Just another sorry chapter...errr Book!

[Dr The Singh]

The horse would be dead by now if it was, harvested for meat and winter clothing.

SO that's why glue is so cheap these days, it's being made from assylum seeking horses!!!

[Babylon]

SO that's why glue is so cheap these days, it's being made from assylum seeking horses!!!

Arrrrgh... gone are the days when only aryan horses roamed this land. Now you can't even leave your back door open without an asylum seeking horse coming in and eating all your sugar and carrots.

[Jon the Hat]

This thread seems to have turned into a general anti-immigration rant. Salient points seem to be:

1) He was granted Asylum and hence must have met the criteria.

2) Only about 12k people are granted this a year.

3) Sometime after he was granted Asylum he became / was diagnosed as mentally ill.

4) Sometime after becoming mentally ill he killed a policeman.

Everything else is just generalisations and rehashing of bad journalism and populist statements by idiots who should not be ministers.

3 and 4 have nothing to do with 1 & 2.

[Thracian]

a) So what you are saying is lawyers are stupid?

b) I guess what you are saying here is that if an asylum seeker causes an accident, it is worse than if someone who was born and bred in this country?

c) If six asylum seekers an hour are caught driving without a licence in Wolverhampton, that must mean that twenty-four British people are. Is this not just as disgusting?

d) Do you know if this guy was a danger to the public when he presented himself to the immigration authorities?

No. So it's not a relevant point.

e) Did you not see the figures I posted? Just under 12,000 people were given asylum or leave to remain. I wouldn't call it a tidal wave.

f) Not every asylum seeker is mentally ill.

g) This is from a minister from a party you say is welcoming in immigrants in their billions.

Where is the evidence for such a claim? It's only his "belief". I can't remember exactly what the figure is, but I think it's around 40% of asylum claims are successful. Of course there are going to a few who get round the system, but you haven't read any of the cases, you don't have a clue what the criteria are for being a refugee, and you are blissfully unaware of how hard it actually is, and the steps and measures that this, yes, this government have taken to get around their obligations to house refugees.

h) I have based my arguments on fact, yours is based on rhetoric. You accuse me of championing some cause, but all I am doing is telling it how it is. You're the one resorting to reactionary, knee-jerk hysterics!

See above.

a) That's your word not mine. But there's daily evidence to suggest the cap fits well enough on some. What will this guy serve with remission? Pathetic.

http://uk.truveo.com/Toddler-Killing-Mothe...d/id/3026438048

b) That's not what I've said at all. I've said we shouldn't be responsible for asylum seekers who break the law. We've got enough to deal with.

c) Yes, but the 24 are our responsibility. The others are just imported problems which in the example you mention only add to our problems.

d) On the balance of probability I'd say he was. You may pretend otherwise but I shan't. I am quite sure the only reason I have no evidence is because I wasn't involved in vetting the guy. It's a pity the authorities haven't had to detail exactly what enquiries were made because they sure made a big mistake. The poiint may not be relevent to you or to the law as practised but it's sure relevent to me under the heading "responsibility for the resident population"

e) It was at least one too many and a good few more with the other examples mentioned.

f) No-one said they were.

g) Being a government minister, rather than, say a Daily Mail article, I thought you'd be more inclined to believe it. You would, after all, think a minister would have reasonable access to the facts, perhaps even more access than your good self.

h) I don't have a monopoly on rhetoric but how, by any stretch of any imagination could this quote of yours be be deemed a fact?...

"Of those 11,800 people (assuming our guy was admitted in that year), just the one is known to have killed someone. That's 0.0085% of asylum seekers ending up being a danger to the public?

[Dr The Singh]

Arrrrgh... gone are the days when only aryan horses roamed this land. Now you can't even leave your back door open without an asylum seeking horse coming in and eating all your sugar and carrots.

Thracian will be annoyed, no wonder market stall are shutting down, those bloody assylum horses have been eating all the crops!!!

This thread seems to have turned into a general anti-immigration rant. Salient point seem to be:

He was granted Asylum and hence must have met the criteria. Only about 12k people are granted this a year.

How many of them were assylum seeking horses, Jon???

[Thracian]

I know the Daily Mail anti Assylum seekers. Who'd of thought it.

And Minister Woolas?

[Edmund]

d) On the balance of probability I'd say he was. You may pretend otherwise but I shan't. I am quite sure the only reason I have no evidence is because I wasn't involved in vetting the guy. It's a pity the authorities haven't had to detail exactly what enquiries were made because they sure made a big mistake. The poiint may not be relevent to you or to the law as practised but it's sure relevent to me under the heading "responsibility for the resident population"

So when asylum seekers are applying to be granted asylum into the country it will be based on probability.

"Sorry Mr/Mrs ...... we have refused you asylum this time because for every ten people, 1 will be a danger and im sorry to inform you that we have granted stay for 9 people already so it's your unlucky day. Better luck next time.

:giggle: :giggle:

[Vardinhio]

wow, Thracian got owned by Manny

[Thracian]

So when asylum seekers are applying to be granted asylum into the country it will be based on probability.

"Sorry Mr/Mrs ...... we have refused you asylum this time because for every ten people, 1 will be a danger and im sorry to inform you that we have granted stay for 9 people already so it's your unlucky day. Better luck next time.

:giggle: :giggle:

I was asked for an opinion. I wasn't making a judgement on a real situation so you're just imposing an interpretation to suit yourself.

My point is simple. Whatever the rules say, the people who make these decisions should be required to make sure that people being admitted to this country do not represent a danger to its people - either physically, medically or idealistically.

[skinnydipper]

My point is simple. Whatever the rules say, the people who make these decisions should be required to make sure that people being admitted to this country do not represent a danger to its people - either physically, medically or idealistically.

And midwives and paediatricians should be required to conduct a post birth assessment of new born babies to determine the likelihood of them committing future crimes/anti social behaviour. Better still base the assessment on the pictures of the 20 week scan. Then we could really nip the problem in the bud <_<

[purpleronnie]

I was asked for an opinion. I wasn't making a judgement on a real situation so you're just imposing an interpretation to suit yourself.

My point is simple. Whatever the rules say, the people who make these decisions should be required to make sure that people being admitted to this country do not represent a danger to its people - either physically, medically or idealistically.

They do, like everything else mistakes will be made.

Very sad story though.

[BoneDog]

I bet the powers that be are laughing their heads off. Half the country blame asylum seekers for the mess our country is in. The plans are coming along nicely for them. Plans that have been laid down for at least 100 years, falling nicely into place.

Soon we will all be killing eachother in the streets and there it is : Martial Law

:thumbsup: to the New World

[Guest]

a) That's your word not mine. But there's daily evidence to sduggest the cap fits well enough on some. What will this guy serve with remission? Pathetic.

http://uk.truveo.com/Toddler-Killing-Mothe...d/id/3026438048

What has that got to do with lawyers?

b) That's not what I've said at all. I've said we shouldn't be responsible for asylum seekers who break the law. We've got enough to deal with.

I've already pointed this one out; they break the law, they serve their time, then they get deported.

c) Yes, but the 24 are our responsibility. The others are just imported problems which in the example you mention only add to our problems.

Alternatively, 6 more British law breakers could be caught instead.

d) On the balance of probability I'd say he was. You may pretend otherwise but I shan't. I am quite sure the only reason I have no evidence is because I wasn't involved in vetting the guy. It's a pity the authorities haven't had to detail exactly what enquiries were made because they sure made a big mistake. The poiint may not be relevent to you or to the law as practised but it's sure relevent to me under the heading "responsibility for the resident population"

This is getting very silly now. Are you seriously suggesting that all asylum seekers are vetted for mental health problems? What if the problems are caused by the persecution that they have endured? How do you reconcile that?

You are also assuming that everyone with a mental health problem is going to be a potential killer using this argument.

e) It was at least one too many and a good few more with the other examples mentioned.

Thus demonstrating the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. And still unfair on all those who come into the country, settle down, take on jobs and contribute to the economy and the community.

f) No-one said they were.

But you were suggesting that asylum seekers shouldn't be allowed into the country because there is a risk that they might be schizophrenic kill a copper. Any change in that is down to holes being picked in your argument, and trying to turn a specific incident into an argument about asylum seekers in general. So does this mean you think we should close our borders full stop?

I hope other countries don't feel like that about the British, who are moving out of the country for economic reasons only, something that you seem to have a big problem with the other way.

g) Being a government minister, rather than, say a Daily Mail article, I thought you'd be more inclined to believe it. You would, after all, think a minister would have reasonable access to the facts, perhaps even more access than your good self.

Are these the same ministers who you think are full of spin, and who are liars? But are totally reliable and trustworthy when it suits your argument?

h) I don't have a monopoly on rhetoric but how, by any stretch of any imagination could this quote of yours be be deemed a fact?...

"Of those 11,800 people (assuming our guy was admitted in that year), just the one is known to have killed someone. That's 0.0085% of asylum seekers ending up being a danger to the public?

What? I'm using real data here to illustrate a point. It's not exactly misinformed knee-jerk reactionary guff. As I said, I only have data up to 2003, but if you want me to use earlier data, the numbers admitted to the UK are significantly higher, which makes the potential risk even more neglible.

[Thracian]

I bet the powers that be are laughing their heads off. Half the country blame asylum seekers for the mess our country is in. The plans are coming along nicely for them. Plans that have been laid down for at least 100 years, falling nicely into place.

Soon we will all be killing eachother in the streets and there it is : Martial Law

:thumbsup: to the New World

Bloody hell, that's some jump.

There may be asylum seekers who do this country, themselves, and the cause of other asylum seekers no good whatsoever but I'd doubt 1 in 1000 would dream of blaming them for the mess our country is in. Least of all me. I just want proper and effective screening.

I do wonder though, should your prediction come to pass, which faction you'd be fighting for.

Cos the way things are going in this country and elsewhere you really might have to chose one day. I bags on Singhy's side!

And there's the great tragedy of the government's idealogy in action. In their calculated victimisation of native people (wonderfully emphasised by the Unite deal to end the Lindsey oil refinery dispute) and with their policy of quietly advancing ethnocide, they have somehow fostered bitterness and resentment among long term English people such as I've never known or imagined.

A bitterness that is fanned by comments like yours in response to a perfectly valid debate about the wisdom of allowing anyone into this country who might reasonably be considered a threat, either physically, medically or idealogically.

I'd actually think that approach would be good for race relations in the medium and long term. But if you are going to adapt the debate into one which envelopes another concept altogether then you're probably free to do so, at least for now.

[Thracian]

a) What has that got to do with lawyers?

b) I've already pointed this one out; they break the law, they serve their time, then they get deported.

c) This is getting very silly now. Are you seriously suggesting that all asylum seekers are vetted for mental health problems? What if the problems are caused by the persecution that they have endured? How do you reconcile that?

You are also assuming that everyone with a mental health problem is going to be a potential killer using this argument.

d) But you were suggesting that asylum seekers shouldn't be allowed into the country because there is a risk that they might be schizophrenic kill a copper. Any change in that is down to holes being picked in your argument, and trying to turn a specific incident into an argument about asylum seekers in general. So does this mean you think we should close our borders full stop?

e) I hope other countries don't feel like that about the British, who are moving out of the country for economic reasons only, something that you seem to have a big problem with the other way.

f) Are these the same ministers who you think are full of spin, and who are liars? But are totally reliable and trustworthy when it suits your argument?

g) What? I'm using real data here to illustrate a point. It's not exactly misinformed knee-jerk reactionary guff. As I said, I only have data up to 2003, but if you want me to use earlier data, the numbers admitted to the UK are significantly higher, which makes the potential risk even more neglible.

a) Isn't it normal for legally qualified people, even when politicians, to draft laws? Someone passed the sentence on Cunningham and either it was too short because the judge had no alternative or too short because, for some reason, he didn't think that stamping on a kiddie and rupturing his intestine, thus killing him, was especially serious.

b) That's surprisingly reassuring. Does it apply to all crime including such as causing death when driving while uninsured etc. Still be nice if more of those inclined to crime, especially violent crime, were screened out before people became victims.

c) Are you suggesting that because someone has suffered elsewhere, and that suffering has seriously affected their mental state, they should be free to come here and kill or injure people here? My views in no way say or imply that everyone with a mental health problem is a potential killer. With some mental health problems the last thing the patient would be is violent. But it sure is right that we should find out which we're admitting because we're demonstrably incapable of looking after the

potentially harmful ones.

d) I didn't suggest that at all.

e) I'll lose no sleep if other countries take that view. Perhaps if UK trained doctors and nurses weren't so determined to earn more money in America or Canada we wouldn't need to poach doctors and nurses from other countries that need them and who can't easily find alternatives. I don't have a "big problem" with most people moving anyway providing there are jobs waiting, providing they're not putting others out of work and providing those others aren't in a queue over two million long and rising.

f) I don't think I've quoted that minister before at all. Nor would I presume that even all Labour politicians are dishonourable liars even if a lot of thm clearly are. The only ministers I've described as corrupt etc are ones who have demonstrated as much.

g) When have I grumbled about you using 2003 as an example? I'm perfectly happy with 2003 and like I say, your percentage claim just does not stand up.

[Finnegan]

Personally I think we should send all the immigrants home.

As an ethnic Brython I think it's about time the government paid for "assisted relocation" of all those that have come here uninvited and started damaging our culture, commiting all these murders and crimes and forcing us to fight for even the worst jobs in OUR society.

I think we should start with these ethnic groups first:

[Flynny]

Personally I think we should send all the immigrants home.

As an ethnic Brython I think it's about time the government paid for "assisted relocation" of all those that have come here uninvited and started damaging our culture, commiting all these murders and crimes and forcing us to fight for even the worst jobs in OUR society.

I think we should start with these ethnic groups first:

You wouldn't! Not the dragons and the lions!

[Finnegan]

You wouldn't! Not the dragons and the lions!

Shut it. Or the unicorns are next.

[BoneDog]

4 : Bloody hell, that's some jump.

There may be asylum seekers who do this country, themselves, and the cause of other asylum seekers no good whatsoever 1 : but I'd doubt 1 in 1000 would dream of blaming them for the mess our country is in. Least of all me. I just want proper and effective screening.

I do wonder though, should your prediction come to pass, 2 : which faction you'd be fighting for.

Cos the way things are going in this country and elsewhere you really might have to chose one day. I bags on Singhy's side!

And there's the great tragedy of the government's idealogy in action. In their calculated victimisation of native people (wonderfully emphasised by the Unite deal to end the Lindsey oil refinery dispute) and with their policy of quietly advancing ethnocide, they have somehow fostered bitterness and resentment among long term English people such as I've never known or imagined.

3 ; A bitterness that is fanned by comments like yours in response to a perfectly valid debate about the wisdom of allowing anyone into this country who might reasonably be considered a threat, either physically, medically or idealogically.

I'd actually think that approach would be good for race relations in the medium and long term. But if you are going to adapt the debate into one which envelopes another concept altogether then you're probably free to do so, at least for now.

1 : I wasn't meaning you personally. I have only skimmed through most of this thread so not sure who's said what altogether. But when I'm out and about I hear alot more than 1 in a 1000 blaming asylum seekers for this countrys problems. Probably 1 in 5 where I spend me time (not me)

2 : And if my prediction came true I would be fighting only to try and keep my loved ones and neighbours safe if it came to it. In my opinion everyone of every race/culture should stick together against the people who are ruining our lives.

3 : I never meant to sound bitter but was just saying what I think is likely to start happening due to everything that is going off all round the world.

4 : Was just goin to the 'conspiracy' level

[keithweller]

[Finnegan]

[Thracian]

Personally I think we should send all the immigrants home.

As an ethnic Brython I think it's about time the government paid for "assisted relocation" of all those that have come here uninvited and started damaging our culture, commiting all these murders and crimes and forcing us to fight for even the worst jobs in OUR society.

I think we should start with these ethnic groups first:

Ironic you say that considering how determined the Welsh are to protect and preserve their culture.

Just fixing your quote tags. Haven't touched your post!

[Flynny]

Shut it. Or the unicorns are next.

Racist.

[Finnegan]

I'm pretty sure it's more than just that that was ironic in that post.

Racist.

I presume you've seen that utterly messed up youtube cartoon about the cynical unicon and the two really utterly hyperactive unicorns and I thus don't need to use it to validate my "they're evil scum" claim?

[Koke]

Finners, your sig is the sex