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? Ferrick
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Yes I do occasionally, but prefer them in Bounty bars.
Yes I do occasionally, but prefer them in Bounty bars. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Yes I do occasionally, but prefer them in Bounty bars.
That was of course a reference to the coconut.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Yes I do occasionally, but prefer them in Bounty bars.[/p][/quote]That was of course a reference to the coconut. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Did what make what OK? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Good job we saw of those Napoleon wallahs, we would all be eating snails and frogs legs now.
Good job we saw of those Napoleon wallahs, we would all be eating snails and frogs legs now. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Tue 17 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

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. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote].. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial.[/p][/quote]Which was precisely what was in my mind at the time of posting! Tut tut Georgem, must do better. ;-) cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Who says they are empty?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]No, they are full of unregistered illegals, keep up. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Tue 17 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

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 ;-)
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Who says they are empty?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]No, they are full of unregistered illegals, keep up.[/p][/quote]Well as you're so sure, I hope you've reported each and every one of them ;-) IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Did what make what OK?[/p][/quote]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. Ferrick
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
It's a parody.
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Did what make what OK?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It's a parody. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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 ;-)
Only guessing! How many Travellers registered their presence?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Who says they are empty?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]No, they are full of unregistered illegals, keep up.[/p][/quote]Well as you're so sure, I hope you've reported each and every one of them ;-)[/p][/quote]Only guessing! How many Travellers registered their presence? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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. ;-)
The border between us and mainland Europe is pretty wet.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote].. hate to be a little bit pedantic, but the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is artificial.[/p][/quote]Which was precisely what was in my mind at the time of posting! Tut tut Georgem, must do better. ;-)[/p][/quote]The border between us and mainland Europe is pretty wet. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

I don't know what is up with you lot tonight, you keep taking me seriously, you don't want to do that.
I don't know what is up with you lot tonight, you keep taking me seriously, you don't want to do that. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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?
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? Ferrick
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Tue 17 Jul 12

loosehead says...

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?
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? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Tue 17 Jul 12

wilson castaway says...

The problem with so many people entering our country if ther pressure it's putting putting on local schools.My son is currently on a waiting list to get into the school 1minute away from our house and we have to make a 2.2 mike trek to school each morning.Im walking 8.8 miles a daythere and back to the nearest available school and the council say its because we have an influx of children from other countries same age as my son.
The problem with so many people entering our country if ther pressure it's putting putting on local schools.My son is currently on a waiting list to get into the school 1minute away from our house and we have to make a 2.2 mike trek to school each morning.Im walking 8.8 miles a daythere and back to the nearest available school and the council say its because we have an influx of children from other countries same age as my son. wilson castaway
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]What happened? Well not a lot really and you are absolutely correct with your first eight bullet points, have any affected you personally? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
Not seen any appear LH I was hoping you would join in the conversations earlier. Never mind you are here now.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Not seen any appear LH I was hoping you would join in the conversations earlier. Never mind you are here now. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 17 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

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
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Tue 17 Jul 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. UKIPsouthampton
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Tue 17 Jul 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

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.
As I said, we need to have a sensible, mature, grown up debate on it.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Plenty of room especially if the UKIP voters moved out, would be at least three or more homes available.[/p][/quote]As I said, we need to have a sensible, mature, grown up debate on it. UKIPsouthampton
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Tue 17 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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"[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

11:47pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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!
I applaud your optimism, bravo. This time I am being serious!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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"[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]I applaud your optimism, bravo. This time I am being serious! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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
Ha ha, sorry people I was having a bit of a funny day, just teasing, I can't believe you take me so seriously, I am really taking the P most of the time with just a little seriousness included, you chose which is which.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Ha ha, sorry people I was having a bit of a funny day, just teasing, I can't believe you take me so seriously, I am really taking the P most of the time with just a little seriousness included, you chose which is which. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

It's midnight and I have to be up at 5 so thank you for your contributions today, good stuff from all of you, keep it coming.
It's midnight and I have to be up at 5 so thank you for your contributions today, good stuff from all of you, keep it coming. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

12:40am Wed 18 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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?
What happened?
What happened to valuing the opinion of the majority?
I'll make an admission. If you had told me in pre democracy days that the future of the country would be decided with equal input by everybody over eighteen I probably would have spluttered on my roast pigeon and coughed my mead all over you in shock at the idea of the grubby, uneducated bigoted masses deciding on national policy.

As it turned out this idea of democracy has proved to be quite a good one and I would have been proved very wrong.
Unimaginable strides being made in all areas notably including justice and social welfare. It's also been passed on with equal success around the world.

Worryingly when it comes to immigration we seem to have gone backwards here.

We have a generation of politicians that grew up in the same universities at a time when liberalism and to an extent communism was rather fashionable now running the country and the BBC etc.

They have decided that the opinion of the general public on immigration is a bit embarrassing to them a bit doesn't maybe? And that it should be ignored because as the 'enlightened' minority they actually know better. So they've chosen to disregard it and dismiss any opposing arguments as bigotry or racist.

I'm sure I don't need to point out to you the dangers of not taking the public seriously and inflicting the beliefs of a minority on them. It's a big step backwards.

History tells us that the dangers of this attitude normally result in a massive and exaggerated backlash. You could say that Stalin, Saddam, (The baath party) and the Nazi party were all swept from obscurity to power on public backlashes if this kind.

Let's hope that reasonable debate is allowed on the immigration issue before reasonable people affected by the open immigration policy are forced to turn to spiteful organizations like the EDL and BNP for an opportunity to be heard.

That is potentially a very dangerous situation.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]What happened? Well not a lot really and you are absolutely correct with your first eight bullet points, have any affected you personally?[/p][/quote]What happened? What happened to valuing the opinion of the majority? I'll make an admission. If you had told me in pre democracy days that the future of the country would be decided with equal input by everybody over eighteen I probably would have spluttered on my roast pigeon and coughed my mead all over you in shock at the idea of the grubby, uneducated bigoted masses deciding on national policy. As it turned out this idea of democracy has proved to be quite a good one and I would have been proved very wrong. Unimaginable strides being made in all areas notably including justice and social welfare. It's also been passed on with equal success around the world. Worryingly when it comes to immigration we seem to have gone backwards here. We have a generation of politicians that grew up in the same universities at a time when liberalism and to an extent communism was rather fashionable now running the country and the BBC etc. They have decided that the opinion of the general public on immigration is a bit embarrassing to them a bit doesn't maybe? And that it should be ignored because as the 'enlightened' minority they actually know better. So they've chosen to disregard it and dismiss any opposing arguments as bigotry or racist. I'm sure I don't need to point out to you the dangers of not taking the public seriously and inflicting the beliefs of a minority on them. It's a big step backwards. History tells us that the dangers of this attitude normally result in a massive and exaggerated backlash. You could say that Stalin, Saddam, (The baath party) and the Nazi party were all swept from obscurity to power on public backlashes if this kind. Let's hope that reasonable debate is allowed on the immigration issue before reasonable people affected by the open immigration policy are forced to turn to spiteful organizations like the EDL and BNP for an opportunity to be heard. That is potentially a very dangerous situation. Ferrick
  • Score: 0

6:35am Wed 18 Jul 12

loosehead says...

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
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:04am Wed 18 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
Ok, so the ONS data is not spot-on. Share with us which more accurate collected data you are basing your claims on.

ONS data might not be perfect, but I'm gonna go ahead and trust actual data over vague political ramblings.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Ok, so the ONS data is not spot-on. Share with us which more accurate collected data you are basing your claims on. ONS data might not be perfect, but I'm gonna go ahead and trust actual data over vague political ramblings. Georgem
  • Score: 0

8:05am Wed 18 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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!
Well, we all know how proud he is of being one of the few contributors to actually admit he's wrong, so I think we all owe it to him to remind him of this opportunity he has here to show us all how it's done.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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)?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Then you better go and tell Rahit Maryada that he is a Sikh in India[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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"[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]Well, we all know how proud he is of being one of the few contributors to actually admit he's wrong, so I think we all owe it to him to remind him of this opportunity he has here to show us all how it's done. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Wed 18 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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
That's Gordon.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]That's Gordon. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Wed 18 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

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?
>I suspect that your job has never been at risk from an immigrant.

My job is at risk from anyone able to do it better than me. It's my responsibility to make sure my employer values me.

> I suspect that you choose not to live among recent immigrant communities.

I moved down from Morden about seven years ago. I was very happy living in a much more multicultural community than Southampton.

> I suspect that you dont have to traverse Shirley High Street after midnight.

Well yes, it's where I live so I do. Never had the slightest problem from anyone other than our embittered indigenous population. The Polish guys in particular seem to have far better manners than a lot of the 'locals'.

> I suspect that you dont have much trouble getting your children into the schools you prefer.

My nipper's in the school down the road, which has *dozens* of nationalities in it. The school's great, under the leadership of an excellent Headmaster.

> I suspect that you are not in a position where you have to rely on social housing.

The scarcity of social housing is due to Thatcher selling it all off and both Labour and Tory governments failing to build it at a sustainable level. If you want someone to blame then I suggest you look a little further up the food-chain than Mr and Mrs Kumar/Bakowski/Hoxha next door.

> I suspect that you haven't become a bit alienated in your own community.

No - why would I? People are people. Perhaps if you embraced your neighbours instead of treating them with distrust and paranoia you would have a different experience of them.
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]>I suspect that your job has never been at risk from an immigrant. My job is at risk from anyone able to do it better than me. It's my responsibility to make sure my employer values me. > I suspect that you choose not to live among recent immigrant communities. I moved down from Morden about seven years ago. I was very happy living in a much more multicultural community than Southampton. > I suspect that you dont have to traverse Shirley High Street after midnight. Well yes, it's where I live so I do. Never had the slightest problem from anyone other than our embittered indigenous population. The Polish guys in particular seem to have far better manners than a lot of the 'locals'. > I suspect that you dont have much trouble getting your children into the schools you prefer. My nipper's in the school down the road, which has *dozens* of nationalities in it. The school's great, under the leadership of an excellent Headmaster. > I suspect that you are not in a position where you have to rely on social housing. The scarcity of social housing is due to Thatcher selling it all off and both Labour and Tory governments failing to build it at a sustainable level. If you want someone to blame then I suggest you look a little further up the food-chain than Mr and Mrs Kumar/Bakowski/Hoxha next door. > I suspect that you haven't become a bit alienated in your own community. No - why would I? People are people. Perhaps if you embraced your neighbours instead of treating them with distrust and paranoia you would have a different experience of them. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Wed 18 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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. Ferrick
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Wed 18 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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.[/p][/quote]Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"? Wait, I think you did! Rather negates the rest of your post really. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Wed 18 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

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.
Just spotted that it wasn't you that posted it.

It WAS the post I was responding to though - so the same applies. Next.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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.[/p][/quote]Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"? Wait, I think you did! Rather negates the rest of your post really.[/p][/quote]Just spotted that it wasn't you that posted it. It WAS the post I was responding to though - so the same applies. Next. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

9:33pm Wed 18 Jul 12

loosehead says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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.[/p][/quote]Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"? Wait, I think you did! Rather negates the rest of your post really.[/p][/quote]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! loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Wed 18 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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.[/p][/quote]Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"? Wait, I think you did! Rather negates the rest of your post really.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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.[/p][/quote]Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"? Wait, I think you did! Rather negates the rest of your post really.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Ferrick
  • Score: 0

7:39am Thu 19 Jul 12

loosehead says...

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.
Muslim women wearing a Hijab ( veil,) or headscarf are not following any law wrote out in the Koran.
It's a traditional thing done out of respect for their future/present husband.
My friend who's a muslim daughter & wife started wearing them he asked why? they said it was to show they're muslim so please tell me how wearing a uniform declaring what you are is fitting in/blending in with society?
he is here legally but he has said we should stop illegals & send them back & close our doors.
does that make him a racist/bigot?
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"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.[/p][/quote]Sorry, did you not mention "Refugees/aslylum seekers"? Wait, I think you did! Rather negates the rest of your post really.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Muslim women wearing a Hijab ( veil,) or headscarf are not following any law wrote out in the Koran. It's a traditional thing done out of respect for their future/present husband. My friend who's a muslim daughter & wife started wearing them he asked why? they said it was to show they're muslim so please tell me how wearing a uniform declaring what you are is fitting in/blending in with society? he is here legally but he has said we should stop illegals & send them back & close our doors. does that make him a racist/bigot? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Thu 19 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.
Does this apply both ways? I assume you would consider going to Poland or Afghanistan and taking advantage of the communal but finite wealth of the citizens for your own financial gain justifiable and you would be offended if they questioned your motives? Would you be shocked if those citizens were non plussed by your religion or culture and didn't go out of their way to make allowances for you? Good luck with that.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.[/p][/quote]Does this apply both ways? I assume you would consider going to Poland or Afghanistan and taking advantage of the communal but finite wealth of the citizens for your own financial gain justifiable and you would be offended if they questioned your motives? Would you be shocked if those citizens were non plussed by your religion or culture and didn't go out of their way to make allowances for you? Good luck with that. Ferrick
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Thu 19 Jul 12

loosehead says...

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
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.[/p][/quote]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 loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Thu 19 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

Great. Two answers, both of which run to the tone of "But THEY do it TOO mummy!!!"
Great. Two answers, both of which run to the tone of "But THEY do it TOO mummy!!!" cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: Great. Two answers, both of which run to the tone of "But THEY do it TOO mummy!!!"[/p][/quote]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? Ferrick
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Thu 19 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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
I wouldn't dream of telling the Thais anything, it is none of my business and on the other side of the World with a totally different outlook on life and nothing in common with Western culture.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]I wouldn't dream of telling the Thais anything, it is none of my business and on the other side of the World with a totally different outlook on life and nothing in common with Western culture. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Thu 19 Jul 12

opera phantom says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.
Rubbish
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.[/p][/quote]Rubbish opera phantom
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Ferrick says...

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
Note to self:

Get down to the Amazon rainforest and get myself a few shipping container loads of top quality mahogany to sell.
If the natives protest that this doesn't belong to me and I have no right to take it and I am ruining there habitat, show them "cantthinkofone's' comment and say that its alright because cantthinkofone says it is...
[quote][p][bold]opera phantom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: This country is not "mine", and it is not "yours". It is land, and its soil belongs to humanity.[/p][/quote]Rubbish[/p][/quote]Note to self: Get down to the Amazon rainforest and get myself a few shipping container loads of top quality mahogany to sell. If the natives protest that this doesn't belong to me and I have no right to take it and I am ruining there habitat, show them "cantthinkofone's' comment and say that its alright because cantthinkofone says it is... Ferrick
  • Score: 0

9:41am Fri 20 Jul 12

Raxx says...

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?
"to finance their housing, medical care, education, culture, religion etc with wealth that they haven't contributed to."

We do that already. Why are you happy to do so if someone happens to have been born here, and why is someone less deserving if they haven't?
[quote][p][bold]Ferrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: Great. Two answers, both of which run to the tone of "But THEY do it TOO mummy!!!"[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]"to finance their housing, medical care, education, culture, religion etc with wealth that they haven't contributed to." We do that already. Why are you happy to do so if someone happens to have been born here, and why is someone less deserving if they haven't? Raxx
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree