TrickyTrev Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 I hope you all realise that the article is a lie used to incite racial hatred by right wing biggotts. I think most of us do.
Rincewind Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 The real socialists within the party have little or no real say in the party anymore, and are leaving at large rate. Some of them are even leaving to join the bnp I still find the idea of the real socialists (who tradidionally have left wing views) joining the BNP (who traditionally have extreme right wing views) funny.
Thracian Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 Immigrants are the most hardworking of all social groups. FACT. With Labour cronies compiling all the evidence I suppose. Incidentally has Patricia Hewitt resigned yet?. She's just been found to have been blatantly sexist in appointing a woman to a key position who was "third choice" among the panel of selectors and who was less well qualified for the job than others. Hewitt, who knew the woman was not first choice and thus over-ruled the panel, supposedly administers the anti-sexist legislation. Yet another huge dose of Government hypocrisy. I'm not making a political statement - I am just so pissed off with lying, cheating, bullshitting, deceiving, insincere, self-interested politicians that I haven't voted for years. But will someone explain to me why the hell you vote for people like her, like Blunkett, like that Godforsaken Scottish Health secretary, like Blair, like Big Ears? I'd only ever vote for em to shovel shit with their tongues. I just wish someone would send em to the front line in Iraq and get em to go bomb-busting in a campaign bus around Tikrit. Three billion pounds this lot lose in fraudulent social security claims per year (what the hell would that buy as well as putting £100 each back into everyone's pocket per annum?) and yet my wife (who has paid in every week but barely taken a single penny in benefits) has her lifesaving operation cancelled twice and is still waiting for any sort of proper treatment nearly eight months after diagnosis. She'd be treated faster if she were, an asylum seeker, a fundamentalist preacher or any of the other seemingly "must help" groups. And people pontificate about our wonderful health service. Had people told me it would take so long I'd have gone private somehow (exactly what they want really) but they kept arranging her admission then putting it off. So, on top of everything else, I now feel guilty at ever leaving her at the mercy of the NHS. In my view it is a diabolical experience made worse by the lack of honesty, the lack of communication, the lack of thought for others, the lack of organisation, the lack of preparation, and the utter indiference of many of the people involved. If she were a freemason, she have been treated by now. I never realised how strongly the Masons were represented in the NHS and at every level. And, of course, you can understand why. When life and death is involved it's a big advantage to have the right handshake. There should be a major independent investigation.
TrickyTrev Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 She'd be treated faster if she were, an asylum seeker, a fundamentalist preacher or any of the other seemingly "must help" groups. And people pontificate about our wonderful health service. Evidence? None. You made it up. This government can hardly be accused of being "soft" (God I hate that word in this context) on asylum seekers. More like pandering to peoples fears and prejudices. Asylum seeks live below the povetry line in this country and are unable to work for the first 6 months of their stay because the papers woudl otherwise claim it is an immigration service. The when these REFUGEES take a benefits package 33% the poverty line they are branded sponges. Incidentally has Patricia Hewitt resigned yet? Sadly not. But will someone explain to me why the hell you vote for people like her, like Blunkett, like that Godforsaken Scottish Health secretary, like Blair, like Big Ears? I'd only ever vote for em to shovel shit with their tongues. I've only become eligible to vote this weekend but I guess the genral answer is Brown and to keep the other lot out. Three billion pounds this lot lose in fraudulent social security claims per year Source? (not saying it is wrong would just like it quantified) Personally I accept that in a tolerent society which looks after the poor an unable there will be soem wastage and some sponging. Yes it makes me angry that there are parasites but I rrecognie this is not the governemnts, or nay social groups, fault. It is that of the individuals. The answer is NOT to cut benefits. has her lifesaving operation cancelled twice and is still waiting for any sort of proper treatment nearly eight months after diagnosis. I am very sorry to hear about this. A family member of mine is ill at the moment too, she has received excellent service fromt he NHS. Have you tried brinign it up with your local MP?
TrickyTrev Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 I still find the idea of left-wing socialists joining the BNP funny. Umm there were funnier things in Lush's ignroant ramblings. Firstly the actual idea that labour MP's could join the BNP without it being a MJAOR headline story. It hasn't happned. I think only one Labour MP has defected in the last few years and that was to the Lib Dems. he was a nobody backbencher and only did it for the publicity. Then the way he tried to portray the New Labour party as Marxists and Old Labour as socialists frozen out. The current regeime has moved the party to the right you idiot not the left. Yes socialists have been frozen out, you got one thing right (Tuition Fees? Blunkett getting tough on benefit fraud sponges?) , but not by Marxists! Just a very confused man.
Thracian Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 Evidence? None. You made it up. This government can hardly be accused of being "soft" (God I hate that word in this context) on asylum seekers. More like pandering to peoples fears and prejudices. Asylum seeks live below the povetry line in this country and are unable to work for the first 6 months of their stay because the papers woudl otherwise claim it is an immigration service. The when these REFUGEES take a benefits package 33% the poverty line they are branded sponges. Sadly not. I've only become eligible to vote this weekend but I guess the genral answer is Brown and to keep the other lot out. Source? (not saying it is wrong would just like it quantified) Personally I accept that in a tolerent society which looks after the poor an unable there will be soem wastage and some sponging. Yes it makes me angry that there are parasites but I rrecognie this is not the governemnts, or nay social groups, fault. It is that of the individuals. The answer is NOT to cut benefits. I am very sorry to hear about this. A family member of mine is ill at the moment too, she has received excellent service fromt he NHS. Have you tried brinign it up with your local MP? Re Source: Daily Express yesterday morning. Front and inside page lead. Admission from Blunkett "at a Westminster lunch".
Head Honcho Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 Immigrants are the most hardworking of all social groups. FACT. If you'd read the whole thread you may have noted that i said all the immigrants here for a skive I wasn't generalising. But as an Employer i do know which race of immigrants are lazy and which are not i know this is generalising but it is also based on FACT. Take off yer blinkers trickytrev
Thracian Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 Re Source: Daily Express yesterday morning. Front and inside page lead. Admission from Blunkett "at a Westminster lunch". Re Evidence of treatment to whoever... You are right in that I was being melodramatic for effect but based nonetheless on my understanding that one vociferous cleric was already booked in for heart surgery and that many asylum seekers can get treatment as emergencies (whether they've paid anything into the system or not). I have no great axe to grind about genuinely ill people being treated (although there should be an inter-Governmental quid pro quo) but paid-up natives shouldn't be left to die while it happens. Anyway, I have, with difficulty, been extraordinarily restrained so far cos the only thing I really want is for my wife to get the treatment she needs, deserves and has paid for.
TrickyTrev Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 (although there should be an inter-Governmental quid pro quo) To be fair this is obviously often impossible in the scenario of asylum seekers. They are escaping persucution often from the government of their native land. Hardly likely to stump up the cash for their health needs are they?As for the Daily Express article, I can't comment fully because I have not read it. We are under obligation to treat evryone whether we agree with their no doubt vile opinions or not. Radical extremists are just as eligible to health treatment as everyone who strieves to make this country great rather than destroy it. Thats the systems faults, we tolerate it because we believe in health for all. I really do understand your frustrations Tharacian, I just think it is easy to blame these things on what is not the root cause of the problem. But as an Employer i do know which race of immigrants are lazy and which are not i know this is generalising but it is also based on FACT. I suspect it is based on circumstantial evidence i.e your previous experiences. Hardly a micrcosm of a whole race. I don't want to get bogged down on whether some races are harder working than others, I was just making the point that to say Immigrant skeivers are one of the reason you want to leave the country is a bit stupid. Percentage wise far less imgrants are on benefits that indegenous people. This is not suprising as these are people that have left their homeland and family in order to find work. They are by definition motivated.
Head Honcho Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 To be fair this is obviously often impossible in the scenario of asylum seekers. They are escaping persucution often from the government of their native land. Hardly likely to stump up the cash for their health needs are they? As for the Daily Express article, I can't comment fully because I have not read it. We are under obligation to treat evryone whether we agree with their no doubt vile opinions or not. Radical extremists are just as eligible to health treatment as everyone who strieves to make this country great rather than destroy it. Thats the systems faults, we tolerate it because we believe in health for all. I really do understand your frustrations Tharacian, I just think it is easy to blame these things on what is not the root cause of the problem. I suspect it is based on circumstantial evidence i.e your previous experiences. Hardly a micrcosm of a whole race. I don't want to get bogged down on whether some races are harder working than others, I was just making the point that to say Immigrant skeivers are one of the reason you want to leave the country is a bit stupid. Percentage wise far less imgrants are on benefits that indegenous people. This is not suprising as these are people that have left their homeland and family in order to find work. They are by definition motivated. I do actually agree with much of what you say,but there is no denying that many immigrants are on benefit to top up their low salaries, this also applies to much of the indigenous population. I find that in most cases once on benefit always on benefit and it is draining our Country economically, I cannot go to Australia without being able to support myself financially so why do we allow people to come to this Country and rely on Benefits
Thracian Posted 12 October 2005 Posted 12 October 2005 To be fair this is obviously often impossible in the scenario of asylum seekers. They are escaping persucution often from the government of their native land. Hardly likely to stump up the cash for their health needs are they? As for the Daily Express article, I can't comment fully because I have not read it. We are under obligation to treat evryone whether we agree with their no doubt vile opinions or not. Radical extremists are just as eligible to health treatment as everyone who strieves to make this country great rather than destroy it. Thats the systems faults, we tolerate it because we believe in health for all. I really do understand your frustrations Tharacian, I just think it is easy to blame these things on what is not the root cause of the problem. I suspect it is based on circumstantial evidence i.e your previous experiences. Hardly a micrcosm of a whole race. I don't want to get bogged down on whether some races are harder working than others, I was just making the point that to say Immigrant skeivers are one of the reason you want to leave the country is a bit stupid. Percentage wise far less imgrants are on benefits that indegenous people. This is not suprising as these are people that have left their homeland and family in order to find work. They are by definition motivated. a) The above two paragraphs have nothing to do with me. b) Who is the "we" you referred to. Does it implicate that you work in/for the NHS? c) How can you talk of believing in "health for all" when my wife's health is being wilfully and unnecessarily jeopardised by COURTESY of the National Health Service?. The whole episode seems calculated to make my wife and I as miserable and frustrated as possible. Just one good thing has emerged. The idea for a book about an NHS doctor who... well you might be able to read it one day. Apart from the birth of our children, which could as easily have happened at home as in hospital, my wife and I have only needed help from this country's social welfare system twice in 112 years between us. On both occasions they have treated us despicably. People have said I should claim this, claim that, in respect of my wife's ill health. Well. I tell you this. I would rather sweep the streets from dawn til dusk than I would ever be beholden to the bullshitters running this country. Let the cheats and the fraudsters grab their next £3billion from me and the many others that this Government allow to be taken for suckers. I shall keep my dignity. And for now I shall keep my peace.
Guest Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 But will someone explain to me why the hell you vote for people like her, like Blunkett, like that Godforsaken Scottish Health secretary, like Blair, like Big Ears? I'd only ever vote for em to shovel shit with their tongues. Because the alternatives aren't any better.
Rincewind Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 I believe that a leaflet/pamphlet is available which is issued to asylum seekers when they arrive here. I picked one up from a lawyers office when I was out of work and needed help with documents. Anyway it may be out of date but basically as I recall it was as an earlier post says. Not able to work and only allowed a little each week for essentials There are special circumstances. The staff in benefit offices would not, I believe be able to hand out money over the counter without documentation proof of identity and keeping a record of it. I may be wrong cos I don't work in a benefit office. Does anyone have first hand evidence contrary to this other than a hearsay newspaper report. Anyway the guidelines are most likely on a web site somewhere as well.
lush Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 ...yet he had problems spelling British. ...they fit in with their own idology I still find the idea of left-wing socialists joining the BNP funny How does someone spell ideology Who said they were left wing Lisa, i dont think the world is against me, but i know for fact that the government is against me, its fact. Tricky Trev, i heard on the radio the other day, that 10 or 20 years ago the number on sick benefit were 0.7M, now its 2.7M. We all know new labour have encouraged people to go on the sick, for votes probably. I never said a labour mp had joined the bnp I never said new labour had moved to the left you idiot Can you read?
lush Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 Because the alternatives aren't any better. Lib dems.
Guest Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 Lib dems. :D Are you having a laugh? You've been moaning about civil liberty groups, and liberal attitudes, taxes etc, then you say vote Liberal Demochav? Dear oh dear.....
lush Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 :D Are you having a laugh? You've been moaning about civil liberty groups, and liberal attitudes, taxes etc, then you say vote Liberal Demochav? Dear oh dear..... like it. You asked for an alternative to the fascist new labour nazis, lib dems. No war for a start, must be a better alternative, as my family and friends can come back from basra!! Hard drugs will be class C, cannabis we be legal wayhay Their not globalistic neither, thats a major plus for me. It might also kick the labs and cons into gear, then again city might win the european cup
TrickyTrev Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 I still find the idea of left-wing socialists joining the BNP funny Who said they were left wing Socialist is by definition left wing. Stop using jargon you don't understand. Tricky Trev, i heard on the radio the other day, that 10 or 20 years ago the number on sick benefit were 0.7M, now its 2.7M. We all know new labour have encouraged people to go on the sick, for votes probably. You rpolitical thinking is genius. Bugger appealing to the millions of people in this country that think the welfare state is a drain on the economy, we'll go for the supossed 2 million who people who can go on incapacity benefit. You are wrong (shock horror) about Labour encouraging people to go on incapacity benefit. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/money/guardian/news/2005/10/10/switchoffthetvandgetonyourbikeblunke.html ://http://www.tiscali.co.uk/money/guar...keblunke.html If you want to accuse them of doign anythign it is pandering to peoples prejudice against mental health. Depression is an illness, Blunkett knows it but the eocnomy is tight and being tolerent doesn't win you elections. I never said new labour had moved to the left you idiot You said New Labour were Marxists, you always say they are. You wouldn't understand because as we have already established you have no concept of what a Marxist is or what Left Wing is but I can assure you that it is a contradiction to accuse someone of being a Marxist and then say they are not lefties.
TrickyTrev Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 b) Who is the "we" you referred to. Does it implicate that you work in/for the NHS? I was actually referring to society. Ironically I am currently employed by BUPA. c) How can you talk of believing in "health for all" when my wife's health is being wilfully and unnecessarily jeopardised by COURTESY of the National Health Service?. I'm not as govenrment minister for health. I was just defending the principle of the NHS and pointing out the problems have little or nothing to do with either asylum seekers or muslim clerics.
TrickyTrev Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 , i heard on the radio the other day, that 10 or 20 years ago the number on sick benefit were 0.7M, now its 2.7M. We all know new labour have encouraged people to go on the sick, for votes probably. I've tried to look into this and couldn't find much. Only got a few clues off the Office of National Statistics, (you should use it is far more reliable than the radio), in their data for Incapacity claims. ONS From what i can work out. claism were stagnent between 91-94 and have been from 95 onwards. The rise in claims only came about in 94-95 when the guidelines for incaopacity benefit began to include sickness as well as disabilty. If I were being flippant I would say this is the Conservatives encouraging people on to incpacity benefit rather than labour but I rather fancy it was more of an adminastrative thing. Sickness previously being a seperate allownace and in '94 being grouped together. NEVER believe statistics in the context they are given in the media. EVERYONE has an agenda and this is a case in point how they can easily be manipulated to mislead.
The People's Hero Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 Indeed. EVERYBODY has a discourse. Statistics, where presented for arguments sake, will always be presented with that agenda or discourse in mind.
Head Honcho Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 Indeed. EVERYBODY has a discourse. Statistics, where presented for arguments sake, will always be presented with that agenda or discourse in mind. I agree "Statistics are just answers to metaphysical questions" So please can we give em a rest, we can all look statistics up ffs
The People's Hero Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 Perhaps my history degree is worth something afterall... So.... LCFC are pretty sh it huh?
rossporterlc Posted 13 October 2005 Posted 13 October 2005 someone told me ba ba black sheep had been banned now, tis bloody ridiculous
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.