PDA

View Full Version : Hijack a plane, and win a council house!!!


ickle black box
1st Jun 2001, 18:33
Good afternoon and welcome to a brand new edition of ASYLUM. Today's programme features another chance to take part in our exciting competition: Hijack an airliner and win a council house.
We've already given away hundreds of millions of pounds and thousands of dream homes, courtesy of our sponsor, the British taxpayer. And don't forget, we're now the fastest growing game on the planet. Anyone can play, provided they don't hold a valid British passport. You only need one word of English: ASYLUM.
Prizes include all-expenses paid accommodation, cash benefits starting at 180 a week and a chance to earn thousands more begging, mugging and accosting drivers at traffic lights. This competition is open to everyone buying a ticket or stowing away on one of our partner airlines, ferry companies or Eurostar. No application ever refused reasonable or unreasonable. All you have to do is destroy all your paper and remember the magic password: ASYLUM.
Only this year 140 members of the Taliban family from Afghanistan were flown Goat Class from Kabul to our international gateway at Stanstead where local law enforcement officers were on hand to fast-track them to their luxury 200-a-night rooms in the fabulous four star Hilton Hotel. They join tens of thousands of other lucky winners already staying in hotels all over Britain.
Our most popular destinations include the White Cliffs of Dover, the world famous Toddington Services area in Historic Bedforshire and the money trees at Croydon If you still don't understand the rules, don't forget there's no need to phone a friend or ask the audience just apply for legal aid.
Hundreds of lawyers, social workers and counsellors are waiting to help, it won't cost you a penny. So play today. It could change you life forever. Iraqi terrorists, Afghan dissidents, Albanian gangsters, pro-Pinochet activists, anti-Pinochet activists, Kosovan drug-smugglers, Tamil tigers, bogus Bosnians, Rwandan mass murderers, Somali guerrillas. COME ON DOWN
Get along to the airport, get along to the lorry park, get along to the ferry terminal. Don't stop in Germany or France. Go Straight to Britain. And you are guaranteed to be one of tens of thousands of lucky winners in the softest game on earth. Roll up, roll up my friends for the game that never ends. Everyone's a winner, when they play ASYLUM.

tyrant
1st Jun 2001, 18:49
Too good IBB, the shame is thats its true :))

Tarek Nor
3rd Jun 2001, 23:15
There has been a change in the rules, as appearently the game
isn't expensive enough yet. No spoken or written english is now
required, as the Police are now getting in interpreters in area's
that these ...... (insert your own choice of descriptive word here)
have colonised. :mad:

T N

[This message has been edited by Tarek Nor (edited 03 June 2001).]

JPJ
4th Jun 2001, 00:35
That is unpleasant racist rubbish, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just because this is an Intenet site does not allow you to discard normal human decency.

Shame.

OLD_EGG_BOUND
4th Jun 2001, 02:01
JPJ

What is so decent about sponging off the mighty white Anglo Saxon Protestant. Time we started to look after ourselves first.
When the first church is built in Mecca I will start to rethink my views on the subject.

Tartan Gannet
4th Jun 2001, 03:14
As an opponent of Political Correctness I feel that it is better that such sentiments be expressed freely and discussed rather than suppressed with the boil over into violence as shown in Dover in the past and recently in Oldham.

On balance I agree with the Tories that we have become too soft a touch for bogus asylum seekers and economic migrants and should tighten up our rules. BTW I would apply these greater restrictions as evenly to White South Africans or Rhodesians as to Kosovans, people from Ruanda or Burundi, or any other place seeking asylum in the UK.

Blacksheep
4th Jun 2001, 08:50
Ah but what about the reverse game that successive governments of all colours have played?

I mean the let's get rid of the English game.

When I was born I was British. By birth.

Then while I was already serving my Queen and supposed Country I was told that I was no longer British but I was welcome to apply. All I had to do was produce documents to prove that I was the legitimate descendant of a paternal grandfather who was British by Birth and everything would be all right again. (They didn't say what would happen if either I or my father just happened to be illegitimate.)

Now my daughter is told that because she has been residing in another country for three years, because her father has worked abroad, she isn't entitled to a British University education unless she pays the full fee as charged to foreigners.

I suppose I must arrange for her to travel back to UK in the back of a tomato truck to reappear in Dover uttering the magic words.

Why do I suspect that there may be a rule about that?

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

HugMonster
4th Jun 2001, 13:46
Sorry, but this post is a disgraceful warping of the truth to discredit genuine asylum-seekers fleeing justified fear of persecution, torture and death by simply confusing them with economic migrants.

In the meantime, people are literally dying to get to Britain in the back of lorries whilst the noble, hard-working whites are profiteering from their misery, pocketing thousands for one trip.

It's clear that IBB has never stayed in the Hilton STN, either - for one thing he might have spelt "Stansted" correctly, for another he would NEVER have described the Hilton as a luxury 4-star hotel! :)

ickle black box
4th Jun 2001, 14:07
JPJ, I knew that some lefty would come steaming in, the word racism as their only pathetic word in this debate. Get a life. Of course the country is racist; it is becasue we don't let everyone in. The only actual way to totally remove racism from immigration, would be to remove all controls, and let anyone in. However, I'm sure that even you would agree that this idea would be absolutly crazy!

Just because the people recieving criticism are foreign, out comes the accusation of racism. Why's it unpleasant JPJ, because it's true but doesn't fit your line of thinking? Because the majority of the country would agree? I know, I know, free speach is only for politically correct people!

Normal human decency eh, what's indecent about objecting to economic immigration? Most of these people are trying to come here as they know we are the most generous to scroungers. If these people were true immigrants, escaping from a country where they personally faced death if they were to return, they would be entirly happy in the first safe country they arrived at. Why do a 1000 people a night try to smuggle themselves across from France to the UK? Isn't France good enough for them? If these people fitted the bill for someone who would be approved for residancy here, they would be facing sufficant threat in their own country, that they would be entirly happy in France. I like the place, I'd quite like to live there.

Did you know that there is police unit called 'Racial and Violent Crime Task Force'. It's good that racism is taken so seriously that it is grouped in with violent crime. The vast majority of racist incidents are reported by 'white' people.

Paterbrat
4th Jun 2001, 16:02
JPJ,
you are probably familiar by now of the report of literaly thousands of the so-called asylum seekers who go off with their temp travel documents from the UK on holiday to the very places they are supposedly "fleeing" from.
As for a comment that it should apply equaly to 'whites' it wasn't that long ago I watched a documentry 'Airport' I think where a young lady immigration officer was turning back a young white South African male who not only had a visa, a return ticket, and an adress to stay. His heinous crime was that she 'suspected' he might be coming over here with the intention of working. If he had torn up or thrown away his documents, lied about persecution back at home, demanded assistance, and his 'rights' demanded a welfare officer, and finaly been the 'right' colour, he would probably have breezed in.
Racist, well what do you think??
Whether you are aware of it or not, your own PC attitude can provoke a backlash and sometimes creates racism where none existed. As for the McPhearson report with it's accusations of 'institutionalised racism' it has probably stoked up more resentment than it ever cured on both sides of the fence. It has probably also encouraged minorities to believe that they are being persecuted in cases where they were simply suffering conditions that poor and out of work sections of the community would be having irrespective of their skin colour of ethnic origin.
Immigration and asylum are issues which are increasingly percieved by the British public at large to be badly administered mishandled and increasingly abused by economic refugee's who wish to profit from the slack way in which it is being handled and administered.
The taxpayer in the meantime will be asked to foot the bloated benefits that are so liberaly handed out. Racism, or simply an observation that there is a feeling increasingly gaining ground that there are blatent abuses taking place and nothing is being done about it because it would be 'Racist" to do so.
Wake up JPJ

The Mayor of South Park
4th Jun 2001, 17:04
What would happen if a white British taxpayer decided to go and live in the sort of countries these people come from, without a visa, money, papers etc?

*shudder*


In cave man days these people would have been clonked on the head with a mammouth bone and told to bugger off. Human nature hasn't changed that much. That's not racist, that's protecting your territory. You can't blame the locals for feeling a bit put out. Probably felt much the same way about the bl**dy Romans!!

Meanwhile let the bleeding hearts brigade accommodate these people in their own homes, and feed and clothe them at their own expense as well.

HomerSimpson
4th Jun 2001, 18:57
Ickle,

Well my friend, you have hit the nail right on the head. I agree with every word you say.
I, like yourself am not a racist. However, race I now feel is just an excuse to use any justice system to your advantage. We are all human, whether it be white or black. Whether a religon is Church of England or Hindu.

What annoys me is that there are genuine people from all over the world who are fleeing war zones and persecution, however there are people who think that they deserve appear in a first class economy without paying anything to the pot and claim as much as they can.

There are far too many people living on the streets in the UK who are BRITISH.

If you go to the US or Canada and ask what nationality anyone is, the response is Canadian or American, whether they are or white, black or any other origin. In the UK the response is - Im Hindu, Pakistani, Asian etc.

Nasser Hussain point a good point across the other week in the Telegraph, asking the Indian community support the country they now have residency and nationality status of. (Not one where they fled from claiming persecution, ok my words not his)

When you want to reside in a different country, the idea is to take on their views and cultures. Why in the UK is society so happy with giving money away to build places of worship for foreign people. Do I see any churches in built in a country of asian or siek religion? I don't think so!

OLD_EGG_BOUND. My views will change also when a Church is built in Mecca.

------------------
Duff, Duff, that Wonderful stuff. Ummmmm Doughnuts

HugMonster
4th Jun 2001, 20:02
Two misconceptions:-

First, there is quite a flourishing Christian community in India. I am sure there are lots in many other parts of the world about which people are complaining here.

Second, there is little danger of the UK becoming overpopulated by immigration, since for many years (back as far as the sixties - dunno about before that) the UK has actually been a net exporter of people. The numbers of emigrants outweight the number of immigrants.

Policies on immigration are only racist if they ban people from one country or of one ethnic origin and allow others. There is ample evidence that this is happening here. However, I don't have a problem with banning all economic migrants - just so long as it's not only blacks, or any other particular grouping.

What I do have a problem with is banning those who have a genuine fear of persecution, torture or death in their own country, or are trying to get here from a third-party country that they fear might send them back to their own country.

The trick - and it's not an easy one - is to separate one group from the other, and to do so without applying arbitrary or unjust rules, or applying racist ideas to the concept of immigration.

As for the Afghan aircraft that was "hijacked", it's a little ironic that not too long ago we were supporting the Afghan Mujahaddin in their fight against the Russians. Now, who is the bad guy here? The freedom fighters/guerillas/terrorists of the Mujahaddin, or their offspring, the Taliban regime? If the latter, and people are in genuine fear of their lives, should we (and other "civilised" countries not be accepting the fallout from the regime that we halped to create?

JPJ
4th Jun 2001, 21:38
"you are probably familiar by now of the report of literaly thousands of the so-called asylum seekers who go off with their temp travel documents from the UK on holiday to the very places they are supposedly "fleeing" from."

I am not familiar with it because it is not true. If they leave the UK they lose their place in the queue. Can you name one or two of the 'literaly' (sic) 'thousands'?

Unwell_Raptor
4th Jun 2001, 22:26
It isn't just the depressingly thick-ear racism that I find awful, it is the total lack of originality. This rubbish first appeared on the Net a good year ago.

Come on Ickle - if you are going to be offensively stupid, at least keep it original. Or is that too much to expect? Perhaps hand-me-down bigotry is more your style.

Send Clowns
4th Jun 2001, 22:39
Homer Simpson

While I agree with much of what has been put forward here, though not always the reason, I have to correct one error you have made. The Sikh religion demands religious tolerance. It is a much more open-minded faith in this respect than christianity. In fact I think that religion, except persecution as a cause of genuine refugees, is of little relevance here.

On assylum:

This country is small and overcrowded. Already in the most prosperous areas of the country it is impossible to move about efficiently. We cannot therefore take in everyone who wishes to come here. Rules must be decided, fair rules that allow for genuine desperate need, rules that must be decided by open and informed debate. The hysterical claims of racism on the part of The Revolting Tony and others just serve to muffle debate and protect Him from accusations of incompetence.

Surely genuine refugees would be happy to remain in one place, accomodated and clothed in safer, more comfortable circumstances than they have left, with health care and security? Those from free, unoppressive countries seeking assylum should be repatriated. Legally those who first entered the EU in a different state should have their cases heard in that state. Where is the argument against this? Where is the racism in these rules? What do the centre left fear in these rules? Why do they scream 'racism' when they see (sorry to use a politician's soundbite and cliche, but it's the right term) old-fashioned common sense?

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Send Clowns
4th Jun 2001, 22:48
(By the way, before anyone accuses me of racism, the above views are rather more moderate than those of my housemate. I think his views on assylum are a little extreme. He's a good proud Brit and even more proud Welshman, supporting them in despair in the 6 nations. The fact that his Grandparents came here from what is now Bangladesh is less important to him. See, 'Liberals', you find it hard to call him a racist, don't you, when he speaks Benghali on the phone to his gran?

His views on his own nationality I entirely approve.)

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

HugMonster
5th Jun 2001, 01:11
Interesting, SC, that your friend wishes to deny entry to those who merely follow him here...

Towards the end of the last Tory government, Portillo was advocating policies that would have prevented his father coming here - would that those policies had been in force earlier! :)

LatviaCalling
5th Jun 2001, 01:46
Just a little sideline to your very serious dialogue. When I was still a journalist, my company, American-based United Press International (UPI), applied for a temporary working visa for me in at that time England. This was in 1978 and it took six months for the English authorities to grant me that visa.

I'm an American citizen who wasn't about to take any jobs away from the English, nor was I about to settle in England and have a dozen relatives come live with me.

Yet, as you explain, someone from nowhere is getting all the benefits, but people from civilized countries who only want to stay six months on a working visa, are put through the grinder.

Wake up! Somebody.

Send Clowns
5th Jun 2001, 02:36
Yes, Hugmonster. Who is being racist here? The policies would also have denied my nordic ancestors (as a tall blond with blue eyes, I'm sure I have some) entry. All our families arrived here at some point, whether we can trace it or not. Why am I so different from him? That was, of course, at a time when Britain was neither so over-populated that we cannot cope with our current population without building over parts of the country we don't want built on, nor such a popular destination.

As several people have pointed out now, whites have as much trouble from immigration as any other racial group. This is not racist legislation. This is my argument against the centre-left, not that all immigration should be stopped. As stated I believe that the rules for immigration should be debated, decided and enforced evenly and strongly.

So Hugmonster, do you suggest that everyone should be allowed into the country? I note your last post has no actual arguments, just comment on people's views, comments made because of their ethnic background.

I'm afraid you begin to look like that most illiberal of creatures, a Liberal.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Blacksheep
5th Jun 2001, 05:44
Send Clowns,

You mentioned fair rules. Others mention British people living and working in other peoples' countries.

The problem with rules to cover a general situation is that they will never be "fair" The ill thought out rules devised by successive British governments seek to avoid accusations of racism. In trying to avoid that sin they incidentally exclude certain native English, Scots and Welsh people from full citizenship. I am not alone in being born in a foreign (i.e. non-commonwealth) country while my father was serving His Majesty the King in a far flung corner of the world. There are tens of thousands of us whose citizenship is based on "descent" rather than birth. Our children do not automatically qualify as British citizens and are liable to be excluded from the benefits of citizenship through no fault of their own. I remember an ITV documentary on the subject where a Norfolk gentleman who, as an army Colonel once led his regiment ashore on D-Day before fighting their way across Europe, was denied a British passport on the grounds that he had been born in Peshawar, his father and grandfather were also born in "Injah!" and he was therefore a Pakistani.

As to living and working in other countries, I work abroad and my income is all remitted to UK thus making me an exporter bringing foreign exchange into the UK, to the national benefit. I have an employment pass, plus multi-entry visas, identity cards and dependent passes for each of my dependents. My children have education passes permitting them to attend school. I pay in full for their education and I pay in full for all our medical treatment (free to local citizens) I accept all these things as normal. I am a foreigner so why should I expect to receive any benefits? As soon as my presence in the country is no longer required I will be terminated and shipped home from whence I came. (Assuming that I am still a British Citizen and allowed to enter UK at the time)

I don't see racism in British immigration requirements. Just plain old ignorance and stupidity. All states provide benefits to their citizens and exclude foreigners from these benefits. All states impose immigration controls on non-citizens. That is after all, what being a state is all about. Britain meanwhile, bends over backwards to provide a home away from home for foreigners while dispossessing many of its own natives. And we worry about sovereignty?

Roll on the Euro and the European Federal Republic, and the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Send Clowns
5th Jun 2001, 21:18
Exactly, Blacksheep. these are just the sort of issues I advocate debating. Two things hard to argue against are the need for fair immigration rules and the need to enforce them. Unfortunately we lack fair rules and lack strong enforcement. This government has sat around for 4 years trying to look pretty and making changes that don't help anyone very much, leaving important problems unaddressed because they are too fearful of upsetting someone and losing popularity.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

tony draper
5th Jun 2001, 21:30
I have always had doubts about that "more leaving than coming in" , thats always thrown around in these type of debates.
There were 52 million people in this country when I was a sprog, when my old dad was born there were 30 million.
Don't know where all these people that make up our 60 million now,have appeared from we are told the birth rate is way down.
I think we could be living in a paradise if our population was back down to thirty million.
I get the impression that the lovies won't be happy untill we are standing shoulder to shoulder knee deep in our own sh*t .

[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 05 June 2001).]

Winston Smith
5th Jun 2001, 21:46
Let's face it: "Racism" is simply the crime of BEING White.

Don't ever let yourself be intimidated from speaking your mind by some brain-washed "liberal" or such. And do not - what is even worse - apologize for your opinion. That includes statements like "I'm not a racist, but ..." - as soon as you place yourself on the defensive you will invariably be confronted with a barrage of name-calling.

So the next time someone calls you a "racist" for stating something which would have passed for common sense a few decades ago (and which it still is, nonetheless), simply smile and admit that speeding is actually one of your little vices! :)

Unwell_Raptor
5th Jun 2001, 23:03
Hello Winston. Welcome to PPRUne. How fortunate that you were able to jump straight in with your second post, and so accurately grasp the concept of how to be a nasty bigot on a fun BB. And, by the way, congratulations on getting the hang of the smilies so soon after you joined PPRuNe, not to mention the bold type and italics. Impressive for a tyro.

Come on Winston, who are you really? My guess is a previous poster, exasperated by the sporadic outbursts of liberalism here, who just had to nail his colours to the mast, but hadn't the guts to use his real name, even his PPRuNe alibi.

How am I doing?



[This message has been edited by Unwell_Raptor (edited 05 June 2001).]

HugMonster
6th Jun 2001, 00:11
SC, I was merely unable to avoid noticing that in your friend's case, as well as that of Mr. Portillo, there is an element of dog-in-the-manger attitude. They're happy now they're in, but want to deny it to others the same as them.

As for the rising total population of the country - this does not disprove the FACT that there is stillhigher net emigration from this country than there is immigration. The rise in population is attributable to the birth vs death rates, plus the fact that infant mortality is far lower now than it was 50 years ago.

Send Clowns
6th Jun 2001, 00:29
Exactly my point, Huggy - '..now they're in...' shows a racist attitude. They were both born in this country. They are British. In my friend's case he has never visited Bangladesh, never lived outside the UK. They were never out.

In any case, my example was show the point I mentioned. Liberals would not call my friend a racist for his views on immigration because he is of Asian extraction, but will call William Hague a racist for less extreme views because he is white. That means those Liberals are racist. The veracity of my friend's views were not at issue, I said I disagreed with him.

Although I have never mentioned birthrates, and feel they are irrelevant to the debate (this country is overcrowded. Whatever the birthrate, it is important to control immigration), I must correct you. The birth rate in this country is I understand now down to an average of 1.6 per couple. Does not leave a sustainable population, even with higher life expectancy.

I think you have to show evidence before you can write 'fact' in capitals. Not good debating technique to say something is fact just because the other side has not disproved it. You'll start to souind like OCB.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

HugMonster
6th Jun 2001, 03:06
Yes, they were both born here. And their parents?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not being racist here, which I define as discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin. As I said earlier, if we're going to ban immigration, we should at least endure that such a ban is equitable rather than allowing any white South Africans and banning Nigerians or whatever...

However, in the example at hand, their parents moved here under one set of rules. The offspring now want to change the rules in a manner that would have prohibited their own parents' immigration to the UK.

As for the statistics, I've just been to my regular haunt for those and whilst I've found statistics for immirgration up to 1998, I find that this government's wonderful freedom of information policy has been changed, which now means that you have to pay to get information on general population movements. Since I don't wish to pay 30 just to prove my point, sorry I decline to do so, and you'll just have to take my word for it that the last time I checked (mid-90's) emigration outnumbered immigration.

Winston Smith
6th Jun 2001, 03:06
Thanks, Unwell_Raptor, you are doing great!

Though your assumptions are not in the least correct, I will not even try to disprove them (which would be hard to accomplish anyway). In fact, this "suspicion" might even save me a lengthy debate about the "effrontery" of engaging in one of the more controversial threads before acquiring a three-digit post-count. Of course I could have boosted my "PPRuNe seniority" first by adding a long list of jokes to the corresponding thread or similar actions, but why not start off with a few posts with meat in it?

As I have made quite clear in my previous statements, I don't think too much of the intellectual capabilities of liberals, but it still amazes me that you consider mastering the UBB code to be an effort. How long did it take you to learn it?

JPJ
6th Jun 2001, 03:16
Winston:

Profile's a bit thin.

Modest, embarrassed, or ashamed?

Tartan Gannet
6th Jun 2001, 09:21
Welcome to the club Winston. U_R is the arch pedant and boring liberal bleeding heart around here. Watch out for, sarcasm, irony,condescension, quotations from Jane Austen, possibly those of Winston Churchill which agree with his viewpoint. God help you if you make a grammatical or spelling mistake, he will be on it like the hawk his nom de plume indicates.

As for JPJ I thank the Lord I do not live within the jurisdiction of his Court.

Watch out too for Hug Monster, the kilted "John Prescott" of Jet Blast.

Tricky Woo is just a wind up merchant with a warped sense of humour and can be safely ignored.

Stick around, you will get flamed and flack but give back as good as you get. Always remember that it is only Danny Fyne and his co-moderators who can block you NOT the Liberal Intelligensia.

BTW hit back by voting Tory tomorrow or for the candidate most likely to defeat the New Labour MP in your area. If you cant bring yourself to vote against Blair and his minions then stay home, read a good book, listen to music, screw the missus, even surf the web.

All the best, dont let the bas***ds grind you down.

Tartan Gannet. Left Economically, Right Socially, Pro Europe, Anti Political Correctness.

Winston Smith
6th Jun 2001, 15:43
Thanks for your encouraging words, Tartan Gannet.

As a "kraut", I will obviously not be able to have a say in your election tomorrow (I'll have to wait more than a year for the remote chance of getting rid of the Green Party at least, who look more like a bunch of undisciplined kids and never really cared about the environment anyway - it's a real advantage of your electoral system that it keeps these people out). It goes without saying that I wish you all the best, even though I fear it's just an alternative of intensity, not of policy. In this regard, there once was a cartoon in an American publication which described the situation quite succinctly - you saw a talk-show host who explained: "To my right, welcome the enlightened, benevolent, liberal, humanitarian, and socially conscious candidate Mr. A. On my left side, you see the arch-conservative, ultra-reactionary candidate Mr. B. Mr. A has strong arguments in favour of raising foreign aid by 300%, whereas Mr. B opines it should only by increased by 100%." - Don't forget to see my post in the "Political Correctness" thread two days ago.

Kaptin M
6th Jun 2001, 18:14
Do I need to apologise for being an Australian, who is going to venture into this discussion?? I think not!!! Ozland is also experiencing a similar phenomenom as G.B., and probably other Western countries, as evidenced by the increasing number of "racially different" induced conflicts.

The problem seems to be not so much the issue of the numbers of immigrants, but the following points - to name a few. When THEY come to OUR country they:

(1)Refuse to integrate. And not only do they refuse to integrate, but insist on setting up "enclaves" in certain areas, where WE feel (and are often made to feel) the "stranger in our country", should we go there;

(2)Demand Government recognition of their minority beliefs. It's one thing to be beholden to a certain religious creed, but it's another, when minority groups (and here, I'm specifically thinking of the Muslim religion in Western countries) DEMAND that a public road, which had been in existence for some 150 years - be closed, because a mosque had been erected in it (within the past 20 years).

(3)Exploit the Immmigration Laws....by falsely claiming - and OFTEN spending tens of thousands of pounds/dollars, in the process - ASYLUM.

Somebody said that he would be willing to re-consider the issue when the first Christian church appeared in Mecca. For anyone who has visited the Middle East, I would go one step further by saying that most Western people would be astounded by the incredible INTOLERANCE afforded US, by non-white, non-Christian countries eg. Dhahran will not allow an item of jewellery bearing a cross, any Christian or Judaistic literary matter, nor alcohol in any form, to be taken into the country. In most Muslim countries, it is COMPULSORY for ALL businesses to cease trading and to close their doors during the (5) prayer periods throughout each and every day - and of course, all day Friday! In Asia, Malaysia - for example - gives discounts on everything, including house and land deals, to non-whites.

The white race is looked upon (individually) as weak, by our Arab and Asian neighbours. What we perceive as being kindness and understanding, is generally looked upon as a weakness to exploit.

"'Tis not wise for the Christian white
To hustle the Aerean brown,
While the Christian riles
The Aerean smiles,
And wears the white man down." Rudyard Kipling.

Secret Squirrel
6th Jun 2001, 18:46
All the usual suspects, I see: The bleeding heart liberals with their idealistic but unrealistic torches out telling us how to be better human beings opposing any thread that remotely smacks of 'racism'.

Whether you like it or not, dear liberals, much of what has been said here is endemic of the general feeling within Great Britain. I take on board your point about separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, that is very difficult to do and in any case there is far more chaff than wheat.

I think the underlying feeling seems to be that the rules need to be tightened considerably and, indeed that is the general impression I get from most of the posters here who have, wrongly in my opinion, been accused of being racist.

Tightening the rules will undoubtedly mean that some of the 'wheat' will be rejected but in the interests of the Nation's wellbeing, it is preferable to the alternative. Whether you liberals admit it or not, the prvious poster is correct when he says that your quick-to-pounce attitude actually cause more problems than it solves.

Lastly, I would like to make a comment on Huggy's comment about our duty to refugees in real danger in their own countries: I won't say one way or the other that I categoriacally agree or disagree with this view and I shall explain why. I have not been witness to the type of torture and tyrrany that I know must go on in these countries and so do tend to take a rather objective view from the comfort of my armchair (guilty I know). By the same token, I know that if I had experience I would want all those I knew, to be safe. Thus, subjectively I might be of a different opinion. However, I am a realist and would never consider a blanket change of view to be beneficial in the long term.

You see what galls me about liberals is their hypocrisy and their inability to view the big picture. Let's take an example which you could apply at, basically, any time in the last twenty years: You have a dictator who murders and tortures what he considers to be seditious nationals. Sometimes they even get bored with their own nationals and decide to impose their regime on a neighbouring country (though not always). We (the supposedly democratic nations) step in and sort the problem out for them at great expense to ourselves and do......absolutely nothing. The liberals step in and don't allow us to eliminate the cancer; they prefer not to be seen to fight fire with fire. So, then we have a situation where devils like Saddam and Milosovich walk free to continue to torture and maim at will BUT we still have to cater for their refugees.

If the liberals get one whiff of our governments helping rebels with arms etc they kick up a big fuss. In effect, what they are doing is going just far enough to make themselves felt but don't have the courage to finish the job, thereby saving those people the torture of leaving their own country in the first place.

Also, shouldn't these people fight their own battle? If not, there is no shame in dying trying. Callous, maybe but they at least would be worthy of admiration.

So, to sum up. Either let us police these deviant states and stamp out dictatorships or not, I have no preference, but don't then expect us to pick up the tab just because you're too lilylivered to kill a killer.

Kaptin M

Spot on! I'll be interested to see what Huggy and JPJ have to say to that, if anything! Usually they just skirt around individaul points, say the same things over and over again: Just views based purely on emotions; visionaries of export humanitarianism but domestically blind.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 06 June 2001).]

Send Clowns
6th Jun 2001, 21:26
Huggy

Exacly my point. You assume that these people are wrong to oppose open immigration simply because their parents took advantage of such a system. Leaving aside the great difference in this countries circumstances and the possibility that those rules were unwise even then (I am not committing myself either way on that, I don't know enough about it) is it not a racist attitude to assume that these people who were born here should approve of immigration simply because their parents/grandparents were immigrants?

There is no racism in the rules about immigration, unless you mean the allowance for people whose parents/grandparents were from Britain, but those rules are required for the benefit of expatriots who bear children abroad. This is where many South Africans get advantage over others, but that would be part of the debate I advocate. Nigerians have never been banned, and Nigeria is unlikely to appear on any list of safe country - even though Amnesty Int overplayed the Ken Saro-Wiwa case (he probably did arrange a mass murder) it is hardly safe.

Don't bother with the statistics. They have been studied by journalists, and apparently every asylum claimant who has had a claim rejected and has not been positively shown still to be in this country is assumed to have left the country. This is the reason that statistics show net emmigration.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Send Clowns
6th Jun 2001, 21:46
Winston

With a name like that you must feel at home in Princess Tony's Great New Britain!

TG missed himself out :). He sometimes takes things too seriously, and misses the light-hearted side, but is not bad in a debate like this. He's either right or left wing, never was very good at moderation! Even when I disagree with him (about 50% of the time) he's worth reading.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Unwell_Raptor
6th Jun 2001, 23:57
Tartan he say:

" U_R is the arch pedant and boring liberal bleeding heart around here. Watch out for, sarcasm, irony,condescension, quotations from Jane Austen, possibly those of Winston Churchill which agree with his viewpoint. God help you if you make a grammatical or spelling mistake, he will be on it like the hawk his nom de plume indicates"

I am so chuffed to know that my gibes have hit home so squarely. The Jane Austen quote was at least six months ago, so nobody except Tartan and I has a clue what it's about.

At about 2201 BST tomorrow the media will release the results of their exit polls. I shall raise a glass to you, TG, and to all of your bedfellows (metaphorically speaking, of course, old chap!) secure in the knowledge that you have to face another four or five years of helpless rage at the ascendancy of the 'bleeding heart liberals'.

But that can't be right...Jack Straw is one of our blokes!

Cheers!

HugMonster
7th Jun 2001, 00:19
SC, I don't say they're wrong to oppose immigration bans. I merely find it interesting that they choose to change the system that benefitted them to rule out that benefit to others of their common origin.

Squirrel, my father and an uncle did a lot of work with the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, and I saw a lot of the papers that passed through my father's hands on the subject. Most made fairly harrowing reading.

As far as Milosevic and Hussein are concerned, I agree with you in that we should not have stopped when we did. You have, however, to accept that there would have been severe political difficulties with achieving the end we both agree would have been preferable to what we actually finished with. In the case of the Gulf War, it would have been very hard indeed to keep the Arab coalition going had we continued past the point where we did and, let's face it, we need their oil (which was, after all, what it was all about). And the politics of the Balkans are so horrendously complex that I don't pretend to understand much more than the surface ripples, so I make no judgement at all about what the implications might have been of going in after that particular murdering illegitimate.

Another problem, of course, is that the body count both in Europe and in the holds of C7's heading back to the USA would have been a lot higher, and I suspect that the politicians didn't like what the result might have been in their constituencies had Mr. & Mrs. Bloggs seen their sons come home in a box...

I'm not seeking to justify the decision to call a halt to each of those advances - just saying that I can see the reasons on that side, with which I happen to disagree, as do many "bleeding heart liberal intelligentsia" that I know.

As for sorting out the petty dictators in the 3rd. World who decide they fancy a little more lebensraum or a little more dosh in their Swiss Bank Accounts and the best way to do that is to murder all members of the Bongbong tribe en masse and move into their huts - well, as the 6th. largest economy in the world and also as permanent members of the UN Security Council, I feel we have a certain responsibility as global policemen - as do many other countries. I would, however, like to see some sort of more constructive agreement worldwide on who takes the human fallout in the form of refugees, though. We do more than our fair share, I feel, but not as much as some other countries, and not enough as is currently needed given that SOME countries do far, far less than they might.

Winston Smith
7th Jun 2001, 01:37
If "white devils" are such terrible "oppressors", why do they all come to live with us? These people actually flee conditions they created for themselves. What makes anybody think this process won't repeat itself here? Civilisation follows behaviour (i.e. biology), not the other way round. Wait a few more years, and the "bleeding hearts" will campaign for food shippings to "Zimbabwe", a country once prosperous under White rule. The same thing will inevitably occur in South Africa ("Azania"), once they either murdered or scared away a critical mass of farmers.

By the way, in China alone there are approximately 1,350,000,000 "racists".


[This message has been edited by Winston Smith (edited 06 June 2001).]

Airbanda
7th Jun 2001, 02:19
Let's just go back to basics and the sick ugly post which started this thread, the authors own work or a quote from the electoral toilet paper of a more excitable right wing candidate for the UK election?. Ironically there is a point about immigration policy being inherently racist, the government has had to grant itself a derogation from it's own anti discrimination laws for precisely that reason.
Nobody can seriously argue that there is not a problem sorting those who genuinely seek sanctuary from economic migrants but the separation involves subtle shades of grey. As a nation we need to sort out the mechanisms to hear and adjudicate fairly on those claims, that may take time, certificates of persecution are not handed out gratis to disaffected citizens of totalitarian regimes. Even so called safe countries can make life unbearable for less popular minorities, do the authorities need to beat you up themselves or just watch while someone else does it?. Probably one reason why they don't stay in France.
As to some of Ickles alleged facts
 all-expenses paid accommodation, cash benefits starting at 180 a week.
Accommodation is in hostels the seediest of hotels or on the roughest of sink estates. Living expenses are paid in vouchers, humiliating to use, no change given. Obscenely a commercial operator profits from the contract for this scheme. As to 180 a week, on standard Income support a single man might just get 60 a week, try living on that week in week out. 180 a week needs either a very large family indeed (and correspondingly large expenses) or the kind of disabilities you would not wish on your worst enemy.
 140 members of the Taliban family from Afghanistan were flown Goat Class from Kabul to our international gateway at Stanstead (sic).
How else can you see the reference to "goat class" but as racist, in the sense that it is a derogatory reference to the Afghan people their culture and history. Nothing can justify hi jacking, the perpetrators deserve a long spell pleasuring her majesty, but when it is your one chance to escape the Taliban (yes they were opponents not members of the family) one of the cruellest religious dictatorships in recent history. Once associated with the crime even the innocent passengers may reasonably fear for their lives if returned.

Secret Squirrel
7th Jun 2001, 03:37
Huggy:

I have no doubt that you are the way you are with the consequent views (and commendable actions!) because you have some experience in these matters to some degree or other. I must confess to have simplified the Saddam scenario somewhat and am fully aware of the consequences had Saddam been 'taken out'. It angers though me that the Arabs place 'honour amoung thieves' before a)their own safety and b) fellow Arab lives; they instantly prefer to be seen to be standing up to the Americans and the rest of the western world instead of doing the right thing.

Would it not, for instance, have been preferable to take Saddam out and allow the Arabs to run Iraq between them in a more peaceful manner even if they were to do it in their characteristically undemocratic fashion? I think so, but their pride will always come before sense.

It is no secret that I am not a lover of the Arab race. Call me a racist if you like but I have my reasons. This is not to say that I would not treat an individual with respect just because he or she is of Arabic descent. In general though they have proved time and time again to be one of THE most intolerant races second only to the Chinese.

I also second Winston's call for caution as the scenario he depicts can be seen in places like Bradford where there is a very real powder keg between different factions and religions. Effectively, all this 'tolerance' has allowed them to make their own rules and cry INTOLERANCE! whenever we try to bring them into line.

If we want to play guardians of the downtrodden that's fine by me. In general I am a samaritan at heart on a one to one basis. However, these people who come to live, work, sponge, seek refuge, whatever must also adopt our culture (football being the exception!) rather than impose theirs on us. The people who were born here, lived all their lives, fought in the Great Wars, given and taken have a right to protect what is theirs also.

Whether you chose to label it as a racist or intolerant view I believe that certain cultures and religions do not mix well. It's a fact borne out over the centuries and it's plain to see. I couldn't care less whether someone is black, white, yellow or green. What I do object to is the kind of imposition placed on me and my territory by a group of people who's religion or culture infringes MY freedom in MY country. Afterall, it is their adoptive country, and therefore its citizens who are helping them in the first place. It seems only fair that they should not seek to make further demands other than purely humanitarian.

I could not, for instance go to a dry Moslem state, erect a catholic church and then say, "My religion requires me to use wine in the service, therefore I am entitled to keep a stock of wine and feed it to my congregation". I don't agree with this policy but if I had to live there I'd live with it; I know the rules before I go in so I either abide by them or suffer the consequences.

I think that the majority of what is being said here - even the first post - is really boiling down to this and so it is a tad reactionary of JPJ to brand us all racists, don't you think?

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 06 June 2001).]

Tartan Gannet
7th Jun 2001, 11:48
Secret Squirrel. One of the best down to earth, no bull**** answers to pious pomposity I have ever read on this topic. I salute you, Sir!

HugMonster
7th Jun 2001, 13:25
I agree, TG. Squirrel, a very good post.

To a certain extent I agree with you. It does seem a nonsense to me that so many people have made this country their home, yet refuse to learn to speak English, insist on creating a little part of their homeland and not mixing at all.

I don't understand why it seems so difficult for some cultures to become part of British culture and still celebrate their origins as well. Having spent some years living in a very different culture in the Caribbean, I found it not in the least hard to enjoy all the colour and local customs, but still stayed very much a European - I got into some very animated and fun discussions in Basil's Bar in Kingstown, St. Vincent, any time England were playing the Windies! (I was quoted once in the local paper - England were doing quite well until Mike Atherton was out stupidly for 40-something - the local paper said "In Basil's Bar, an Englishman said 'Oh noooo - NOW we're in trouble'")

I didn't feel myself to be a Brit first and foremost - just a human being, enjoying the company of anyone, my diet became very Caribbean (ever eaten I-tal food?) and had a Vincentian g/f.

I have to admit that, when wandering through the more remote villages it used to get a bit tiring when hordes of small kids used to run after me shouting "white man, white man!".

I think that the answer lies in the word "conflict". I didn't feel myself and my culture to be in conflict with theirs - I adopted lots of aspects of their culture, and enjoyed it, whilst still BEING what I was. I made no demands that they should change to accommodate me - nor did they demand that I should renounce anything of what I was to live there.

Perhaps real or perceived threat results in conflict, and that conflict results in entrenchment, in lines being drawn...

What's the answer? Dunno. I'm good on theory, lousy on practice - I'm a member of the liberal "intelligentsia"! :)

Tartan Gannet
7th Jun 2001, 13:42
HM, the two words that come to my mind in all of this are MUTUAL RESPECT. Now I am as I have said before, Scots by birth, Ulster Irish Protestant by ancestry, English by adoption having lived in the South East for 30 years, British by legal nationality, European by inclination. I am white, male but respect other's cultures and have even from time to time joined in the festivals of other races and creeds. All I ask is that equal respect be shown to my culture and heritage and that special privileges are NOT granted to those which have come into the UK from afar. When in Rome! If I go to Saudi I dont drink alcohol, I know and respect their culture and its rules. On that tack it did annoy me that during the Gulf War our lads stationed in Saudi were banned from openly celebrating Christmas at their own camp. If I had been the UK Government I would have threatened to pull the chaps out and leave them to the tender mercies of Saddam who was just across the border in Kuwait. As an example of an ethnic/ religious group who do it right I offer you the Jews. They follow their own customs and cultural practices, but make no heavy demands on the British way of life nor ask for special favours and do not riot or engage in protests etc. I commend their example to other groups.

As I have said, if you want respect, SHOW RESPECT!

Tricky Woo
7th Jun 2001, 18:44
Tattered Garment wrote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Tricky Woo is just a wind up merchant with a warped sense of humour and can be safely ignored.</font>

Ahh... a compliment from TG at last.

Winston Smith
7th Jun 2001, 23:34
To be honest, we can consider ourselves lucky with "our" liberals here. At least they appear to be quite civilized in manners, have an orderly way of expressing themselves, and - what is most important - they do not revert to obscenities when confronted with objective arguments as leftists often tend to do. To put it in a nutshell, it is possible to have a stimulating debate with them. - Not so on PPRuNe's smaller German counterpart, pilots.de (which is an excellent forum and news source for the local aviation "scene", notwithstanding the following). Over there, upon the detection of a "thought-crime", a few mentally unbalanced goodthinkers, waiting for an opportunity to show off their orthodoxy ("Liberals" actually LOVE to be offended and indignated, that's what they are trained for), are getting really hysterical. Among those who are not terminally afflicted by this condition, some engage in hand-wringing about life's general nastiness of containing people with heretical opinions, others give detailed expression to their mental anguish induced by having to witness people converse in an offensive way, while the rest are having a lively discussion about the acceptability of having a discussion about the admissibility of having a discussion about anything which is not closely tied to aviation. In the end, it was decreed that "the rules" were to be enforced: off-topic posts are streng verboten. In this sense, I am an "asylum-seeker", too. Please don't turn me back lest I be subjected to the fiendish torture of being flamed which awaits me in my forum of origin. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

So, Unwell_Raptor, JPJ, HugMonster, Tricky Woo, Airbanda, and all the rest: THANKS for simply being there - without you PPRuNe wouldn't be half as much fun! ;)

HugMonster
8th Jun 2001, 00:06
Ummmm - thanks! (I think!) :)

------------------
Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

Velvet
8th Jun 2001, 01:08
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Tricky Woo is just a wind up merchant with a warped sense of humour and can be safely ignored.</font>


Tricky, I love your sense of humour and who could possibly ignore you (as for being safe - huh what a thought). xx


Winston - please stay - you'll love it here. We do!!