Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Nick Griffin on Haiti Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should UK give aid to Haiti or not?
    Yes
    308
    79.38%
    No
    80
    20.62%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    Charity begins at home.

    And yeah it's a tragedy but let's not pretend Haiti was anything but a dump before hand.

    We should help people in our country before we look abroad. I'd rather the money went to fix the NHS/our school, then Haitians.
    That is actually laughable! Britain will always have problems, we wont actually reach a stage where every single person is well off. All countries will always have their own problems as well!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    I never said or thought he was referring to me?

    This debate has gone on so ******* long I forgot the original post was a quote from Griffin and not someone saying there opinion.

    Mistakes happen, you have made a hell of a lot when arguing with me.
    Another sweeping statement
    how many of these are you going to make
    name one mistake I have made
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by CertifiedAngel)
    That is actually laughable! Britain will always have problems, we wont actually reach a stage where every single person is well off. All countries will always have their own problems as well!
    No one is on about getting everyone "well off"

    Just some shelter and the means for them to provide for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Your initial statement was I don't pay tax if I don't work, I proved you do, therefore your wrong, don't twist it.
    I never said that. You've inferred that somewhere along the way. Congratulations, your ability to read is as bad as your ability to write. All I've done is to point out that paying VAT doesn't contribute much to the British government's budget.

    (Original post by Rucklo)
    You said that some homeless are tits so lets not help them.
    I never described homeless people as 'tits'. In fact I'm certain you are the one who introduced the word 'tit' to the frame (which isn't surprising given it only has three letters - nice and easy).

    (Original post by Rucklo)
    There are members of every country and society which are, hey lets not help anyone :rolleyes:.
    This doesn't even make sense. Your proposal is to not give aid in support of the Haitians of whom a very small minority are these 'tits' of which you speak, so that we can instead help the homeless here of which a vast majority are 'tits'.

    Congratulations, you've successfully displayed that you aren't intelligent enough to hold a debate with me. I'm out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KiiNGofLONDON)
    Almost all of the revenue accumulated in VAT goes to farmers in France via the EU and the CAP. Buying something in the shops does little to contribute to our 'state'
    Have you any proof of that? It doesnt seem true at all to me, the whole reducing VAT by 2.5% was to stimulate consumer spending. Why would they reduce it so the government have to spend a higher proportion of the revenue gained from VAT on the CAP?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    No one is on about getting everyone "well off"

    Just some shelter and the means for them to provide for themselves.
    We already provide those things to our people...
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    Another sweeping statement
    how many of these are you going to make
    name one mistake I have made
    Get the link to the argument we had and look everytime I had to correct you.

    You mistook bright to be a word that can used to measure strength of any wave length of radiation.

    A basic mistake.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nick Griffin is a pompous idiot. End of story.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Oh that makes the whole situation better?
    Yes it does
    That was a very valid point
    and you wrote an irrelevant response
    Just stop arguing, you're ******* **** at it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes, but there is massive exploitation of the benefits system in the UK and frankly a lot of taxpayer's money is being stolen by workshy scroungers.

    Disability benefit fraud in particular is rife. There are 2.6 million people claiming just this one benefit and in some cities, like Glasgow, one in in seven people are on it! These numbers cannot be based on reality.
    Then make more strict regulations, don't get rid of it altogether, you have to look after those who can't look after themselves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've only read every second page of this thread (too long to read all 17 pages of this), but still I haven't seen anyone pointing out that we need to keep giving aid to maintain a good image of Britain. If we gave NOTHING to support Haiti in light of such a huge disaster, what would the rest of the world think of us? Our international image is a huge factor.

    £6 milion is barely anything anyway- we spend over £200 BILLION a year on our society security system, so I don't think anyone can complain about the British government throwing everything away on other countries. If you think Britain has problems, try comparing it to other countries in the world, rather than comparing it whatever utopia you're envisioning. No matter what happens, Britain will ALWAYS have problems of some kind. It will always fall short of the paradise-status that some people think that restricting foreign aid will achieve. No sum of money could every make this country nor any other country perfect, and yet many people here are suggesting that we try and achieve that goal before even considering other countries.

    Tax money would have a far greater impact here than in Haiti at the moment. Therefore, I support giving a sum of aid which isn't even that large.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by KiiNGofLONDON)
    I never said that. You've inferred that somewhere along the way. Congratulations, your ability to read is as bad as your ability to write. All I've done is to point out that paying VAT doesn't contribute really to the British government's budget.



    I never described homeless people as 'tits'. In fact I'm certain you are the one who introduced the word 'tit' to the frame (which isn't surprising given it only has three letters - nice and easy).



    This doesn't even make sense. Your proposal is to not give aid in support of the Haitians of whom a very small minority are these 'tits' of which you speak, so that we can instead help the homeless here of which a vast majority are 'tits'.

    Congratulations, you've successfully displayed that you aren't intelligent enough to hold a debate with me. I'm out.
    You said that the ability to be linked to people who pay tax I cannot have as I don't pay tax. What the **** is VAT then :rofl:.

    I replaced tit to people who are in the situation because of there own fault, please have the intelligence to work that out.

    The vast majority of homeless people are at fault?

    Yes people who are abused, mentally ill, get caught in prostitution and forced into drug gangs and trafficking are at fault.

    Your intelligence is that of what comes out my ass.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Get the link to the argument we had and look everytime I had to correct you.

    You mistook bright to be a word that can used to measure strength of any wave length of radiation.

    A basic mistake.
    Thats not a mistake, as I have told you time and time again. You made the mistake of not realising gamma rays are a part of light, which is what I had said before. If you knew Gamma rays were a part of light, you would have realised, not got confused, and there would have been no argument. Instead you threw all your toys out of the pram and tried to ruin my argument using something I had said about 2 hours before. It just failed like your other arguments.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    We already provide those things to our people...
    Government does not, please understand what we are arguing.

    I'm tired of having to repeat myself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tetrahydro)
    We already provide those things to our people...
    He's just going to say

    "you don't know what its like"

    as if thats proof LOL
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Oh that makes the whole situation better?
    What situation? The situation in which £6 million was spent helping people which wouldn't have been spent on helping other people if it wasn't spent on helping those people?

    Yes I think it's quite good that some people were helped with some money.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    Thats not a mistake, as I have told you time and time again. You made the mistake of not realising gamma rays are a part of light, which is what I had said before. If you knew Gamma rays were a part of light, you would have realised, not got confused, and there would have been no argument. Instead you threw all your toys out of the pram and tried to ruin my argument using something I had said about 2 hours before. It just failed like your other arguments.
    No you were on about visible light as I explained with the brightness point, brightness can only be implied to visible light.

    A compulsive liar and a dumbass.

    I will stop here with you and just reply to people who put a decent argument.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    What situation? The situation in which £6 million was spent helping people which wouldn't have been spent on helping other people if it wasn't spent on helping those people?

    Yes I think it's quite good that some people were helped with some money.
    That doesn't make it right in principle...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Government does not, please understand what we are arguing.

    I'm tired of having to repeat myself.
    Your whole argument is completely full of holes.

    You think we should not provide Haiti with funds from the government yes?

    Because that would stop us from funding homeless shelters and giving help to those who really need it yes?

    but if homeless shelters are not provided by the government, then how is giving money to haiti going to make the lives of the homeless worse?

    If you could imagine a Venn diagram on this, there is no intersection between Funding for Haiti and Funding for the Homeless. Okay?

    Now troddle on...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THRASHx)
    Have you any proof of that? It doesnt seem true at all to me, the whole reducing VAT by 2.5% was to stimulate consumer spending. Why would they reduce it so the government have to spend a higher proportion of the revenue gained from VAT on the CAP?
    Because consumer spending was intended to stimulate the economy, not the budget.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.