Turn on thread page Beta

Why do people associate the B.N.P with nazism? Hmm I dont get it watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    As I have pointed out before asylum seekers are a body of people who's own country doesn't want them. They are on the lowest possible rung of their domestic society.
    Your point being?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Your point being?

    Obvious.

    A lot of folks on here are painting a picture of asylum seekers as highly skilled, well educated, and motivated workforce. They are blurring the edges and using "immigrant" and "asylum seeker" in the same breath.

    There are lots of different types of immigrants. This thread is about one type, the asylum seeker.

    Asylum seekers from Romania for example are not middle class doctors fluent in 4 languages. They tend to be the very poor and uneducated folks (often gypsies) who will not be importing much needed skills with them (unless you want your fortune told)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    For all your bragging about the 'great school' you attended and the all-round education you received it seems to me sometimes that they failed you miserably!
    Your lack of humility is astounding - but then schools sometimes are fighting a losing battle when they have to compete with their charges home backgrounds.
    Nah, nah.

    Joey Johns got AAA and got into Cambridge.

    You must be thinking of someone else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Obvious.

    A lot of folks on here are painting a picture of asylum seekers as highly skilled, well educated, and motivated workforce. They are blurring the edges and using "immigrant" and "asylum seeker" in the same breath.

    There are lots of different types of immigrants. This thread is about one type, the asylum seeker.

    Asylum seekers from Romania for example are not middle class doctors fluent in 4 languages. They tend to be the very poor and uneducated folks (often gypsies) who will not be importing much needed skills with them (unless you want your fortune told)
    I would contend that the education of the asylum seekers has little relevance when they're fleeing from war/poverty.

    Even so, it is the manual jobs that need filling, and are being filled by asylum seekers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    I would contend that the education of the asylum seekers has little relevance when they're fleeing from war/poverty.

    Even so, it is the manual jobs that need filling, and are being filled by asylum seekers.
    Oh, I'm sorry. I was really talking to someone else about asylum seekers and the skills shortage. That person was suggesting that they are generally a skilled and educated bunch. I disagreed. Seems you agree with me as you are now talking about "fleeing war and poverty" rather than education and skills.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    "Where do you get your information? I cannot find any reference to a desperate shortage of 80'000 truckers in the UK."

    It was on bbc breakfast yesterday morning.

    Some asylum seekers are well educated, doctors and nurses get persecuted to you know. Many of the Asylum seekers who come to the country and capable of doing the jobs that are available. We just need to let them work and contribute to the economy which they can do if we alow them to work and pay taxes.
    I would like to back someone up from the point made earlier. The majority of the media in this country is anti-aslum seeker. The Daily mail has been leading with the same headlines for year and society is yet to collapse.
    What would you do to the people who geniuinly need asylum and how would you classify them as genuin and what would you do? I mean would some of you have let Jews freeing the nazi Germany in or would they not have been geniun enough?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    "Where do you get your information? I cannot find any reference to a desperate shortage of 80'000 truckers in the UK."

    It was on bbc breakfast yesterday morning.

    Some asylum seekers are well educated, doctors and nurses get persecuted to you know. Many of the Asylum seekers who come to the country and capable of doing the jobs that are available. We just need to let them work and contribute to the economy which they can do if we alow them to work and pay taxes.
    I would like to back someone up from the point made earlier. The majority of the media in this country is anti-aslum seeker. The Daily mail has been leading with the same headlines for year and society is yet to collapse.
    What would you do to the people who geniuinly need asylum and how would you classify them as genuin and what would you do? I mean would some of you have let Jews freeing the nazi Germany in or would they not have been geniun enough?
    Some asylum seekers are educated. I agree. The majority are not for the reasons I've outlined several times before.

    I dare say you are right about the majority in the media being less than enthusiastic about asylum seekers. So? Seems to me that the media is doing nothing more than mirroring the view of the majority public opinion. Because, believe it or not, most folks do not feel that the country has a desperate need to welcome thousands and thousands of such people every year.

    As suggested in my earlier posts those people who genuinly need asylum should be given it by the first country they come to who are a party to that particular agreement (the name still evades me) which for obvious geographical reasons is extremely unlikely to be the UK.

    Those who actually reach Dover should be put on the next ferry boat back to France.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Some asylum seekers are educated. I agree. The majority are not for the reasons I've outlined several times before.

    I dare say you are right about the majority in the media being less than enthusiastic about asylum seekers. So? Seems to me that the media is doing nothing more than mirroring the view of the majority public opinion. Because, believe it or not, most folks do not feel that the country has a desperate need to welcome thousands and thousands of such people every year.

    As suggested in my earlier posts those people who genuinly need asylum should be given it by the first country they come to who are a party to that particular agreement (the name still evades me) which for obvious geographical reasons is extremely unlikely to be the UK.

    Those who actually reach Dover should be put on the next ferry boat back to France.
    Media shapes public opinion, not reflect.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The fact of the matter is that people are lead by the media and like was just said it is leading the public oppinion. You ask most british people what % of our population is made up of immigrant and they will say 11% the actual figure is much lower (a study was done into this). This is why the oppion is against Asylum people because people don't have all the facts.
    Most people will stay in the nearest country to them but I think we owe it to the international community to take some alsylum seekers. We take fewer than most countries including those in europe and africa.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Media shapes public opinion, not reflect.
    So does personal experience.

    Is what I have seen with my own eyes just as imagined as the Mail's henious lies?

    Perhaps the already wretched town of Gt.Yarmouth was actually improving thanks to gangs 50+ non-English speaking Kosovans hanging around the front causing trouble, threatening people, harrassing womenfolk, knocking old ladies to the ground.

    I honestly thought it was getting more **** and so did everybody else. How stupid of us not to have realised that our perception was merely perverted by the Mail on Sunday.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The fact of the matter is that people are lead by the media and like was just said it is leading the public oppinion. You ask most british people what % of our population is made up of immigrant and they will say 11% the actual figure is much lower (a study was done into this). This is why the oppion is against Asylum people because people don't have all the facts.
    Most people will stay in the nearest country to them but I think we owe it to the international community to take some alsylum seekers. We take fewer than most countries including those in europe and africa.
    We're not talking about immigrants. We're talking about a particular category of immigrants called asylum seekers and whether there are too many of them or not.

    Notwithstanding, IMHO, I don't think "we owe..........the international community" (whoever the fu*k that is) a damn thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    So does personal experience.

    Is what I have seen with my own eyes just as imagined as the Mail's henious lies?

    Perhaps the already wretched town of Gt.Yarmouth was actually improving thanks to gangs 50+ non-English speaking Kosovans hanging around the front causing trouble, threatening people, harrassing womenfolk, knocking old ladies to the ground.

    I honestly thought it was getting more **** and so did everybody else. How stupid of us not to have realised that our perception was merely perverted by the Mail on Sunday.
    Well I guess that is your experience, but mine tells the opposite.
    My area has one of the highest densities of Asylum Seekers, and it is the local scum that cause all of the trouble, rather than the comparatively benign asylum seekers.

    Are they visible? Yes... But that doesn't bother me
    Do they create much trouble? No.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Well I guess that is your experience, but mine tells the opposite.
    My area has one of the highest densities of Asylum Seekers, and it is the local scum that cause all of the trouble, rather than the comparatively benign asylum seekers.

    Are they visible? Yes... But that doesn't bother me
    Do they create much trouble? No.
    Oh, well, two opposing experiences, and two opposing camps I guess.

    Maybe we could swap some of the "nice" asylum seekers from your area for some of the horrible "cu*ts" that hang around in Yarmouth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Well I guess that is your experience, but mine tells the opposite.
    My area has one of the highest densities of Asylum Seekers, and it is the local scum that cause all of the trouble, rather than the comparatively benign asylum seekers.

    Are they visible? Yes... But that doesn't bother me
    Do they create much trouble? No.
    Why are they visible? I thought they were all out keeping busy doing really useful stuff, like working and paying taxes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    We're not talking about immigrants. We're talking about a particular category of immigrants called asylum seekers and whether there are too many of them or not.

    Notwithstanding, IMHO, I don't think "we owe..........the international community" (whoever the fu*k that is) a damn thing.
    We owe the international community a lot because we screwed up the world in the first place with our colonising. We as a wealthy country should support people who are fleeing persecution we signed the UN treaty on it. The was also an over estimate of the number of asylum seekers but I can't remeber it. My area has a lot of asylum seekers and they don't cause problems. The reason there are the large groups of people is because the government don't allow people to work. Allowing asylum seekers to work would give them something to do and contribute to the economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    We owe the international community a lot because we screwed up the world in the first place with our colonising. We as a wealthy country should support people who are fleeing persecution we signed the UN treaty on it. The was also an over estimate of the number of asylum seekers but I can't remeber it. My area has a lot of asylum seekers and they don't cause problems. The reason there are the large groups of people is because the government don't allow people to work. Allowing asylum seekers to work would give them something to do and contribute to the economy.
    I disagree. The days of colonization are long gone. Countries left prosperous by the colonists have been well and truly fuc*ed up by the indiginous population since then. We owe these people nothing.

    Afghanistan is a basket case not because the Brits briefly ruled it but for a whole host of more contemporary reasons.

    British colonization as an argument for today's strife ignors the whole notion of cause and effect and the basic fact that many of the leaders of these countries aren't fit to shine shoes, let alone democraticaly manage an economy.

    And I also think we should tear up any UN treaty that makes demands of Britain that are in not in British interests. The UN contains within it's members the representitives of despotic tin-pot countries from all corners of the world. I don't see why Britain should bow to the treaties of this organization.

    As a matter of fact it's about time the UN was abolished as an institution.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I disagree. The days of colonization are long gone. Countries left prosperous by the colonists have been well and truly fuc*ed up by the indiginous population since then. We owe these people nothing.

    Afghanistan is a basket case not because the Brits briefly ruled it but for a whole host of more contemporary reasons.

    British colonization as an argument for today's strife ignors the whole notion of cause and effect and the basic fact that many of the leaders of these countries aren't fit to shine shoes, let alone democraticaly manage an economy.

    And I also think we should tear up any UN treaty that makes demands of Britain that are in not in British interests. The UN contains within it's members the representitives of despotic tin-pot countries from all corners of the world. I don't see why Britain should bow to the treaties of this organization.

    As a matter of fact it's about time the UN was abolished as an institution.
    The UN has its positive aspects, and were are responsible for reasons I have mentioned before on this thread I think. I have mentioned things like resource taking and world debt
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The UN has its positive aspects, and were are responsible for reasons I have mentioned before on this thread I think. I have mentioned things like resource taking and world debt
    I disagree. I think they're a big fat waste of money. They employ thousands of people who frankly are otherwize unemployable. They do nothing and serve no purpose.

    When challenged to do something they sit on their hands and leave the very nations that ensure their existance (like the US) in a position of having to practically beg to the representitive of some tin-pot nation to get anything resolved.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    For all your bragging about the 'great school' you attended and the all-round education you received it seems to me sometimes that they failed you miserably!
    Your lack of humility is astounding - but then schools sometimes are fighting a losing battle when they have to compete with their charges home backgrounds.

    Now how do you like that? A judgement made against you as you judge all those people seeking sanctuary.

    Seeking sanctuary? Like I said I have no problems with refugess and asylum seekers. Its when they travel to the other side of the world to Britain which doesnt makes sense. Asylum seekers and refugees should go to the nearest country which can support them, that is not Britain unless they happen to come from France or Holland etc. I would have no problems with a dutch asylum seeker for example, firstly they can speak English which doesnt mean they are wasting tax money getting educated and secondly they actually come from the SAME region as us and have a similar culture.

    I gave to charities all the way through school, I understand their situations but i'm sorry its not my problem. Giving money to the poor willingly is okay because its at YOUR disgression, when you are forced to pay money for Afzal from Afganistan to come and live here, I have a problem with that. In the first instance I dont disagree with allowing Afgani's to stay in Britain for the period when the war was taking place because after all we invaded their country, but they must leave afterwards. My Auntie teaches these people and she says a lot of them just 'disapear'.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Nah, nah.

    Joey Johns got AAA and got into Cambridge.

    You must be thinking of someone else.
    Yeah your right, I got AAAA so it cant be me.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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.