£500K boost for Red Cross asylum charity (From Daily Echo)

ANY CHANCE OF A FEW VOUCHERS OR FOOD PARCELS BEING HANDED OUT TO OUR OWN 'ENGLISH' SOUTHAMPTON PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE LEAGALY AND ARE IN NEED - CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME (SO THEY USED TO SAY) GROAN AND GROAN AGAIN....

there are charities out there desperate for funding. Yet this one gets £500,000 just on the the back it helps people from outside this country. Democratic vote required. SOUTHAMPTON is full. Politicians get a back bone.

Ah, excellent. More encouragement to others to make their way to the UK. Let's all have one massive multicultural party at my place. What's that? No skills? Here, have some more money! Yes, it's literally free - woooooo!! Let's all have a disco, let's all have a disco. Welcome Brothers and Sisters. Do make love with each other to secure your place.

Run to the hills.

Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

I read somewhere that fear brings out the worst in people. Looking at the above comments I think I would have to agree. Hey grumpy. If your own government ever kill your family in front of you and then put a tyre around your neck and set fire to it you may decide to move to another country. At least you will understand if when you get there you are not welcomed with open arms.

I'm all for grants to help people in real need but this has to be echoed through matching grants for local residents!!! Also if these people are in such desperate situations they should be willing to try and mix with society and abide by our culture and language. Most will become recluses within their own pocket of society and never attempt a word of English... I have worked with families who arrive and are unwilling to contribute but expect a child who has to attend school to translate for the rest of the family... I am now working in the Middle East and they are very welcoming, I have mixed with their culture, shown willing to learn their language and in return they have welcomed us with open arms... I'm still curious to know why they all want to be in the UK... The 'benefits' system for the countries residents and cost of living where I am far out weighs that offered in the UK!

nbaddesley1 wrote:
I'm all for grants to help people in real need but this has to be echoed through matching grants for local residents!!! Also if these people are in such desperate situations they should be willing to try and mix with society and abide by our culture and language. Most will become recluses within their own pocket of society and never attempt a word of English... I have worked with families who arrive and are unwilling to contribute but expect a child who has to attend school to translate for the rest of the family... I am now working in the Middle East and they are very welcoming, I have mixed with their culture, shown willing to learn their language and in return they have welcomed us with open arms... I'm still curious to know why they all want to be in the UK... The 'benefits' system for the countries residents and cost of living where I am far out weighs that offered in the UK!

People keep on with "what about money for the English". Well what about housing benefit, unemployment benefit, health care etc, etc, etc. People are also saying that help should only be given to those prepared to work and contribute to society. Does that also apply to the thousands of "English" who are happy to stay at home and breed so as to be able to claim more? What about so called problem family's who refuse to abide by the law? There are good and bad amongst all people and those that choose to point out what they see are unfair grants to immigrants had best come to terms with the fact that despite what they say in public they are in fact racist bigots.

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

This country has enough of it's own problems that need working on before taking on other peoples problems. You can't blame them for trying to find a better life but we're full and can't afford the public services for the the people already here. I'd much rather see the money going to help local people.

Also, multiculturalism has failed, these people should be sent to where there is no existing community for them so they are forced to integrate more and adopt the local British culture.

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Until wealth is more evenly (and justly) shared throughout the world there will always be problems with immigration. I cant remember the exact figures but it's something like 10% of the population of the planet own 90% of the wealth. How many people would choose to leave their family and home if they had a reasonable standard of living? In some ways I can have more respect for an illegal immigrant than our own home grown gutless idle spongers.

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

Stillness wrote:
Until wealth is more evenly (and justly) shared throughout the world there will always be problems with immigration. I cant remember the exact figures but it's something like 10% of the population of the planet own 90% of the wealth. How many people would choose to leave their family and home if they had a reasonable standard of living? In some ways I can have more respect for an illegal immigrant than our own home grown gutless idle spongers.

.. while I can agree with this well expressed sentiment, this grant is for refugees and asylum seekers - NOT illegal immigrants.
Many of the bigoted contributors to this thread fail to even understand there is a difference.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

Peter, slander is verbal, libel is written.
Get it right, old boy.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

You did not put a case up and you may want to look up the definition of slander. I fully understand that your point of view is the only correct one. Always has been and always will be so I think I'll just leave the immigration problem for you to sort out. Perhaps you could get all your "wealthy back home" immigrants to support you?

Stillness wrote:
Until wealth is more evenly (and justly) shared throughout the world there will always be problems with immigration. I cant remember the exact figures but it's something like 10% of the population of the planet own 90% of the wealth. How many people would choose to leave their family and home if they had a reasonable standard of living? In some ways I can have more respect for an illegal immigrant than our own home grown gutless idle spongers.

Oh so we are a Socialist at heart and don't relise it stillness.
This is Socialism "wealth more evenly shared thought the world"

the figure is 80% of the worlds wealth is owed by 2% of the worlds population, But I believe its now 82% of the worlds wealth is the latest figures..

People do not choose to be idle and unemployed, its a case there is not enough real jobs out there to be had, and this is cause by a rising population and avancement of techology, Avancement of Techology will reduce the number of people needed for the work place, and put people on the dole and increasing population will add to the unemployed.
And what deepens the problem even more is Capitalism with its unwilling to share.

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

You did not put a case up and you may want to look up the definition of slander. I fully understand that your point of view is the only correct one. Always has been and always will be so I think I'll just leave the immigration problem for you to sort out. Perhaps you could get all your "wealthy back home" immigrants to support you?

Stillness says:- So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
That is Slander, And as for my case I agreed basically in what huckit P wrote.
Tell me have you ever traveled to other countrys, I have and seen what it really like, and I not talking about Holidays in another country.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

You did not put a case up and you may want to look up the definition of slander. I fully understand that your point of view is the only correct one. Always has been and always will be so I think I'll just leave the immigration problem for you to sort out. Perhaps you could get all your "wealthy back home" immigrants to support you?

Stillness says:- So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
That is Slander, And as for my case I agreed basically in what huckit P wrote.
Tell me have you ever traveled to other countrys, I have and seen what it really like, and I not talking about Holidays in another country.

Yes Peter.

Stillness wrote:

nbaddesley1 wrote:
I'm all for grants to help people in real need but this has to be echoed through matching grants for local residents!!! Also if these people are in such desperate situations they should be willing to try and mix with society and abide by our culture and language. Most will become recluses within their own pocket of society and never attempt a word of English... I have worked with families who arrive and are unwilling to contribute but expect a child who has to attend school to translate for the rest of the family... I am now working in the Middle East and they are very welcoming, I have mixed with their culture, shown willing to learn their language and in return they have welcomed us with open arms... I'm still curious to know why they all want to be in the UK... The 'benefits' system for the countries residents and cost of living where I am far out weighs that offered in the UK!

People keep on with "what about money for the English". Well what about housing benefit, unemployment benefit, health care etc, etc, etc. People are also saying that help should only be given to those prepared to work and contribute to society. Does that also apply to the thousands of "English" who are happy to stay at home and breed so as to be able to claim more? What about so called problem family's who refuse to abide by the law? There are good and bad amongst all people and those that choose to point out what they see are unfair grants to immigrants had best come to terms with the fact that despite what they say in public they are in fact racist bigots.

Stillness, I'm not sure who you think you are to impose your narrow minded views on everyone else's comments but unless you know me personally I don't think you have any right to shoot peoples comments/ views/ opinions down! We are all entitled to comment and although I have been far from perfect in my life I am not ashamed to say I have worked, paid taxes, found myself unemployed and pregnant, used the system when I was in crisis, found employment again and started to contribute to society again..... I'm not sure where in my previous comment you felt I justified the poor behaviour of certain members of society because trust me I am as disgusted as most with 'problem families' but maybe some of our resources should be handed out to improve current poor housing conditions, tackle difficult families, fund back to work schemes, apprenticeships for children who may be academically challenged and give some incentive to residents before opening the flood gates a little more! I also said I was not against helping families in genuine need of help from abroad, I'm sure there are many who have had horrific experiences but there are also a great many who have not and move for a better life because the can, not because it's life or death!

4000 in Southampton is an appallingly high figure. Genuine refugees are one thing,but remember that the vast majority of asylum-seekers are found by the Home Office and then the courts on appeal NOT to be genuine refugees. We are still stuck with them though, as the Home Office are useless: I should know, as I worked for them for decades....

This is exactly why i will not give to any charity unless i know the money is going to be spent in the U.K on U.K residents, we spend millions on overseas aid and what is the point they still breed like rabbits, when they learn to keep it in their trousers i will consider helping them. As far as this country is concerned there should be no such thing as an asylum seeker unless they have flown here direct and as for refugees the answer is no we are full. Its about time we looked after our own and stuff the rest of the world.

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

You did not put a case up and you may want to look up the definition of slander. I fully understand that your point of view is the only correct one. Always has been and always will be so I think I'll just leave the immigration problem for you to sort out. Perhaps you could get all your "wealthy back home" immigrants to support you?

Stillness says:- So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
That is Slander, And as for my case I agreed basically in what huckit P wrote.
Tell me have you ever traveled to other countrys, I have and seen what it really like, and I not talking about Holidays in another country.

Yes Peter.

Have you ever gone into the areas where there Government tell you not to Travel for your own safey, I can tell you this its not a case for your own safey most of the time, its because they don't want you to see how there government treat there own people, Take a walk down the back streets of Montevideo, Buenos Aires, Beira, Mombasa, Djibouti it don't matter where it is in the world it the same where ever you go.
If you got no money you just can't get out of the place, you are stuck there and these are the sort of people who really get do persecuted by there Governments and really do deserve asylum in another country that is safe for them to live in, and it should be the nearest one that is to there own country, the only other asylum seekers should be political ones and the UK do not get many of those because most are Socialist and get turned down by our Governments.
The ones that we get a lot of them do not deserve asylum, because they are not really being persecuted but they know it go's on in there country and use it to there advantage.

ohec wrote:
This is exactly why i will not give to any charity unless i know the money is going to be spent in the U.K on U.K residents, we spend millions on overseas aid and what is the point they still breed like rabbits, when they learn to keep it in their trousers i will consider helping them. As far as this country is concerned there should be no such thing as an asylum seeker unless they have flown here direct and as for refugees the answer is no we are full. Its about time we looked after our own and stuff the rest of the world.

Just a thought ohec, Do you or any one else buy a lottery ticket.
I am not knocking the Red Cross they do some great work around the world. We don't get any problem with real refugees they tend to just cross the boarder into the next country and set up camp where you see the Red Cross there also maybe this money should be used for such camps.

I must be living on a different planet to everyone.People losing their jobs housing repairs road repairs school repairs just to name a few where this money could have been spent.Roll up roll up come to England we will take care of you no problem.The country has gone PC crazy at the expense of our own people and the worry is a revolt may be on the cards some day soon ! ! Many people who think the way I do are not racists or anything else which is the easy card to play we just are now concerned what is happening in this country and the horse has bolted.Walk through the city centre parks and find me a English alcolholic ? ? Few and far between now because even they have been taken over by our friends from other countires.Keep up the good work councils goverment and the lotto just remember who put you where you are ! ! !.Thank You.

nbaddesley1 wrote:

Stillness wrote:

nbaddesley1 wrote:
I'm all for grants to help people in real need but this has to be echoed through matching grants for local residents!!! Also if these people are in such desperate situations they should be willing to try and mix with society and abide by our culture and language. Most will become recluses within their own pocket of society and never attempt a word of English... I have worked with families who arrive and are unwilling to contribute but expect a child who has to attend school to translate for the rest of the family... I am now working in the Middle East and they are very welcoming, I have mixed with their culture, shown willing to learn their language and in return they have welcomed us with open arms... I'm still curious to know why they all want to be in the UK... The 'benefits' system for the countries residents and cost of living where I am far out weighs that offered in the UK!

People keep on with "what about money for the English". Well what about housing benefit, unemployment benefit, health care etc, etc, etc. People are also saying that help should only be given to those prepared to work and contribute to society. Does that also apply to the thousands of "English" who are happy to stay at home and breed so as to be able to claim more? What about so called problem family's who refuse to abide by the law? There are good and bad amongst all people and those that choose to point out what they see are unfair grants to immigrants had best come to terms with the fact that despite what they say in public they are in fact racist bigots.

Stillness, I'm not sure who you think you are to impose your narrow minded views on everyone else's comments but unless you know me personally I don't think you have any right to shoot peoples comments/ views/ opinions down! We are all entitled to comment and although I have been far from perfect in my life I am not ashamed to say I have worked, paid taxes, found myself unemployed and pregnant, used the system when I was in crisis, found employment again and started to contribute to society again..... I'm not sure where in my previous comment you felt I justified the poor behaviour of certain members of society because trust me I am as disgusted as most with 'problem families' but maybe some of our resources should be handed out to improve current poor housing conditions, tackle difficult families, fund back to work schemes, apprenticeships for children who may be academically challenged and give some incentive to residents before opening the flood gates a little more! I also said I was not against helping families in genuine need of help from abroad, I'm sure there are many who have had horrific experiences but there are also a great many who have not and move for a better life because the can, not because it's life or death!

So to sum your comment up you don't believe that people should be allowed to try and improve their lives. Well not if it may impact on yours anyway.

ohec wrote:
This is exactly why i will not give to any charity unless i know the money is going to be spent in the U.K on U.K residents, we spend millions on overseas aid and what is the point they still breed like rabbits, when they learn to keep it in their trousers i will consider helping them. As far as this country is concerned there should be no such thing as an asylum seeker unless they have flown here direct and as for refugees the answer is no we are full. Its about time we looked after our own and stuff the rest of the world.

So have you thought why we spend millions on overseas aid? Have you looked at how much we spend as a percentage of GDP? Why is it so difficult to understand that if conditions were better in other countries people would be less likely to want to leave? Your parting shot of "stuff the rest of the world" is just an extension of your true attitude of stuff everyone and by "look after our own" you mean look after me.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
Until wealth is more evenly (and justly) shared throughout the world there will always be problems with immigration. I cant remember the exact figures but it's something like 10% of the population of the planet own 90% of the wealth. How many people would choose to leave their family and home if they had a reasonable standard of living? In some ways I can have more respect for an illegal immigrant than our own home grown gutless idle spongers.

Oh so we are a Socialist at heart and don't relise it stillness.
This is Socialism "wealth more evenly shared thought the world"

the figure is 80% of the worlds wealth is owed by 2% of the worlds population, But I believe its now 82% of the worlds wealth is the latest figures..

People do not choose to be idle and unemployed, its a case there is not enough real jobs out there to be had, and this is cause by a rising population and avancement of techology, Avancement of Techology will reduce the number of people needed for the work place, and put people on the dole and increasing population will add to the unemployed.
And what deepens the problem even more is Capitalism with its unwilling to share.

Councillor, if you open your eyes and look around I think you will find plenty of people lolling around doing nowt because they know that the state will pay them to be lazy and wasteful, I live very close to a public house and it's the same people everyday going in there, who I know don't work, handing over the money for beer & other bar sundries. They are laughing at all of us who choose to work and have aspirations of trying to improve ourselves (I know 'aspiration' is a dirty word in your book).

They are not 'downtrodden'. They are not 'forced' not to work. They are simply scrounging wasters.

But then your not going to criticise the people you try to get votes off, are you?

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

Agree it should be the nearest safest country from theres.
It takes a lot of money to get out of these sorts of countrys, most that end up here walk across the boarder to the next country then get smuggled to the UK paying some one to get them here.
Most of these refugees are wealthy back in there homelands, and the ones that really to have a case toget out can not they do not have the money to do so.

So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Stillness says:-
So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy. Lets look at your logic. So most of these people are wealthy back in there (your spelling not mine) so they choose to come and live in poverty here. I can only think that they must be as stupid as you.

Apart from you still don't have a clue, you can not argue against the case that I just put up, If you did you would not slander me the way you just did.

You did not put a case up and you may want to look up the definition of slander. I fully understand that your point of view is the only correct one. Always has been and always will be so I think I'll just leave the immigration problem for you to sort out. Perhaps you could get all your "wealthy back home" immigrants to support you?

Stillness says:- So says one of our biggest social scroungers. 10/10 for nerve southy.
That is Slander, And as for my case I agreed basically in what huckit P wrote.
Tell me have you ever traveled to other countrys, I have and seen what it really like, and I not talking about Holidays in another country.

Yes Peter.

Have you ever gone into the areas where there Government tell you not to Travel for your own safey, I can tell you this its not a case for your own safey most of the time, its because they don't want you to see how there government treat there own people, Take a walk down the back streets of Montevideo, Buenos Aires, Beira, Mombasa, Djibouti it don't matter where it is in the world it the same where ever you go.
If you got no money you just can't get out of the place, you are stuck there and these are the sort of people who really get do persecuted by there Governments and really do deserve asylum in another country that is safe for them to live in, and it should be the nearest one that is to there own country, the only other asylum seekers should be political ones and the UK do not get many of those because most are Socialist and get turned down by our Governments.
The ones that we get a lot of them do not deserve asylum, because they are not really being persecuted but they know it go's on in there country and use it to there advantage.

Yes Peter.

I took a decision some time ago not to donate to charities that send money abroad. Let's face it, there's no real way of telling if your money is providing the facilities they need or if the money given in good faith is being used to bullet proof the latest African dictator's limo because his own people are trying to kill him.

To those upset by £500, 000 being spent on refugees and asylum seekers. How about complaining about the £200,000 cost of just one English family. Multiply that by the number of "problem families" in the UK and I think you will find £500,000 small change.
Try a Google for Samantha Galbraith. If you look at the Telegraph article you will see that the true cost of this waste of space and her brood is closer to one million pound.

I used to be proud of my country's ability to give succour to the worlds needy, but we now send desperate refugees back to despotic regimes such as Iran and Zimbabwe mainly because the country is full up thanks to the EU. If we got out of the EU and stopped the immigration we would be able to look after genuine refugees properly. Am I biased? Bet your life I am, my great grandparents escaped a murderous Prussian regime and all their children fought for Britain in both world wars. Sometimes refugees and their offspring can be usefull.

I believe this money should have been spent on UK citizens who suffer from disabilities or who are homeless. It always amazes me that we spend so much on overseas aid when there are British people who are desperately in need of financial support.

I'm not against Britain taking in genuine refugees, but an important question is often left unanswered...

These refugees would have passed through many safe countries whilst on their way to the UK, so why did they not settle in any of them?

Why do I think that this thread was deliberately posted to bring out the worst in our local Racist, Bigots and know alls? It certainly managed that. The person who donated the money has made a specific request for where the money is to be used, however it will free up funds for other needy groups.

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately.
Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

I totally agree with you I hope this money is used to send them to the nearest safe country near to the one they're so called fleeing from

huckit P wrote:
Asylum should only be granted by the next nearest and safe country from the one being fled. Not the one of choice. If the asylum seeker has passed other safe countires he or she should be returned immediately. Apart from that why not having similat amounts of cash to assist the UK's own desperate and needy?

I agree totally.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Why do I think that this thread was deliberately posted to bring out the worst in our local Racist, Bigots and know alls? It certainly managed that. The person who donated the money has made a specific request for where the money is to be used, however it will free up funds for other needy groups.

A little harsh perhaps, I think those who have jobs or those that don't and really want one get a little upset when they see others on the scrounge. It's a very emotive subject.

I'm sure we might have all heard someone say 'well if they can do it so can I'. We have to rise above that.

The UK aim to look after everybody here, whatever their status. That is what civilized countries try to do, like it or not. Anyway, the payout here is not revenue cash, it's from one charity fund to another. Dave's self-financing society working. Rejoice and contribute more!

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Why do I think that this thread was deliberately posted to bring out the worst in our local Racist, Bigots and know alls? It certainly managed that. The person who donated the money has made a specific request for where the money is to be used, however it will free up funds for other needy groups.

Osprey why call people those names?
My friend has been seeing an American woman for years he wants to marry her but he can't bring her here as he doesn't earn enough but if she was from say Zimbabwe & was rich enough she could pay for a flight to here instead of say South Africa or Kenya or any other local safer place.
she then could claim asylum & live here unless we proved she wasn't at risk.
just look at Abu Hamza please they will kill me only for him to spout kill the crusaders kill the British & the EU won't let us get rid of him?
my friend is very upset about this.
We should turn away any asylum seekers unless their country has a border with ours

We are a soft touch and allow the masses in on a whim and our country is being destroyed by stealth. Enoch was right and the rivers of blood are already flowing through major cities as the gang culture of our guest's offspring is increasing. We need to take back our borders and deport the illegals and so called asylum seekers , who come to england as it pays more money than other countries as the system is corrupt in their favour. We need to take control of the situation soon as anarchy and chaos will become the norm.

hythe knights wrote:
We are a soft touch and allow the masses in on a whim and our country is being destroyed by stealth. Enoch was right and the rivers of blood are already flowing through major cities as the gang culture of our guest's offspring is increasing. We need to take back our borders and deport the illegals and so called asylum seekers , who come to england as it pays more money than other countries as the system is corrupt in their favour. We need to take control of the situation soon as anarchy and chaos will become the norm.

I hope to God (who ever you may see her to be) that the "we" that you refer to that needs to take control does not include you. From reading your oh so predictable and boring posts it is plainly evident that you are struggling to control your own brain cell never mind our borders. As an aside. If you want to be taken seriously as a true English knight it may help your cause if you learn the language.

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Why do I think that this thread was deliberately posted to bring out the worst in our local Racist, Bigots and know alls? It certainly managed that. The person who donated the money has made a specific request for where the money is to be used, however it will free up funds for other needy groups.

Osprey why call people those names?
My friend has been seeing an American woman for years he wants to marry her but he can't bring her here as he doesn't earn enough but if she was from say Zimbabwe & was rich enough she could pay for a flight to here instead of say South Africa or Kenya or any other local safer place.
she then could claim asylum & live here unless we proved she wasn't at risk.
just look at Abu Hamza please they will kill me only for him to spout kill the crusaders kill the British & the EU won't let us get rid of him?
my friend is very upset about this.
We should turn away any asylum seekers unless their country has a border with ours

Why call them names? Well simply because they are what they are, that's why. How many Countries have we got a border with exactly? You simply cannot tar anyone else as an Abu Hamza, he is a one off, there are very few that come any where near his ilk. I don't know anything about your American woman case so I cannot comment, wouldn't it be better if he went to America as this Country is apparently going down the tubes after years of Labour misrule.

Shoong wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Why do I think that this thread was deliberately posted to bring out the worst in our local Racist, Bigots and know alls? It certainly managed that. The person who donated the money has made a specific request for where the money is to be used, however it will free up funds for other needy groups.

A little harsh perhaps, I think those who have jobs or those that don't and really want one get a little upset when they see others on the scrounge. It's a very emotive subject.

I'm sure we might have all heard someone say 'well if they can do it so can I'. We have to rise above that.

I agree, they have good cause to be upset, I am no lover of those who scrounge and cheat and I especially dislike those that could work but chose not to, as they can live on the generous hand outs so kindly awarded by the do-gooders in this Country. I have the greatest sympathy for people that are willing to work, but are discriminated against and cannot get employment. There is a lot wrong with Society and we are all guilty of not acting to change things. I am not intelligent enough to come up with a solution myself, but there are plenty of people out there that could, if they wanted to.