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

    3
    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?
    I think KingofLondon is incorrect. All taxation in the UK goes into a great big pot; "the Treasury"; from where it is distributed. Different taxes are not expressly earmarked to cover different expenditures.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    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.
    No I wasn't, because I had said gamma rays are a part of light. Which they are. If I had said Gamma rays are a part of visible light, I would have been wrong, and if I meant visible light, I would have said visible light

    You will stop here with me because I keep ruining every point you have. Just like everyone else in this thread, so why don't you stop with everyone and **** off?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    That doesn't make it right in principle...
    Make what right in principle? Stop babbling, man.
    Offline

    11
    Anyone who wants to discuss my opinion on it can PM me, because a fair few are retards in this thread. Though thanks for some for a decent debate.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Make what right in principle? Stop babbling, man.
    That we are not helping our own with problems yet going and helping others.

    If you want to discuss it more you can PM me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Anyone who wants to discuss my opinion on it can PM me, because a fair few are retards in this thread. Though thanks for some for a decent debate.
    Yes! Finally!

    He accepted defeat. Took you long enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    He's just going to say

    "you don't know what its like"

    as if thats proof LOL
    Lol, yep I don't why I bother...

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

    I'm tired of having to repeat myself.
    The government spends however many hundreds of billions of social security each year. Yes the government does provide these things.

    Lol, "We". I think you're on your own, mate.

    You keep having to repeat yourself because you're wrong all the time; everybody then points it out to you and then you persist to repeat the same old, unfounded b*llocks.
    Offline

    0
    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?
    From this web page:

    EU spending is limited by the Treaties. The Union budget is not allowed to be in deficit, which means that revenue has to cover the whole cost of all the different activities. This revenue, or income, comes from three main sources: customs duties, a share of the harmonised value added tax (VAT) base of each Member State, and a further contribution from the Member States based on the size of their gross national income (GNI).
    From the same website:

    Number 2 is the Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP. Most of this goes to ensuring farmers in France earn as much as urban workers (and also helps to keep African farmers poor).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    You are a selfish fool.
    Once again, explain yourself.

    All you've done so far is bandy about insults without any explanation for why you believe them to be true.

    I am not a selfish person. I am actually extremely generous. I give to several worthy causes, but only when I can. When the going is good, I am one of the most charitable people you could know. When the going is bad, however, I tend to cut back on these things.

    In the UK just now, the going is bad. We have a massive deficit, our recovery from the recession is not optimal, and I can think of several different places where £6 million could be invested to provide essential services for Britain. So just like I do when the going is tough, the UK should be cutting out foreign aid and bringing its own strength back. Once it has it, then it can continue to offer aid to anyone who needs it. But we just aren't a wealthy enough nation at the moment to give away ANY of our cash to charity.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    That we are not helping our own with problems yet going and helping others.

    If you want to discuss it more you can PM me.
    But helping others does not prohibit us from helping our own; and more specifically helping Haitians has not prohibited us from helping the homeless here. So I don't see what is "wrong in principle" about having given money to help people from set A if it hasn't prevented us in any way from helping set B. It is indeed wrong not to help set B, but not because we've helped set A, because if we hadn't it would still have been wrong not to help set B. Or would you be ok with us not giving aid to the homeless as long as we didn't give it to anyone else either? Seems rather begrudging.

    That is, helping set A neither prevents us from helping set B, nor causes not helping set B to be wrong. Yes? So it was perfectly OK to give money to aid a poverty-stricken country after an earthquake completely demolished what little government and infrastructure it had and killed 100,000 people. Yes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    What flaws exactly? I see none frankly.
    Which, i think is why you are arguing with about fifteen different people at the same time. :rolleyes:

    So you get JSA for 3 months I believe? Which after you are then left pretty much for which you have gained no long term benefit.

    You don't know anything about JSA do you? :lolwut:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Once again, explain yourself.

    All you've done so far is bandy about insults without any explanation for why you believe them to be true.

    I am not a selfish person. I am actually extremely generous. I give to several worthy causes, but only when I can. When the going is good, I am one of the most charitable people you could know. When the going is bad, however, I tend to cut back on these things.

    In the UK just now, the going is bad. We have a massive deficit, our recovery from the recession is not optimal, and I can think of several different places where £6 million could be invested to provide essential services for Britain. So just like I do when the going is tough, the UK should be cutting out foreign aid and bringing its own strength back. Once it has it, then it can continue to offer aid to anyone who needs it. But we just aren't a wealthy enough nation at the moment to give away ANY of our cash to charity.
    So you think it would be better to wait until we are in a boom again? yeah good idea. By that time thousands of haitians would be dead from a lack of food, clean water and organised crime operating in the area. Great idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He seems to be deeply emotionally damaged, in some way. He constantly craves attention and seeks to create an impact. Can he truly believe his original ramblings; that we should save elderly people that can easily be saved by simply having neighbours keeping them in check and *not* donate money to the relief effort where over 50 000 people have perished, and will continue to perish?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care whether Nick Griffin said it, I still don't think we should be spunking millions of pounds into the ******** of the Western Hemisphere. As far as I care Haiti can be quaked to the ground.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree with Mr Griffin on this one. Not his reasons but we are in too much debt to be shelling out 6 million. Where are we getting it from? We are one of the only countries still seriously in recession because the government keeps doshing out money and building bigger and bigger debts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Once again, explain yourself.

    All you've done so far is bandy about insults without any explanation for why you believe them to be true.

    I am not a selfish person. I am actually extremely generous. I give to several worthy causes, but only when I can. When the going is good, I am one of the most charitable people you could know. When the going is bad, however, I tend to cut back on these things.

    In the UK just now, the going is bad. We have a massive deficit, our recovery from the recession is not optimal, and I can think of several different places where £6 million could be invested to provide essential services for Britain. So just like I do when the going is tough, the UK should be cutting out foreign aid and bringing its own strength back. Once it has it, then it can continue to offer aid to anyone who needs it. But we just aren't a wealthy enough nation at the moment to give away ANY of our cash to charity.
    You usually talk a lot of sense, so I'm quite perplexed by this logic.

    As a country, we are hardly struggling. The effects of the recession are barely noticeable; especially in contrast to, say, the devastation of an 8.5 magnitude earthquake to a small, densely populated country.

    £6 million is almost nothing in comparison to our GDP. Had that money not been spent on Haiti, I can guarantee you, we still wouldn't see an immediate improvement to these "essential services" we are apparently lacking. Giving £6 million in aid has hardly put us in a position where we cannot afford to sustain our own country.

    Now what about firstly addressing the £50 or so billion pounds we spend on defence each year, so we can invade Muslim countries and kill brown people who are no immediate threat to us? Surely we could use that money to improve these services?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure that the government should be giving away tax payers money. But I think it should be up to the individuals to give donations!I just gave a donation on dec.org.uk after seeing the devastation Haiti population is experience and they literally at the moment can't do anything about it, they rely on other human beings for help!Where as people in the UK have the opportunity to solve their problems, people in Haiti, at the moment, don't have that chance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes I'm sure the 10 people who died here need that aid more than the 100,000 dead in Haiti.

    ******* moron
    Nice sig.
    Yep he is an idiot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Then make more strict regulations, don't get rid of it altogether, you have to look after those who can't look after themselves.
    I agree. Things need to be tightened significantly so the genuinly disabled can be set aside from the scroungers.

    Interestingly, the new Workplace Capability Assessment is revealing the full scale of the current fraud. Of the 193,300 medically tested between October 2008 to February 2009 only 31,600 were found to be eligible for the benefit.

    If this trend is typical then we can calculate that 84% of claimants are fraudsters. 2.4 million x 84% = 2.01 million and if you multiply that by 89quid a week and you get........more than my calculator can work out.

    And remember, that's just the money being thrown away on one benefit. There are a myriad of others that I'm sure are just as open to exploitation by those who know how to play the system.

    So, in perspective, the 6 million sent to Haiti is a thimble full of water when measured against this ocean of deceit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    So you think it would be better to wait until we are in a boom again? yeah good idea. By that time thousands of haitians would be dead from a lack of food, clean water and organised crime operating in the area. Great idea.
    Again, our treasury is NOT some massive insurance pot for the natural disasters that occur elsewhere.

    We are not obligated to deal with it. It's sad, but that's life. We live on a planet that is not immune to natural disasters. No amount of money and aid will control our planet's natural tendencies. If it was somehow a consequence of our actions that earthquakes occur elsewhere, then yes, I can see how we should feel responsible and give, give, give. But we're not.

    The fact is that the UK simply cannot sustainable pay out for every natural disaster that happens elsewhere. In fact, there are natural disasters every week, and the UK does nothing about them, because it's an unsustainable practice. The only reason we give foreign aid in cases like this is because the media gets a hold of it, and the government feels obligated. When the media ignore a natural disaster, so do the government, and that's the right way to do it when your country has more 0s at the end of its debt than it has ever had.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.