Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: eastender on July 11, 2010, 02:07:44 pm
-
It could only happen in this country.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730/Somali-asylum-seeker-family-given-2m-house--complaining-5-bed-London-home-poor-area.html
-
eastender wrote:
It could only happen in this country.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730/Somali-asylum-seeker-family-given-2m-house--complaining-5-bed-London-home-poor-area.html
Thats me packing in work then and getting a nice pad in Bessacarr, thankyou Mr and Mrs Taxpayer.
I don't know if I blame him for being a tosser, or blame the rule makers who allow this to go on.
-
please somebody from the powers that gave the go head for them
to have this nice house remind the family or ask them why they was seeking asylum in the uk in first place
-
I do not think I have ever felt so disgusted with anything in my entire life. My god I am bloody seething!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Disgusting and proves the need for the housing benefit payouts to be capped.
Stick them in a bedsit. It'd still be a palace compared to living in Somalia.
-
Much of this farcical situation of local councils paying out massive rent rebates has to be because of a lack of lower priced social housing.... and why is there such a short fall? because so many bloody council houses have been sold off.
There will always be people who cannot afford to buy their own home, but untill more is done to build up the housing stock stories like this one will continue.
so what part of the story bothers us, as a collective most? the fact that the house is in a well to do area?
That the family didn't want to go somewhere scummy? (and quite frankly I don't blame them, gang problems and child killings are not exactly uncommon in the poorer areas of London are they?)
Or is it more the fact that the family are asylum seekers?
would you be happier if it was Bert and Ada Biggins born within the sound of Bow Bell?
I don't know if it is the same everywhere, but my council will pay housing benefit if you are deemed to be in a house that is the right size for your needs, for example, a couple with one child wouldn't get full housing benefit if they were to move into a five bedroom property.
At the end of the day, ordinary people don't make the rules, if you want to get mad with someone, get mad with the government who almost eradicated social housing and didn't replenish its stocks, and the men and women who decide what is a fair ammout of rebate for each property.
-
Typical Daily Fail shite.
Do me a favour.
-
So you are suggesting it is made up.
-
The most offensive part of the story for me is that it can cost £2 million quid for a terraced house.
No wonder the banks are insolvent.
-
Why grant them asylum in the first place? I'm sick of this country being an open haven for every war torn country. About time we sorted our own problems out and helped out the needy UK citizens.
-
Should asylum seekers not go to the nearest 'safe country'?
If so, how in any way shape or form, do they end up in the UK?
-
Thinwhiteduke wrote:
Should asylum seekers not go to the nearest 'safe country'?
If so, how in any way shape or form, do they end up in the UK?
Because we have a reputation as beeing a kind, compassionate and fair country.
Though with the amount of people that read the Daily Mail that will change.
-
coventryrover wrote:
Thinwhiteduke wrote:
Should asylum seekers not go to the nearest 'safe country'?
If so, how in any way shape or form, do they end up in the UK?
Because we have a reputation as beeing a kind, compassionate and fair country.
Though with the amount of people that read the Daily Mail that will change.
Or, in other words, we're mugs.
-
coventryrover wrote:
Because we have a reputation as being a kind, compassionate and fair country.
Really?
Not because the 'Asylum Seekers' have cottoned on to the fact they get a nice big house, shed loads in benefits, Free appliances for said houses ( I know that happens my Cousin delivers them).
Surely Asylum Seekers should not be 'picking and choosing' which country they would like to reside in. Isnt it enough for them to simply escape their 'life threatening situation'?
coventryrover wrote:
Though with the amount of people that read the Daily Mail that will change.
Oh! And Ive never read/ bought the Daily Mail - but are you seriously saying there is no truth in that story?
-
jucyberry wrote:
so what part of the story bothers us, as a collective most? the fact that the house is in a well to do area?
Or is it more the fact that the family are asylum seekers?
Oh, but they're not. Read it again and get past the Mail's best efforts to represent tham as asylum seekers.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Why grant them asylum in the first place? I'm sick of this country being an open haven for every war torn country. About time we sorted our own problems out and helped out the needy UK citizens.
Surprisingly enough we take very few refugees compared to countries like Canada and Sweden for example, maybe they just don't fancy coming to a country full of bigoted folks whose arms industry seems hell bent on killing them.
-
Yeah. If it saves 0.0000002p off my income tax, I'm fully prepared to send innocent men, women and children to be brutally murdered, raped and tortured.
What a bunch of mugs we are.
-
Just take it as a compliment - people want to come and live in this (\"our\") country because of the weather/culture/road system/benefits...
If you don't like it, move somewhere else...
It could only happen in the Daily Mail.
-
Nope. For centuries we've been far sighted and far seeing. The benefits these guys ultimately bring outweigh all the costs. Who discovered crop rotation? The son of an immigrant. Who developed the original concept of merchant banking? Sons of immigrant Jews. Who helped develop the solution to Enigma? Sons of Poles. Who was our previous Conservative Home secretary but one? Son of an immighrant. The list is endless. They add, vastly, to the intellectual and commercial capital of this country.
BobG
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
so what part of the story bothers us, as a collective most? the fact that the house is in a well to do area?
Or is it more the fact that the family are asylum seekers?
Oh, but they're not. Read it again and get past the Mail's best efforts to represent tham as asylum seekers.
The Mail clearly states that they are 'Former Asylum Seekers'.
However, Id be equally disgusted if they were British, given the fact neither of them Work, the woman in question has never worked and the Bloke is an unemployed bus conductor.
-
5minstogo wrote:
Thats me packing in work then and getting a nice pad in Bessacarr, thankyou Mr and Mrs Taxpayer.
I don't know if I blame him for being a tosser, or blame the rule makers who allow this to go on.
Must admit it is tempting to give up the Job, default on the mortgage and let the state look after me.
the I could sit on my arse all day, drinking cheap booze and watching mind numbing TV watching all the other mugs go out to work to pay for my undeserved life style.
Tempting.....but at the end of the day, my conscience wont let me be a work shy layabout.
-
This one is nearly as good as \"Muslims force blackout at swimming pool\" Which in reality turned out to be \"Council puts tinted film onto windows at ground level after several people complained about being stared at as folks walked by, about half being Muslim and the rest not\". The exaggeration of the rabid rightwing press has to be taken with a very large piece of salt.
-
ok the asylum seeking issue put it this way the family in this
thread claim asylum in the uk after flitting their war torn or whatever country as they fear for their lives
they get given asylum and housed in a so called iffy part of north london.is this part of london war torn....NO....is it safe....alot safer than where they are seeking asylum from....
so the family complain about north london and now want to claim
asylum from north london to any nicer part of london...their claim is processed and passed and move up west to nice safe keningston.
the house they get will be fitted with basic mod cons etc etc
now lets look at a olde fella who fought in second world war for his country,what will he be getting from the state or not getting
type of sums it up dont it
-
Muttley wrote:
Just take it as a compliment - people want to come and live in this (\"our\") country because of the weather/culture/road system/benefits...
If you don't like it, move somewhere else...
It could only happen in the Daily Mail.
Really? It was featured on the London local news also, so evidently not a story made up by the press.
Why should I move somewhere else? I don't agree with the fact that we are spending the best part of ten grand a month on a family that have barely done anything to earn it.
When my nan died, she died in poverty, with barely enough money to heat her home, despite working her whole life. I think people like her are the ones money like this should be going to.
-
He said he found the new house through a friend who knew the landlord, arranged to rent it through an estate agent, then approached officials at Kensington and Chelsea council who said 'it would be no problem' to move.
Rules allow anyone who is eligible for housing benefit to claim for a private property in any part of the country they wish.
The £2,000 per week is paid directly to Mr Nur and his family, who then pay their landlord.
So basically Mr Nur , his so called \"friend\" and the landlord are all on a nice little earner ,taking the piss and flicking the v's at the the tax payers and the local authorities. :angry:
-
(http://ofc.logicaldesignllc.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/face-palm.gif)
I think they're Muslim aswell. They are also to blame for the high crime rates and poor education. Drug abuse is their fault too. What the hell, I bet they're child abductors too.
Daily Fail, they just never give in do they. (http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/forum/smilies/sarcastic_smiley.gif)
-
oslorovers wrote:
ok the asylum seeking issue put it this way the family in this
thread claim asylum in the uk after flitting their war torn or whatever country as they fear for their lives
they get given asylum and housed in a so called iffy part of north london.is this part of london war torn....NO....is it safe....alot safer than where they are seeking asylum from....
so the family complain about north london and now want to claim
asylum from north london to any nicer part of london...their claim is processed and passed and move up west to nice safe keningston.
the house they get will be fitted with basic mod cons etc etc
now lets look at a olde fella who fought in second world war for his country,what will he be getting from the state or not getting
type of sums it up dont it
No, your post type of sums up the reaction the Mail is looking for. Whatever the rules are that have allowed this to happen (and I don't believe that the story hasn't been distorted anyway) would also apply to your 'olde fella', and for the Mail to give the impression that this has all happened because of 'asylum seeking' is disengenuous to say the least.
-
Housing benefit is paid using a standard rent FOR THE AREA, any rent over the top of that the claimant has to pay, not many of the folks I see do that because they can't afford to pay rent and eat as well. I doubt if the Daily Mail reporter is aware or even capable of talking to the man and asking so that they could work out his claim. The myths around benefits are wonderfully manipulated by this type of story to stir up a blame culture which deflects folks from asking about what we are doing to people who are unfortunate enough to be out of work. \"It's obvious isn't it, they are all scroungers\" gives the ignorant a simple answer, which is usually wrong.
Even the Mail reporter says that the benefit is paid to the claimant, who passes it on to the landlord, so who is being greedy?
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
Housing benefit is paid using a standard rent FOR THE AREA, any rent over the top of that the claimant has to pay, not many of the folks I see do that because they can't afford to pay rent and eat as well. I doubt if the Daily Mail reporter is aware or even capable of talking to the man and asking so that they could work out his claim. The myths around benefits are wonderfully manipulated by this type of story to stir up a blame culture which deflects folks from asking about what we are doing to people who are unfortunate enough to be out of work. \"It's obvious isn't it, they are all scroungers\" gives the ignorant a simple answer, which is usually wrong.
Even the Mail reporter says that the benefit is paid to the claimant, who passes it on to the landlord, so who is being greedy?
In certain circumstances, housing benefit will pay more than the standard rate.
I really do wonder why people are trying to defend them or make excuses. They should think themselves lucky that they were granted asylum.
I wish the government would bring in their housing benefit cap sooner than 2012.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
oslorovers wrote:
ok the asylum seeking issue put it this way the family in this
thread claim asylum in the uk after flitting their war torn or whatever country as they fear for their lives
they get given asylum and housed in a so called iffy part of north london.is this part of london war torn....NO....is it safe....alot safer than where they are seeking asylum from....
so the family complain about north london and now want to claim
asylum from north london to any nicer part of london...their claim is processed and passed and move up west to nice safe keningston.
the house they get will be fitted with basic mod cons etc etc
now lets look at a olde fella who fought in second world war for his country,what will he be getting from the state or not getting
type of sums it up dont it
No, your post type of sums up the reaction the Mail is looking for. Whatever the rules are that have allowed this to happen (and I don't believe that the story hasn't been distorted anyway) would also apply to your 'olde fella', and for the Mail to give the impression that this has all happened because of 'asylum seeking' is disengenuous to say the least.
No, the rules aren't the same for everyone. Take this scenario:
Family of 4, Man, Wife and two kids. Have a mortgage and have worked all their lives. They get made redundant, through no fault of their own. They can't pay the mortgage. They are not entitled to housing benefit as they are not renting. Their house gets re-possesed. Now with a shite credit rating, they can't buy or rent privately. Screwed big time.
Now you have a family of asylum seekers. Granted asylum because sending them home would infringe on their human rights. They've never contributed to our society, yet they get put up in a £900 a week house. They don't like this, so they get upgraded to a £2000 a week house, all mod cons, a life of luxury.
Take the two scenario's. Why should this Somalian family be entitled to anything?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Family of 4, Man, Wife and two kids. Have a mortgage and have worked all their lives. They get made redundant, through no fault of their own. They can't pay the mortgage. They are not entitled to housing benefit as they are not renting.
It`s not often I agree with you but I do on this one, When I got made redundant last year and claimed dole for a month, I could n`t get Housing Benefit for my mortgage, even though the mortgage payments are considerably lower than council house rent payments in the area. And I`ve paid into the system all my working life, 31 years!
-
Exactly Filo. It stinks.
It's not the fact that they are asylum seekers (although I would question why they were granted asylum, but that's a seperate matter), I would ask the same question if it was a British family doing the same thing.
-
I get so very frustrated by these kind of stories, they are so rabid and hate filled, which is why I posed my original question. As always the opinion is divided ..the headlines are deliberately designed to stir up hatred and resentment of Daily mail readers two pet hates, foreigners and the poor.
I read the paper on line, as I have said before I treat it as a psudo anthrapological study of the middle class, because as I see it the have's seem to loathe the have not's with a passion.
Being unable to get help with paying a mortgage isn't a new thing, it is terribly unjust I agree, one wonders if it was designed that way so that the state didn't end up buying the long term unemployed's houses for them.
this man wants to work, he is on a training course, he is being proactive, but that doesn't fit in with the picture the DM is trying to portray.
And I tell you for nothing, I am glad we are thought of as being a country that will help people in need, and in danger... those of you who don't like it, would you rather England was a country that WE were all trying to escape from because it is a hell ?
What needs to be sorted is the vast amount of housing stock that is derelict, whole streets that could be made into homes again.
As I have said on another forum, when I die if I am still in this house it will then be given to another young family. That is what these houses were designed for, and if there were still enough of them then problems like this would never arise.
-
jucyberry wrote:
I get so very frustrated by these kind of stories, they are so rabid and hate filled, which is why I posed my original question. As always the opinion is divided ..the headlines are deliberately designed to stir up hatred and resentment of Daily mail readers two pet hates, foreigners and the poor.
I read the paper on line, as I have said before I treat it as a psudo anthrapological study of the middle class, because as I see it the have's seem to loathe the have not's with a passion.
Being unable to get help with paying a mortgage isn't a new thing, it is terribly unjust I agree, one wonders if it was designed that way so that the state didn't end up buying the long term unemployed's houses for them.
this man wants to work, he is on a training course, he is being proactive, but that doesn't fit in with the picture the DM is trying to portray.
And I tell you for nothing, I am glad we are thought of as being a country that will help people in need, and in danger... those of you who don't like it, would you rather England was a country that WE were all trying to escape from because it is a hell ?
What needs to be sorted is the vast amount of housing stock that is derelict, whole streets that could be made into homes again.
As I have said on another forum, when I die if I am still in this house it will then be given to another young family. That is what these houses were designed for, and if there were still enough of them then problems like this would never arise.
I don't agree.
We should stop taking asylum seekers and try and help those in need who have contributed to society.
For those who say they don't come here for the easy ride and benefits, why do they risk life and limb jumping onto lorries at Calais, why not stay in France and see how they get on there?
-
this country rrally is a joke [url]http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/07/06/total-fcuk-and-ups-in-joint-sponsorship-deal-with-england-football-team/[url]
-
MrFrost wrote:
jucyberry wrote:
I get so very frustrated by these kind of stories, they are so rabid and hate filled, which is why I posed my original question. As always the opinion is divided ..the headlines are deliberately designed to stir up hatred and resentment of Daily mail readers two pet hates, foreigners and the poor.
I read the paper on line, as I have said before I treat it as a psudo anthrapological study of the middle class, because as I see it the have's seem to loathe the have not's with a passion.
Being unable to get help with paying a mortgage isn't a new thing, it is terribly unjust I agree, one wonders if it was designed that way so that the state didn't end up buying the long term unemployed's houses for them.
this man wants to work, he is on a training course, he is being proactive, but that doesn't fit in with the picture the DM is trying to portray.
And I tell you for nothing, I am glad we are thought of as being a country that will help people in need, and in danger... those of you who don't like it, would you rather England was a country that WE were all trying to escape from because it is a hell ?
What needs to be sorted is the vast amount of housing stock that is derelict, whole streets that could be made into homes again.
As I have said on another forum, when I die if I am still in this house it will then be given to another young family. That is what these houses were designed for, and if there were still enough of them then problems like this would never arise.
I don't agree.
We should stop taking asylum seekers and try and help those in need who have contributed to society.
For those who say they don't come here for the easy ride and benefits, why do they risk life and limb jumping onto lorries at Calais, why not stay in France and see how they get on there?
I didn't think you would..
-
I'm sorry, I wish we could help every Tom, Dick and Harry that border jumps into the country and give them a safe place to live, a nice house, food and water. It would be fantastic.
But this is the real world. Shit happens. We can't help every human being that is unfortunate to come from a war zone. We have enough problems of our own in this country, and they are adding to it. Some will be here in genuine fear, I accept that, but many come here to abuse the benefit system.
-
This discussion has floundered way off tangent I think. As always the DM has gleefully trumpeted the two things that get middle englands blood boiling. For me as I have already stated the better question would be when is something going to be done to sort out the social housing situation. Remove the lack of this commodity and you will remove the need for such huge amounts of housing benefits being paid.
Blame the sucessive governments, blame the councils, they are the ones you should be looking to.
totally inept most of the time.
I will give you an example. When I divorced, my kids were nine and eleven.. at the time I worked part time, and so was entitled to full housing benefit. the chance came for me to become full time, which naturally I jumped at, notifying the council right away that my circumstances had changed. ( I have always had a healthy terror of doing the wrong thing)..
anyway, I waited, and waited for my ajustments to be made, but nothing. so I rang, oh yes I was told, we have a bit of a back log don't worry....this went on for weeks.. I rang again and again, until finally I was told that because of a system failure I now owed over £500 in unpaid rent, even tho I had done the right thing, and kept in touch with them througout.
they got it back £5 a month, because I was damned if I was going to banckrupt myself over their mistakes.
-
jucyberry wrote:
when is something going to be done to sort out the social housing situation. Remove the lack of this commodity and you will remove the need for such huge amounts of housing benefits being paid.
A legacy of the previous Tory government, selling off the council housing stock!
-
Exactly.
-
I thought the Tories would somehow get the blame..........
-
Well, you cannot deny they began the rot.
Those houses were built for a reason and should never ever have been sold off.
-
MrFrost wrote:
I thought the Tories would somehow get the blame..........
The fact is, Thatcher`s Government introduced the \"Right to buy\" scheme, as jucy says, those houses were owned and built by the council`s for a reason. I`m not having a go at the folk that bought their homes under this scheme, if I liked where i lived and was offered my Council house at a discounted rate, then I would have bought as well. The fact is these houses should never have been sold off, but then again the Tories sell everything off don`t they?
-
I remember years ago when the scheme first came out, my parents could have bought their home for £6,000 they didn't I am very glad to say. and not because they didn't like where they lived, or because they couldn't, but because my dad didn't feel it was right. Wise man my dad.
Differnt strokes for different folks I guess. You can't take it with you when you go after all.
To come full circle, if we had the stock needed in social dwellings, there would be far less need for cases that grab the headlines such as this one.
And to add insult to injury, this being a costal area, many villages around me have ex council houses left empty most of the year because they have been snapped up for holiday homes... and don't even get me started on that one!
-
jucyberry wrote:
I remember years ago when the scheme first came out, my parents could have bought their home for £6,000 they didn't I am very glad to say. and not because they didn't like where they lived, or because they couldn't, but because my dad didn't feel it was right. Wise man my dad.
Differnt strokes for different folks I guess. You can't take it with you when you go after all.
To come full circle, if we had the stock needed in social dwellings, there would be far less need for cases that grab the headlines such as this one.
And to add insult to injury, this being a costal area, many villages around me have ex council houses left empty most of the year because they have been snapped up for holiday homes... and don't even get me started on that one!
Ok, look at the flip side. Many people simply wouldn't have been able to get on the property ladder with out the right to buy scheme.
Going back to the family in question. Why the need to move to a better area of London. They should have been grateful for what they had. There will have been many people living in this so called bad are that have worked hard, paid taxes etc, but that is the only area they can afford to live. Why should this family have the right to demand a better area? Like I said, it will have been a palace compared to where they lived in Somalia no doubt.
-
\"Don't hate the player(s) MrFrost, hate the game\"
http://www.metrolyrics.com/dont-hate-the-playa-lyrics-ice-t.html
B)
-
Ah yes, we should all be very grateful... How very Victorian.
so, what is your suggestion, commandeer a field and throw up a few mud huts so they are in familiar surroundings? I take it that is your view of their part of the world?
Whilst we are at it, let the buggers eat gruel , or I know , why dont we slap up a few workhouses, it's all very in keeping with that ethos after all.
-
And what is your suggestion? Harbor every single person who flee's to this country. Provide them all with houses and benefits that the state pays for? No wonder this country is in such a financial mess.
Don't grant them asylum, make it more difficult. France have the right approach. They cant claim anything for 6 months while they're claims is lodged. Here in Britain they can claim as soon as they hit Dover.
Like I said, my own nan didn't have a penney to her name when she died, worked her whole life and got no help from the state. We should look after our own citizens first and foremost.
We don;t live in a perfect world. It's sad they come from third world, war torn countries, but those were the cards they were dealt. We do not have a responsibility to them.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Ok, look at the flip side. Many people simply wouldn't have been able to get on the property ladder with out the right to buy scheme.
In practice, that was my parents situation, and ultimately thanks to the fact they could buy their home via that scheme they slowly saved, sold for profit, able to give me and my sister a better education therefore leading to myself and my sister having reasonably well paid jobs - able to buy our own homes. Without that scheme, the likelihood is my parents would have struggled to provide much of anything for us.
So to a degree a agree with the 'Right to buy' scheme, but I equally see how this has contributed to a lack of social housing. Its a double edged sword.
MrFrost wrote:
Going back to the family in question. Why the need to move to a better area of London. They should have been grateful for what they had. There will have been many people living in this so called bad are that have worked hard, paid taxes etc, but that is the only area they can afford to live. Why should this family have the right to demand a better area? Like I said, it will have been a palace compared to where they lived in Somalia no doubt.
I agree they should have been kept in the area they were intially allocated, after all the property was adequate.
The issue should have been sorting out what made the area 'Bad' and bringing that to a better standard. After all, someone else is going to move into that area now - possibly an OAP, possibly some Young single mother.
Whatever differentiates good and bad, do something to level out the playing field.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
oslorovers wrote:
ok the asylum seeking issue put it this way the family in this
thread claim asylum in the uk after flitting their war torn or whatever country as they fear for their lives
they get given asylum and housed in a so called iffy part of north london.is this part of london war torn....NO....is it safe....alot safer than where they are seeking asylum from....
so the family complain about north london and now want to claim
asylum from north london to any nicer part of london...their claim is processed and passed and move up west to nice safe keningston.
the house they get will be fitted with basic mod cons etc etc
now lets look at a olde fella who fought in second world war for his country,what will he be getting from the state or not getting
type of sums it up dont it
No, your post type of sums up the reaction the Mail is looking for. Whatever the rules are that have allowed this to happen (and I don't believe that the story hasn't been distorted anyway) would also apply to your 'olde fella', and for the Mail to give the impression that this has all happened because of 'asylum seeking' is disengenuous to say the least.
No, the rules aren't the same for everyone. Take this scenario:
Family of 4, Man, Wife and two kids. Have a mortgage and have worked all their lives. They get made redundant, through no fault of their own. They can't pay the mortgage. They are not entitled to housing benefit as they are not renting. Their house gets re-possesed. Now with a shite credit rating, they can't buy or rent privately. Screwed big time.
Now you have a family of asylum seekers. Granted asylum because sending them home would infringe on their human rights. They've never contributed to our society, yet they get put up in a £900 a week house. They don't like this, so they get upgraded to a £2000 a week house, all mod cons, a life of luxury.
Take the two scenario's. Why should this Somalian family be entitled to anything?
Fcuk having two different scenarios, that's typical BNP tactics. Hows about we stick to the same scenario, hmm?
If the people in question were you and your family, wouldn't the same loophole be available to you? Or are you honestly trying to tell us they've only got this because they were former asylum seekers?
-
If you read my posts, you would see that I said I would have the same opinion if it was a British family raping the system.
My argument on asylum seekers is something different all together.
There are different scenario's and proves how the system is flawed. That was my point. Can you not grasp that?
-
MrFrost wrote:
If you read my posts, you would see that I said I would have the same opinion if it was a British family raping the system.
My argument on asylum seekers is something different all together.
There are different scenario's and proves how the system is flawed. That was my point. Can you not grasp that?
Yeah right. I can just see you frothing at the mouth over a headline saying 'Family exploits loophole available to all'.
If I read you right, you agree that it's the system you object to - so you'd also agree that the people concerned being immigrants is completely irrelevant. Now explain why the Daily Mail banged on about such an irrelevance so much?
-
Rape.... rather a strong word to be bandied about isn't it? A word that means to be taken by force or against will.
a very Daily Mail journalistic type emotive word that is totally suggestive.
this family isn't raping anything, or any one. If anyone is abusing the system it is the greedy landlords charging such extortionate rents. and I take it the family man in the generic nuclear family unit would be a white indidgenous male?
My grandmother also worked all her life, was raised in the workhouse at Grantham..the daughter of a miner, she also died dirt poor....So what?
The poor after all go some way to out number the rich, but does that mean their worth is only in what they can provide as a political sound byte?
-
jucyberry wrote:
Rape.... rather a strong word to be bandied about isn't it? A word that means to be taken by force or against will.
a very Daily Mail journalistic type emotive word that is totally suggestive.
this family isn't raping anything, or any one. If anyone is abusing the system it is the greedy landlords charging such extortionate rents. and I take it the family man in the generic nuclear family unit would be a white indidgenous male?
My grandmother also worked all her life, was raised in the workhouse at Grantham..the daughter of a miner, she also died dirt poor....So what?
The poor after all go some way to out number the rich, but does that mean their worth is only in what they can provide as a political sound byte?
Not only that, but it appears that Mr Frost counts peoples' rights based on their contribution to the state.
Surely that would mean that a 16-year-old immigrant would have more rights than a 16-year-old school-leaver born and bred in this country.
True, neither have made any contribution to the state, but at least the immigrant hasn't taken cash out of the system in free schooling, child benefit, NHS costs etc. Now then...which of them, in Mr Frost's Perfect World is more entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance if they haven't got a job?
-
There is a Utopia where there is no taking from the state, no foreigners/ spongers/ single parents/ et al.
It lives in the minds of the shallow, self obsessed I'm alright jack land of people like the journalists and commentators in papers like the Daily mail.
It is perpetuated by those who believe the headlines and don't try to see through them to the real story and therefore the true agenda of those who publish them.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
If you read my posts, you would see that I said I would have the same opinion if it was a British family raping the system.
My argument on asylum seekers is something different all together.
There are different scenario's and proves how the system is flawed. That was my point. Can you not grasp that?
Yeah right. I can just see you frothing at the mouth over a headline saying 'Family exploits loophole available to all'.
If I read you right, you agree that it's the system you object to - so you'd also agree that the people concerned being immigrants is completely irrelevant. Now explain why the Daily Mail banged on about such an irrelevance so much?
Personally, if it was me, I wouldn't demand my family be moved to an exclusive area of London. I'd deal with the problems on my doorstep rather than run away from them.
I do not agree with the system. Well done for working that out. Neither do I agree with the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers. I'll brace myself for the BNP comments.
-
I wouldn't want to deal with anything in the heart of London. I certainly wouldn't want to live somewhere that my boy would either be a victim of, or be a member of a gang, because if you aren't in one you are something to be exterminated.
-
Like I pointed out earlier, there are probably plenty of people living in this area of London who don't have the luxury of being able to demand a move to an up market part of the city. Yet this family were able to pull it off.
Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Like I pointed out earlier, there are probably plenty of people living in this area of London who don't have the luxury of being able to demand a move to an up market part of the city. Yet this family were able to pull it off.
Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia.
If an 'indigeanous' family had managed to 'pull it off' and better their living surrounding, would you be saying that they should have been grateful that they were already living in better conditions than Somalia?
Or should only those immigrants who ought to be grateful for any old shit we deign to give them and shut up about it be slapped down for daring to do such a thing?
Good God, I've been watching programmes from South Africa for the past month showing how people have progressed since the abolition of apartheid, and there are people in this country wanting to impose what amounts to first- and second-class citizenship in THIS country. :side:
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Like I pointed out earlier, there are probably plenty of people living in this area of London who don't have the luxury of being able to demand a move to an up market part of the city. Yet this family were able to pull it off.
Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia.
If an 'indigeanous' family had managed to 'pull it off' and better their living surrounding, would you be saying that they should have been grateful that they were already living in better conditions than Somalia?
Or should only those immigrants who ought to be grateful for any old shit we deign to give them and shut up about it be slapped down for daring to do such a thing?
Good God, I've been watching programmes from South Africa for the past month showing how people have progressed since the abolition of apartheid, and there are people in this country wanting to impose what amounts to first- and second-class citizenship in THIS country. :side:
You obviously can't understand my point.
I wonder what will happen to this family once the much needed cap on housing benefit is introduced. They wouldn't even be able to live where they used to.
-
iam on same side of fence as mr frost on this one as i
belive in that saying charity begins at home
why should somebody or family never worked or lived so paid tax in the uk,appear on the british shore line and get given a
top notch house with amply mod coms thrown in.
i have no problem them getting a house with amply mod coms
but a 2million pound house is just wrong.
dont give me that b*llocks do i read the dail mail or am i bnp ....iam just a chap who has a opinion.
gets on me tits when plums try to accuse you of been national front or bnp on just on the basis your thoughts are opposite to theirs
-
\"Many people simply wouldn't have been able to get on the property ladder with out the right to buy scheme\".
\"Provide them all with houses and benefits that the state pays for? No wonder this country is in such a financial mess\".
\"Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia\".
I'm absolutely fascinated by these, and many other, posts of the same ilk - the dragging in of extraneous and irrelevant arguments to support a position that is morally insupportable; bringing in ewmotion (my old man couldn't have bought a house...); drag in as a buttress an utterly unrelated, and unsupported statement about the national finances; drag in a completely fanciful personal theory along the way too, the details of which circumstance I notice not even the puerile Mail went into.
I've never seen a better argument for benevolent despotism than this thread. Or maybe even plain old despotism to be honest. It's frightening. It really is. That opinions like these can be held, with conviction, in this day and age is plain scary when we are supposedly, educated people with an ability to think with our brains rather than with our emotions.
BobG
-
I noticed this thread was getting a lot of hits so thought I ought to check it out. Did a quick internet search to see more about and ..... nothing, only the DM is running it, hmmm.
OK so supposing it is true, I cant really be bothered to read through 5 pages of comment on it to see who is saying what and whose grandma lived in the biggest cardboard box (one side of my family came over after the Irish famine, many others didnt make it - the other side was forced off their 'land' and liveliehood as were many other IoA families following Vermuyden), change, hardship, poverty, war, people move or stay for various reasons, some are welcome and contribute to the community and some dont. So just for my interest would anybody care to reply as to why this story is so objectionable, is it:
because the family are not british (am I - is the Queen - are you if you go back far enough)?
because they are black?
because they are refugees?
because you dont believe they are refugees?
because they live in a posh house?
because they live in a posh house and you dont?
because they moved from one area of London to another?
because Boris Johnson's social services dept gave them a posh house?
because prior to them moving in the rent for this house was £1050 and is rented out to them at £2000?
because there are areas of London it is unsafe to live in?
because they are ungrateful for leaving all their friends & family behind in a village of mud huts (very nice mud huts if you are Somali pirate btw)?
there are better things to spend the money on?
or if you want my view whilst you are pondering all or none of these, I subscribe to this comment I found on another forum on the topic
who gives a f**k anyway. poor people live in a big house with rich neighbours.. another non story
-
Another thing that gets me is the assumptions about the families decor, they have a big t.v and nice rugs and pot plants. So A, some snouty bas**rd has been peering through their windows,
and B, the opinion is fosterd that they have these things because they are on benefits. Mr Nur had been in work , at the same time he would have been entitled to working family tax credits, as do the majority of people with kids who might not like this story. On a large family such as theirs, seven kids under 16 i believe, that is a lot of perfectly legal credits. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that their furnishings were purchaced then........
But that doesn't read so well as how very dare they be immigrant scroungers taking money of us jolly Englanders does it?
-
Could they simply not move them to Barnet or Watford? The point is, why does ANYBODY on benefits deserve a £2mil house which costs the taxpayer £8k a month. It's not the fact of WHO is in that big f**k off house, it's the astronomical rent that needs paying.
-
BobG wrote:
\"Many people simply wouldn't have been able to get on the property ladder with out the right to buy scheme\".
\"Provide them all with houses and benefits that the state pays for? No wonder this country is in such a financial mess\".
\"Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia\".
I'm absolutely fascinated by these, and many other, posts of the same ilk - the dragging in of extraneous and irrelevant arguments to support a position that is morally insupportable; bringing in ewmotion (my old man couldn't have bought a house...); drag in as a buttress an utterly unrelated, and unsupported statement about the national finances; drag in a completely fanciful personal theory along the way too, the details of which circumstance I notice not even the puerile Mail went into.
I've never seen a better argument for benevolent despotism than this thread. Or maybe even plain old despotism to be honest. It's frightening. It really is. That opinions like these can be held, with conviction, in this day and age is plain scary when we are supposedly, educated people with an ability to think with our brains rather than with our emotions.
BobG
The walking thesaurus again.
I'll just be blunt. No beating around the bush. Anyone who thinks its ok for this family (or any other) to be getting an 8k a month house paid for by the tax payer. is a pillock.
-
jucyberry wrote:
Another thing that gets me is the assumptions about the families decor, they have a big t.v and nice rugs and pot plants. So A, some snouty bas**rd has been peering through their windows,
and B, the opinion is fosterd that they have these things because they are on benefits. Mr Nur had been in work , at the same time he would have been entitled to working family tax credits, as do the majority of people with kids who might not like this story. On a large family such as theirs, seven kids under 16 i believe, that is a lot of perfectly legal credits. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that their furnishings were purchaced then........
But that doesn't read so well as how very dare they be immigrant scroungers taking money of us jolly Englanders does it?
7 kids. Tax credits should stop after your first three kids IMO. Take the family reported not long back, who have 8 kids, and the only reason they keep having kids is for more benefits.
-
Rather a pillock than a self reightous , bombastic know not as much as we could type... Not that we know any of them of course.... ;)
Perhaps it is the RENT not the rebates that need capping. After all, landlords seem to be able to charge what they want don't they?
Righty ho, I'm off to bed, my taxes don't earn themselves you know....Nighty night boys...lol.x
-
jucyberry wrote:
Rather a pillock than a self reightous , bombastic know not as much as we could type... Not that we know any of them of course.... ;)
Perhaps it is the RENT not the rebates that need capping. After all, landlords seem to be able to charge what they want don't they?
Righty ho, I'm off to bed, my taxes don't earn themselves you know....Nighty night boys...lol.x
Landlords are owners of the property are they not. It is the government that are stupid enough to pay the rent that they set. Not for much longer thank God.
-
More from the Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293929/Council-kick-asylum-seeker-2m-house-say-neighbours.html)
So the blokes been working and paying taxes in the UK for the past 12 years and as I understand it is entitled to (if he hasn't already) citizenship.
-
The original story said that one of the reasons for the move was due to it being nearer a school as taking the kids on the bus was too much hassle.
It didn't actually specify what problems the family had with the local area. I'm guessing they were probably non existant.
-
Every time Mr Frost comes up against a debate where his views prove unacceptable to others, he resorts to abuse. That's why I think I'm in favour of despotism of another kind.
Think on this Mr Frost: the last Conservative Home Secretary but one was the son of immigrants; the designer of the Mini, Sir Alec Issigonis, was an immigrant; both the two major newspaper proprietors of the 1980's were immigrants, one of them still is; Winston Churchill was the son of an immigrant. I could list hundreds and hundreds. As well as being a thesaurus, I have a brain and I know how to use it. I know that this country would lose half its intellectual and commercial capital if it did not allow immigrants on to its shores.
BobG
-
Snods Shinpad 2 wrote:
More from the Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293929/Council-kick-asylum-seeker-2m-house-say-neighbours.html)
So the blokes been working and paying taxes in the UK for the past 12 years and as I understand it is entitled to (if he hasn't already) citizenship.
Ah, but he's an asylum seeker, dontcha know, that means he's not entitled to what the rest of us are, he should be just damn grateful to be allowed to breath British air. :side:
-
MrFrost wrote:
The original story said that one of the reasons for the move was due to it being nearer a school as taking the kids on the bus was too much hassle.
It didn't actually specify what problems the family had with the local area. I'm guessing they were probably non existant.
A non-existant story in the Daily Mail? Perish the thought!
-
This country is a joke is the title of this thread, I have recently moved back to UK and all the time i was in germany i paid tax to HM government so feel I haave a right to say how the money i pay is spent. If the family have managed to exploit a loophole then fairplay to them it isn't their fault the loophole exists, its the people who came up with the legislation, don't blame the player blame the game, as for the immigration bit the UK is built on asylum both my mothers parents were immigrants and they both served this country during WW2 and my grandad in the army following the war, would the people adsvocating throwing immigrants out throw my gran out of the country. thought not.
the country is propped up by immigration with economic migrants (and that is what most immigrants are) doing jobs that english people think are below them. The country is a joke but its these people who read the daily mail and get terrified at the prospect of this evil asylum seeker who will rape and murder their entire family because of this rag of a newspaper talking about it everyday in massive headlines.
Give me a country full of immigrants before a country full of ignorant work shy lay abouts any day
-
He probably doesn't want to to be honest Glyn. Too much hot air around altogether.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
The original story said that one of the reasons for the move was due to it being nearer a school as taking the kids on the bus was too much hassle.
It didn't actually specify what problems the family had with the local area. I'm guessing they were probably non existant.
A non-existant story in the Daily Mail? Perish the thought!
Ignorance and denial pal. The story does exist.
Another thought...........where is the incentive now for this guy to get a job. He gets a job, his housing benefit is cut. Goodbye £2million house.
He also has had 7 children when he couldn't possibly financially cope with them. I wonder how much tax credits he is claiming in addition to the 8k a month.
I'm sorry, but if this guy is any kind of father it is his duty to provide for his children. If he chooses to have 7 kids, then he should have the means to feed them. He lost his job 18 month ago. Could he not get agency work? Even on a temp basis would be better than nothing.
And this has nothing to do with the country he comes from. I would have the same opinion of anyone in the same position.
My thoughts on asylum are completely seperate to this case.
-
Inflation must have shot up since I last took notice of what our beloved Government are doimg. £8K a week now? f**k me!
Still, not to worry. We can let those children starve. That'll put the economy right and it won't hurt anybody that matters will it?
BobG
-
You have to ask the question why he had 7 children without the means to provide for his family. Maybe because he knew the state would pay for it all?
I've got a young family, work 13 hours a day alot of the time. The Mrs works aswell. We have to pay our rent, bills, childcare. We don't have the luxury of housing benefit and it is a fcucking struggle.
You take people like this guy, he has worked for a few years granted, but spat out kids to fund his mod cons and his now luxourious pad.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
The original story said that one of the reasons for the move was due to it being nearer a school as taking the kids on the bus was too much hassle.
It didn't actually specify what problems the family had with the local area. I'm guessing they were probably non existant.
A non-existant story in the Daily Mail? Perish the thought!
Ignorance and denial pal. The story does exist.
Another thought...........where is the incentive now for this guy to get a job. He gets a job, his housing benefit is cut. Goodbye £2million house.
He also has had 7 children when he couldn't possibly financially cope with them. I wonder how much tax credits he is claiming in addition to the 8k a month.
I'm sorry, but if this guy is any kind of father it is his duty to provide for his children. If he chooses to have 7 kids, then he should have the means to feed them. He lost his job 18 month ago. Could he not get agency work? Even on a temp basis would be better than nothing.
And this has nothing to do with the country he comes from. I would have the same opinion of anyone in the same position.
My thoughts on asylum are completely seperate to this case.
At least read the blasted article. He is doing that. He is trying. And he wont be in recipt of working tax credits now. He will recieve only the child tax credit element now. Not that I feel that is anyones business but his quite frankly.
-
jucyberry wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
The original story said that one of the reasons for the move was due to it being nearer a school as taking the kids on the bus was too much hassle.
It didn't actually specify what problems the family had with the local area. I'm guessing they were probably non existant.
A non-existant story in the Daily Mail? Perish the thought!
Ignorance and denial pal. The story does exist.
Another thought...........where is the incentive now for this guy to get a job. He gets a job, his housing benefit is cut. Goodbye £2million house.
He also has had 7 children when he couldn't possibly financially cope with them. I wonder how much tax credits he is claiming in addition to the 8k a month.
I'm sorry, but if this guy is any kind of father it is his duty to provide for his children. If he chooses to have 7 kids, then he should have the means to feed them. He lost his job 18 month ago. Could he not get agency work? Even on a temp basis would be better than nothing.
And this has nothing to do with the country he comes from. I would have the same opinion of anyone in the same position.
My thoughts on asylum are completely seperate to this case.
At least read the blasted article. He is doing that. He is trying. And he wont be in recipt of working tax credits now. He will recieve only the child tax credit element now. Not that I feel that is anyones business but his quite frankly.
b*llocks to that love. If my taxes are funding his life, then I feel it is my business to know what he is and isn't claiming.
Lets face it, they have come here, bred like mice and are now taking the piss. Roll on the £400 per week housing benefit cap.
-
Maybe mate. Maybe. But it neither sounds right from you not does you any credit either when earlier in this thread you wrote:
\"Now you have a family of asylum seekers. Granted asylum because sending them home would infringe on their human rights. They've never contributed to our society, yet they get put up in a £900 a week house\".
Note the first part of the final sentence. I'm afraid you change your story every time someone points out the errors in the previous version. It's why we all delight so much in winding you up. You're easy, and you have no credibility at all. Stop digging holes ever deeper for a bit and have a think about how to present an argument. I'm not being sarky here. I admire your passion. But you really do have to learn about the research, the consistency and the presentation of an argument. Ask Billy for some advice. He's good at it.
Cheers
BobG
-
MrFrost wrote:
b*llocks to that love. If my taxes are funding his life, then I feel it is my business to know what he is and isn't claiming.
Lets face it, they have come here, bred like mice and are now taking the piss. Roll on the £400 per week housing benefit cap.
I think this last quote sums you up perfectly MrFrost. :thumbdown:
-
MrFrost wrote:
but spat out kids to fund his mod cons and his now luxourious pad.
Jesus. :laugh:
How the hell do you know this? Do you know this bloke personally or something?
Sounds like you think this would be a good idea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization)
-
MrFrost wrote:
b*llocks to that love. If my taxes are funding his life, then I feel it is my business to know what he is and isn't claiming.[/quote]
Ooh goody. That means that because I'm funding your Child Benefit, I have the right to know all your private stuff. Yippee.
-
BobG wrote:
Maybe mate. Maybe. But it neither sounds right from you not does you any credit either when earlier in this thread you wrote:
\"Now you have a family of asylum seekers. Granted asylum because sending them home would infringe on their human rights. They've never contributed to our society, yet they get put up in a £900 a week house\".
Note the first part of the final sentence. I'm afraid you change your story every time someone points out the errors in the previous version. It's why we all delight so much in winding you up. You're easy, and you have no credibility at all. Stop digging holes ever deeper for a bit and have a think about how to present an argument. I'm not being sarky here. I admire your passion. But you really do have to learn about the research, the consistency and the presentation of an argument. Ask Billy for some advice. He's good at it.
Cheers
BobG
Bob, my thoughts on asylum are as I have pointed out, however I am trying to seperate the two for now, as this, after thought, isn't a question of where they come from.
All parties are to blame here. The family, the council, the landlord. It stinks. There is no way, at all, anyone should be able to claim that amount of money for a home. You cannot justify it. Hence the caps due to be brought in.
Back to asylum. I believe it is too easy to:
1. Gain entry to the UK
2. Be granted asylum
3. Disapear into the woodwork if you are refused asylum
4. Cry human rights
5. Come here with the sole intention of starting a family and claiming benefits (which some will do. Not all but some)
On the flip side, immigration has its benefits. Alot are hard working decent people, and do jobs that alot of Brits wouldn't dream of doing. You cant stop immigration, nor would I want it to. But it has to be controlled alot better.
-
Snods Shinpad 2 wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
but spat out kids to fund his mod cons and his now luxourious pad.
Jesus. :laugh:
How the hell do you know this? Do you know this bloke personally or something?
Sounds like you think this would be a good idea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization)
Of course he doesn't know it, but then he hasn't reasd the bit about the bloke only having been out of work for the last 18 months. Unless he somehow thinks his missus has somehow spat out seven sprogs in that time just to bump up the benefits. :side:
-
As I implied a little earlier, I reckon Mr Frost could be a damn good speaker. He has the passion, the strength of mind and the vigour that are all needed. But nicking crap like that from the BNP/Daily Mail/Middle England handbook on 'Handy myths with which to abuse foreigners', precisely shows why he never will be. It's facts that win debates. Not unthinking rhetoric. All that does is destroy your credibility. Tell you what Mr Frost, how about I join your side of the debate for a while?
BobG
-
I bet he believes all the crap 'Eurobureaucracy' stories the Mail/Express/Sun prints too.
-
Bob, I have took the story of this family and come to my conclusions myself regarding his intentions, and I believe he is playing the system to his own end. A shed load of kids, wanting to move to a better house. He obviously knew it would work, and you have to wonder wether the landlord of the property is a personal friend of his and in on the whole scheme.
I have many opinions regarding asylum, religion etc. Many would probably cause offence, and I would be labelled as some kind of BNP candidate. I'm better at putting my point across while talking than writing on a forum. I get writers block!
-
I hate to disrupt the flow of the argument with a few facts, but I thought this may be of interest:
Home Office: Rules for asylum (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/accommodation/)
If you are homeless or without money to buy food (we call this 'destitute') you may qualify for housing provided by us. If you do, we will give you somewhere to live in a place where suitable housing is available. You will not be able to choose where this is. We will provide transport to take you there.
We provide housing in the following regions of the United Kingdom:
north west;
midlands;
north east;
Wales; and
Scotland.
We will not provide housing in London.
-
You could easily be right about the motives of any single individual Mr Frost. Of course that's a real possibility. But to generalise from one particular incident is a dangerous game. Yes. There are cheats and slackers. But then, there are home grown cheats and slackers too. If we acept that some asylum seekers are on the lookout for a good time at our expense, you cannot avoid also concluding that it is also entirely logical that some asylum seekers are good guys, doing their best under difficult circumstances. As I have suggested above, some, (I'd think quite a lot, though without evidence :) ) of those guys do end up doing positive good for this country. You won't see that good in one year or even 10 years. But I remember the Ugandan Asians being thrown out by Idi Amin. Many, many of them came here - totally penniless. Yet today they employ hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British people. They pay vast amounts of tax. They contribute to the life of this country. You sow a little seed corn - and then you help it grow. Imagine, if we'd barred immigrants, Winston Churchill would not have been born. Immigration has its drawbacks, of course it does, but no immigration has bigger ones.
One final thought: I don't have any figures to hand, but have a guess at which country in the world has given other countries more immigrants than any other? I think it's us. If you ban immigration, are you going to ban emigration as well?
Cheers
BobG
-
Bob, I never suggested banning immigration, and I am fully aware that there are also home grown cheats. I know a few personally.
I'm all for a diverse nation, but at the same time keeping our culture, freedom and way of life. Its getting the balance right.
For example, some towns and cities are over run by immigrants and foriegners. I'll use Luton as an example. You can understand why there is such a frustration, and in some cases racial hatred. It can be quite intimidating walking down the street, and finding yourself surrounded by muslims for example.
I believe the influx of immigrants over the last 10-15 years has happened too quickly, and we haven't been able to mix and learn how to live together as a whole.
Its a very touchy subject, and for one there is no real solution.
-
Remind me again, cos I forget easily. I've asked this one a dozen times but I can never remember any of the multitude of well thought-out answers:
What IS \"our culture\" exactly?
-
Snods Shinpad 2 wrote:
I hate to disrupt the flow of the argument with a few facts, but I thought this may be of interest:
Home Office: Rules for asylum (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/accommodation/)
If you are homeless or without money to buy food (we call this 'destitute') you may qualify for housing provided by us. If you do, we will give you somewhere to live in a place where suitable housing is available. You will not be able to choose where this is. We will provide transport to take you there.
We provide housing in the following regions of the United Kingdom:
north west;
midlands;
north east;
Wales; and
Scotland.
We will not provide housing in London.
No answer to this Mr.Frost, but then why let facts get in the way of a good story eh? Maybe you work for the Daily Mail.
-
So you are seriously suggesting this family have not been given a house in London. Oh dear you really are deluded.
And if you really need our culture explaining then you must be a bit simple. But anyway here are a few pointers.
Our language
The festivals we celebrate
Our history
Our heritage
Our freedom and democracy
Or perhaps we should forget it all in favour of something such as Sharia law.
-
Our language - a bas**rdisation of Latin, Greek, Saxon, Norse etc
The festivals we celebrate - like Christmas, in celebration of a bloke who may, or may not, have been born 2000 years ago in the Middle East (and the dates of which the Romans apparently moved to coincide with existing pagan cermonies) and popularised by the German Royal family or Mother's Day - invented by the American greeting card industry, or St Valentine's Day named after a Roman Christian martyr...or are you talking about Glastonbury, Reading, Leeds etc ;)
Our history - see above, this island has been invaded and conquered many times over the years, each time changing the culture, language, festivals etc a little bit to result in what we have now...and it will keep on changing as new influences arrive, whether that is as immigrants from other parts of the world or films and music from America etc
Our heritage - like that castle at Conisbrough that the Normans built, or the nice German family that live at Buckingham palace?
Our freedom and democracy - agreed!
-
It looks like there on there way out as the red tops get on their case.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/144140/BENEFITS-FAMILY-EVICTED/
-
dont forget what happens today plays a massive part in the
english/british culture
going to the football,rugby,horse racing or fishing
music creation bands songs etc etc
sunday dinner
the local pub....albeit thats on its arse
fish and chips and now curry
i could go on but culture is just as much in the past as the present.
in 40 years time 1 in 5 of the uk population will be from ethnic origin...source was sky news today.... that is a tad worrying for all the wrong reasons.
what worrys me the most is not 40 years time but 100years time as to what state will the uk be in now?
ok i will be 6ft under but me kids kids will be in their prime.
with all the influx of some many different ethnic origins wrong or right down the line the whole culture way of living of the uk will be diluted down and not be able to be brought back to the extent that the ethnics will not see the uk as such a atractive place/heaven
-
MrFrost wrote:
And if you really need our culture explaining then you must be a bit simple. But anyway here are a few pointers.
Our language
The festivals we celebrate
Our history
Our heritage
Our freedom and democracy
And if you think any one of those are 'under threat' from immigrants, you are extremely simple.
C'mon, examples. I bet they're tabloid scare stories that people are stupid enough to believe.
And I'll tell you a bigger threat to all those elements of our culture, and it's absolutely nothing to do with immigration. I won't tell you now, I'll let you try to work it out.
-
eastender wrote:
It looks like there on there way out as the red tops get on their case.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/144140/BENEFITS-FAMILY-EVICTED/
So the kids are going to be evicted and probably have to leave the good school they now attend, but this is alright as the right wing press can claim they are fighting for british culture, makes me ashamed to be english
-
German Rover wrote:
eastender wrote:
It looks like there on there way out as the red tops get on their case.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/144140/BENEFITS-FAMILY-EVICTED/
So the kids are going to be evicted and probably have to leave the good school they now attend, but this is alright as the right wing press can claim they are fighting for british culture, makes me ashamed to be english
Why should they be put up in a posh school? What was wrong with their last school. The fact that they had to catch the bus to get there.
Regarding the previous post that our culture wont change in the future, I'll ask you to consider this scenario:
I know a lass pretty well who started seeing a Muslim chap. She is a white English girl. She ended up getting pregnant and having a little boy. Now, he is absolutely terrified of telling his parents as they are strict muslims, and obviously this goes against their religion. He has decided he wont tell his folks and try and keep the kid a secret forever.
Now in a land where freedom and democracy is part of our culture, how is this right. This muslim lad has no freedom. He is bound by a set of rules that sets out what he can and cant do. In my opinion, there is no room for this way of life in our country.
The lad has been brought up in a Western world, and God knows what his parents would do if they found out. Would they turn the other cheek, I very much doubt it. But what do they expect? What do people expect to happen living in a Western country. This isn't a dig at Muslims, but it highlights the problems we face of living in society together with such vastly different beliefs and ways of life. It is naive to think we can live together in perfect harmony.
I notice today that France have voted to ban the full face veil. Interesting.
-
Muttley wrote:
Our freedom and democracy - agreed!
The Ancient Greeks were responsible for these ideals. I think that probably covers everything.
-
MrFrost wrote:
I notice today that France have voted to ban the full face veil. Interesting.[/quote]
I hope they all start wearing halloween masks or crash helmets instead just to show what a stupid f**king law it is.
Do you support France removing the freedom to wear what you want?
-
MrFrost wrote:
So you are seriously suggesting this family have not been given a house in London. Oh dear you really are deluded.
And if you really need our culture explaining then you must be a bit simple. But anyway here are a few pointers.
Our language
The festivals we celebrate
Our history
Our heritage
Our freedom and democracy.
Still a bit hazy for me old chap. Would you mind awfully expanding on what you mean by \"heritage\"?
Or just what exactly you mean by \"our\" history? Are you suggesting that we are some sort of monolithic people with a single, all-encompassing history? Only, half my family are Irish Catholics (immigrants - dirty uneducated scum who came over here, took our Jobs and houses, bred like mice etc...) See, to them, (and by extension, to me) Oliver Cromwell's annexation of Ireland, the Battle of the Boyne, the potato famine and the Easter Rising were vital parts of history. But I suspect the typical Englishman (tell me if you find one by the way) wouldn't give two shits about any of those historical events. To my family, \"heritage\" was more about St Patrick than Henry VIII. The Pope was more important than the Queen.
So, I'm guessing that MY history and heritage, my culture if you wish, is different from YOURS.
My kids' will be different again, given their Italian mother.
Which us PRECISELY the point. Culture is not a static, monolithic, permanent concept. It evolves. Oslo mentioned music, presumably pop/rock music. Deeply connected to Afro-Carribean immigrants and influences. He mentioned curry, which hardly needs expanding on. Both of these deeply embedded parts of our \"culture\" would have been bewildering to someone from 1950. Because culture changes. It will change over the next half century and our kids and theirs will be as happy with it as we are today. Alternatively, if any of us are still alive, we will feel as put of place as a 90 year old today would, having a Vindaloo after a rave or seeing explicit sex on the Internet.
Culture changes. Just like language does by the way. Wicked innit?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
So you are seriously suggesting this family have not been given a house in London. Oh dear you really are deluded.
And if you really need our culture explaining then you must be a bit simple. But anyway here are a few pointers.
Our language
The festivals we celebrate
Our history
Our heritage
Our freedom and democracy.
Still a bit hazy for me old chap. Would you mind awfully expanding on what you mean by \"heritage\"?
Or just what exactly you mean by \"our\" history? Are you suggesting that we are some sort of monolithic people with a single, all-encompassing history? Only, half my family are Irish Catholics (immigrants - dirty uneducated scum who came over here, took our Jobs and houses, bred like mice etc...) See, to them, (and by extension, to me) Oliver Cromwell's annexation of Ireland, the Battle of the Boyne, the potato famine and the Easter Rising were vital parts of history. But I suspect the typical Englishman (tell me if you find one by the way) wouldn't give two shits about any of those historical events. Their \"heritage\" was more about St Patrick than Henry VIII. The Pope was more important than the Queen.
So, I'm guessing that MY history and heritage, my culture if you wish, is different from YOURS.
My kids' will be different again, given their Italian mother.
Which us PRECISELY the point. Culture is not a static, monolithic, permanent concept. It evolves. Oslo mentioned music, presumably pop/rock music. Deeply connected to Afro-Carribean immigrants and influences. He mentioned curry, which hardly needs expanding on. Both of these deeply embedded parts of our \"culture\" would have been bewildering to someone from 1950. Because culture changes. It will change over the next half century and our kids and theirs will be as happy with it as we are today. Alternatively, if any of us are still alive, we will feel as put of place as a 90 year old today would, having a Vindaloo after a rave or seeing explicit sex on the Internet.
Culture changes. Great innit?
So going back to my example a few posts above. What is your take on that scenario? Some Muslim groups are pushing for Sharia law to be recognised in the UK. Would you embrace that change?
-
Me personally? No I wouldn't. That's becuase I am strongly anti-religious and I believe that ALL religions have a corrosive and illiberal effect on society.
By the same token, I would kick all the (Church of England) bishops out of Parliament, rescind the bigotted legislation that debars anyone who is a Catholic from becoming Monarch and close all religious schools in the country. I also detest the bigotry of the Catholic church that has spent much of its existence doing its damnedest to keep its flock subjugated, terrified and ignorant. I detest the Little Englander attitude of the Church of England that spurred on the jingoism that sent the thick end of a million Britons off to die on the Western Front in 1914-18. And I despise the petty bigotry of so many CofE'ers today with their disgust over female and gay clergy.
Which, by way of example, shows that there are many, many ways in which religion has (what I consider to be) a deeply negative influence on society. So why just highlight Sharia?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Me personally? No I wouldn't. That's becuase I am strongly anti-religious and I believe that ALL religions have a corrosive and illiberal effect on society.
By the same token, I would kick all the (Church of England) bishops out of Parliament, rescind the bigotted legislation that debars anyone who is a Catholic from becoming Monarch and close all religious schools in the country. I also detest the bigotry of the Catholic church that has spent much of its existence doing its damnedest to keep its flock subjugated, terrified and ignorant. I detest the Little Englander attitude of the Church of England that spurred on the jingoism that sent the thick end of a million Britons off to die on the Western Front in 1914-18. And I despise the petty bigotry of so many CofE'ers today with their disgust over female and gay clergy.
Which, by way of example, shows that there are many, many ways in which religion has (what I consider to be) a deeply negative influence on society. So why just highlight Sharia?
So in your perfect society, there would be no place for religion? Surely that would effect our democracy?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Some Muslim groups are pushing for Sharia law to be recognised in the UK. Would you embrace that change?
Usual deliberate twisting of what is being proposed. Some Muslim groups are calling for Sharia Courts to be recognised. These would rule in civil disputes (not criminal cases) in cases where all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Sharia Court. They would not be compulsory in any shape or form, but for the rulings to also have any standing in the rest of the legal system, the court would have to be recognised as part of that system, albeit outwith of it.
Given that the alternative is for these cases to take up time in Magistrates and Small Claims Courts at the taxpayer's expense, I'd have thought you'd have been all in favour of Sharia Courts lifting the burden of cases from the existing court structure. I certainly would.
But no doubt you've not looked any further than the word 'Sharia' and decided it would be a bad thing.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Some Muslim groups are pushing for Sharia law to be recognised in the UK. Would you embrace that change?
Usual deliberate twisting of what is being proposed. Some Muslim groups are calling for Sharia Courts to be recognised. These would rule in civil disputes (not criminal cases) in cases where all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Sharia Court. They would not be compulsory in any shape or form, but for the rulings to also have any standing in the rest of the legal system, the court would have to be recognised as part of that system, albeit outwith of it.
Given that the alternative is for these cases to take up time in Magistrates and Small Claims Courts at the taxpayer's expense, I'd have thought you'd have been all in favour of Sharia Courts lifting the burden of cases from the existing court structure. I certainly would.
But no doubt you've not looked any further than the word 'Sharia' and decided it would be a bad thing.
Sharia courts have been recognised for civcl matters since 2008, if you actually bothered reading up on it.
Certain groups are calling for full Sharia law to be introduced, and that is a fact. Read up on Islam4UK. No doubt you'll spout some pearls of wisdom that defend extremists like them also. I think you are just picking at things for the sake of an argument, pal.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Me personally? No I wouldn't. That's becuase I am strongly anti-religious and I believe that ALL religions have a corrosive and illiberal effect on society.
By the same token, I would kick all the (Church of England) bishops out of Parliament, rescind the bigotted legislation that debars anyone who is a Catholic from becoming Monarch and close all religious schools in the country. I also detest the bigotry of the Catholic church that has spent much of its existence doing its damnedest to keep its flock subjugated, terrified and ignorant. I detest the Little Englander attitude of the Church of England that spurred on the jingoism that sent the thick end of a million Britons off to die on the Western Front in 1914-18. And I despise the petty bigotry of so many CofE'ers today with their disgust over female and gay clergy.
Which, by way of example, shows that there are many, many ways in which religion has (what I consider to be) a deeply negative influence on society. So why just highlight Sharia?
So in your perfect society, there would be no place for religion? Surely that would effect our democracy?
In a debate, mate, you need to answer the odd question before asking other, tangential-to-irrelevant ones.
I asked you a while back for some more clarification on precisely what you meant by the vague terms \"our culture\" \"our history\" and \"our heritage\". See, since you seem to believe that these are under threat by the invading hordes, it would help if you defined them, so that we could have a serious discussion. If you can't put your finger on exactly what they are, and what their timeless, eternal, unchanging qualities are, then you really don't need to worry about them being destroyed, because they probably never existed in the first place.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Me personally? No I wouldn't. That's becuase I am strongly anti-religious and I believe that ALL religions have a corrosive and illiberal effect on society.
By the same token, I would kick all the (Church of England) bishops out of Parliament, rescind the bigotted legislation that debars anyone who is a Catholic from becoming Monarch and close all religious schools in the country. I also detest the bigotry of the Catholic church that has spent much of its existence doing its damnedest to keep its flock subjugated, terrified and ignorant. I detest the Little Englander attitude of the Church of England that spurred on the jingoism that sent the thick end of a million Britons off to die on the Western Front in 1914-18. And I despise the petty bigotry of so many CofE'ers today with their disgust over female and gay clergy.
Which, by way of example, shows that there are many, many ways in which religion has (what I consider to be) a deeply negative influence on society. So why just highlight Sharia?
So in your perfect society, there would be no place for religion? Surely that would effect our democracy?
In a debate, mate, you need to answer the odd question before asking other, tangential-to-irrelevant ones.
I asked you a while back for some more clarification on precisely what you meant by the vague terms \"our culture\" \"our history\" and \"our heritage\". See, since you seem to believe that these are under threat by the invading hordes, it would help if you defined them, so that we could have a serious discussion. If you can't put your finger on exactly what they are, and what their timeless, eternal, unchanging qualities are, then you really don't need to worry about them being destroyed, because they probably never existed in the first place.
I can answer a question with a question.
Are you suggesting our country has no culture, history or heritage? Thats what it sounds like to me. By suggesting what you are, then we haven't, and none of us can claim to be completely British either, if we look back far enough.
But, that isn't the point here.
My originaly point was the problems created by mass immigration and asylum, different cultures that do not mix, as highlighted in my example.
To start nit picking at things that happened hundreds of years ago that have made our country what it is today, is simply shying away from the problems that now exist.
-
Our 'culture' is under more threat from Americanisms than any danger posed by immigraton. And they ain't even moving to this country.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Some Muslim groups are pushing for Sharia law to be recognised in the UK. Would you embrace that change?
Usual deliberate twisting of what is being proposed. Some Muslim groups are calling for Sharia Courts to be recognised. These would rule in civil disputes (not criminal cases) in cases where all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Sharia Court. They would not be compulsory in any shape or form, but for the rulings to also have any standing in the rest of the legal system, the court would have to be recognised as part of that system, albeit outwith of it.
Given that the alternative is for these cases to take up time in Magistrates and Small Claims Courts at the taxpayer's expense, I'd have thought you'd have been all in favour of Sharia Courts lifting the burden of cases from the existing court structure. I certainly would.
But no doubt you've not looked any further than the word 'Sharia' and decided it would be a bad thing.
Sharia courts have been recognised for civcl matters since 2008, if you actually bothered reading up on it.
Certain groups are calling for full Sharia law to be introduced, and that is a fact. Read up on Islam4UK. No doubt you'll spout some pearls of wisdom that defend extremists like them also. I think you are just picking at things for the sake of an argument, pal.
I thought you were talking about the proposal backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, where he got the usual kicking from the right-wing rags for even considering it.
Perhaps you should have elucidated a bit more. All sorts of people call for all sorts of crackpot crap, hard to know which bunch of loonies your talking about if you don't say.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Some Muslim groups are pushing for Sharia law to be recognised in the UK. Would you embrace that change?
Usual deliberate twisting of what is being proposed. Some Muslim groups are calling for Sharia Courts to be recognised. These would rule in civil disputes (not criminal cases) in cases where all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Sharia Court. They would not be compulsory in any shape or form, but for the rulings to also have any standing in the rest of the legal system, the court would have to be recognised as part of that system, albeit outwith of it.
Given that the alternative is for these cases to take up time in Magistrates and Small Claims Courts at the taxpayer's expense, I'd have thought you'd have been all in favour of Sharia Courts lifting the burden of cases from the existing court structure. I certainly would.
But no doubt you've not looked any further than the word 'Sharia' and decided it would be a bad thing.
Sharia courts have been recognised for civcl matters since 2008, if you actually bothered reading up on it.
Certain groups are calling for full Sharia law to be introduced, and that is a fact. Read up on Islam4UK. No doubt you'll spout some pearls of wisdom that defend extremists like them also. I think you are just picking at things for the sake of an argument, pal.
I thought you were talking about the proposal backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, where he got the usual kicking from the right-wing rags for even considering it.
Perhaps you should have elucidated a bit more. All sorts of people call for all sorts of crackpot crap, hard to know which bunch of loonies your talking about if you don't say.
I just did :blink:
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Me personally? No I wouldn't. That's becuase I am strongly anti-religious and I believe that ALL religions have a corrosive and illiberal effect on society.
By the same token, I would kick all the (Church of England) bishops out of Parliament, rescind the bigotted legislation that debars anyone who is a Catholic from becoming Monarch and close all religious schools in the country. I also detest the bigotry of the Catholic church that has spent much of its existence doing its damnedest to keep its flock subjugated, terrified and ignorant. I detest the Little Englander attitude of the Church of England that spurred on the jingoism that sent the thick end of a million Britons off to die on the Western Front in 1914-18. And I despise the petty bigotry of so many CofE'ers today with their disgust over female and gay clergy.
Which, by way of example, shows that there are many, many ways in which religion has (what I consider to be) a deeply negative influence on society. So why just highlight Sharia?
So in your perfect society, there would be no place for religion? Surely that would effect our democracy?
In a debate, mate, you need to answer the odd question before asking other, tangential-to-irrelevant ones.
I asked you a while back for some more clarification on precisely what you meant by the vague terms \"our culture\" \"our history\" and \"our heritage\". See, since you seem to believe that these are under threat by the invading hordes, it would help if you defined them, so that we could have a serious discussion. If you can't put your finger on exactly what they are, and what their timeless, eternal, unchanging qualities are, then you really don't need to worry about them being destroyed, because they probably never existed in the first place.
I can answer a question with a question.
Are you suggesting our country has no culture, history or heritage? Thats what it sounds like to me. By suggesting what you are, then we haven't, and none of us can claim to be completely British either, if we look back far enough.
But, that isn't the point here.
My originaly point was the problems created by mass immigration and asylum, different cultures that do not mix, as highlighted in my example.
To start nit picking at things that happened hundreds of years ago that have made our country what it is today, is simply shying away from the problems that now exist.
Of course I'm not saying that we have NO culture, history or heritage. Quite the reverse. I'm saying that we have as many as there are people in the country. Every single person has a different take. That's why serious historians no longer write books entitled \"THE History of Britain\" for example - they write ones called \"A History of Britain\". Because they know that it is arrogance of the highest order to claim that their own perspective is the correct one. Would Arthur Scragill's History of the 1980s be the same as Maggie Thatcher's? Would Ken Richardson's \"History of DRFC\" be the same as John Ryan's?
I'm quite certain that our \"culture\" will change as a result of immigration. It alread has, on a pretty much constant basis throughout our history. Where I differ from you is in my confidence in the strength of us as a country and a people to absorb and change as a result. The immigrants will be changed by the process of becoming British. And, crucially, BRITAIN will also change as it absorbs them. And everything will turn out just fine in the long run.
Just like it did when we absorbed the Normans, the Jews, the Hugenots, the Irish, the Ugandan Asians and my Italian father in law. Have some faith in your country man!
And by the way, what are \"history\" and \"heritage\" if they are not the accumulation of things that happened hundreds of years ago. YOU introduced those terms into the discussion, not me. If you are going to carelessly chuck these sorts of comments around, don;t be upset if other people take them to the logical conclusions.
-
I hate Americanisms. Don't event get me started on high school \"proms\". :angry:
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Me personally? No I wouldn't. That's becuase I am strongly anti-religious and I believe that ALL religions have a corrosive and illiberal effect on society.
By the same token, I would kick all the (Church of England) bishops out of Parliament, rescind the bigotted legislation that debars anyone who is a Catholic from becoming Monarch and close all religious schools in the country. I also detest the bigotry of the Catholic church that has spent much of its existence doing its damnedest to keep its flock subjugated, terrified and ignorant. I detest the Little Englander attitude of the Church of England that spurred on the jingoism that sent the thick end of a million Britons off to die on the Western Front in 1914-18. And I despise the petty bigotry of so many CofE'ers today with their disgust over female and gay clergy.
Which, by way of example, shows that there are many, many ways in which religion has (what I consider to be) a deeply negative influence on society. So why just highlight Sharia?
So in your perfect society, there would be no place for religion? Surely that would effect our democracy?
In a debate, mate, you need to answer the odd question before asking other, tangential-to-irrelevant ones.
I asked you a while back for some more clarification on precisely what you meant by the vague terms \"our culture\" \"our history\" and \"our heritage\". See, since you seem to believe that these are under threat by the invading hordes, it would help if you defined them, so that we could have a serious discussion. If you can't put your finger on exactly what they are, and what their timeless, eternal, unchanging qualities are, then you really don't need to worry about them being destroyed, because they probably never existed in the first place.
I can answer a question with a question.
Are you suggesting our country has no culture, history or heritage? Thats what it sounds like to me. By suggesting what you are, then we haven't, and none of us can claim to be completely British either, if we look back far enough.
But, that isn't the point here.
My originaly point was the problems created by mass immigration and asylum, different cultures that do not mix, as highlighted in my example.
To start nit picking at things that happened hundreds of years ago that have made our country what it is today, is simply shying away from the problems that now exist.
Of course I'm not saying that we have NO culture, history or heritage. Quite the reverse. I'm saying that we have as many as there are people in the country. Every single person has a different take. That's why serious historians no longer write books entitled \"THE History of Britain\" for example - they write ones called \"A History of Britain\". Because they know that it is arrogance of the highest order to claim that their own perspective is the correct one.
I'm quite certain that our \"culture\" will change as a result of immigration. It alread has, on a pretty much constant basis throughout our history. Where I differ from you is in my confidence in the strength of us as a country and a people to absorb and change as a result. The immigrants will be changed by the process of becoming British. And, crucially, BRITAIN will also change as it absorbs them. And everything will turn out just fine in the long run. Just like it did when we absorbed the Normans, the Jews, the Hugenots, the Irish, the Ugandan Asians etc. Have some faith in your country man!
And by the way, what are \"history\" and \"heritage\" if they are not the accumulation of things that happened hundreds of years ago. YOU introduced those terms into the discussion, not me. If you are going to carelessly chuck these sorts of comments around, don;t be upset if other people take them to the logical conclusions.
Decent points.
Unfortunately, I have little confidence in our country at the moment, for a whole host of reasons, and I geuninely believe soon, events will come to a head.
What's your take BST on the scenario I spoke about earlier regarding the Muslim lad and his English girlfriend? I'd actually be interested in your opinion.
-
Listen Mr Frost, I do believe you have in you the makings of a reasonable debater, a reasonable speaker and a reasonable mouthpiece for whatever you choose to believe in. But really, you are going exactly nowhere until you take a time out to think hard about what form your argument should take, how you should put it forwards and what it is that actually does convince people. Clearly, you have failed in this debate. Not even the other right wing types on here are helping you out now. That alone should tell you quite a lot.
Be as controversial as you like. Be as forceful as you like. But for goodness sake, don't regurgitate newspaper headlines, don't avoid difficult questions and don't fall back on abuse when the going gets tough. Instead, write as if you actually have thought about the subject for 2 minutes. Thinking actually does impress people. odd I know. But true. No bugger likes being abused. No bugger likes being patronised (for which I apologise in advance as this is coming out as exactly that!) and no bugger likes being told to believe stuff which they can see with their own eyes is simply b*llocks. It loses you more support than you could ever imagine.
Cheers
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Listen Mr Frost, I do believe you have in you the makings of a reasonable debater, a reasonable speaker and a reasonable mouthpiece for whatever you choose to believe in. But really, you are going exactly nowhere until you take a time out to think hard about what form your argument should take, how you should put it forwards and what it is that actually does convince people. Clearly, you have failed in this debate. Not even the other right wing types on here are helping you out now. That alone should tell you quite a lot.
Be as controversial as you like. Be as forceful as you like. But for goodness sake, don't regurgitate newspaper headlines, don't avoid difficult questions and don't fall back on abuse when the going gets tough. Instead, write as if you actually have thought about the subject for 2 minutes. Thinking actually does impress people. odd I know. But true. No bugger likes being abused. No bugger likes being patronised (for which I apologise in advance as this is coming out as exactly that!) and no bugger likes being told to believe stuff which they can see with their own eyes is simply b*llocks. It loses you more support than you could ever imagine.
Cheers
BobG
What have i told people that is b*llocks, could you please point that out to me.
What newspaper headlines have I refered to (apart from the original one that started the whole thread off).
I don't see any other \"right wing type's\" posting. Just the usual few who tend to always pick other people's point of views apart if it isn't to their liking.
-
MrFrost wrote:
What's your take BST on the scenario I spoke about earlier regarding the Muslim lad and his English girlfriend? I'd actually be interested in your opinion.
What was your comment? I can't find it.
-
Oh dear. Come on. I'm trying to offer you some well meaning and well considered advice. I've had more than half a lifetime of experience in this sort of thing. It's no shame to anyone on here that I have more than most (though not all I'm happy to say!) And althougth I say it myself, I'm quite good at it as well. So if you want to improve your performance, your successes, your capabilities, look at the wider picture I'm trying to paint. if you don't want to do that, fine. Pick on little details in that wider picture seeking to gain a momentary satisfaction. But you'll never convince anybody, ever, of anything, if you choose to go down that route.
There are 6 pages to this thread now. Probably two thirds of them are devoted to many, many people trying to explain to you why what you keep on saying is b*llocks. If you can't see that, then I was mistaken, sadly. Please, recognise the message in the fact that, as you said, you 'don't see other 'right wing types' posting'. That is a vitally important lesson for you, if you'll only accept it as such.
Cheers
BobG
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
What's your take BST on the scenario I spoke about earlier regarding the Muslim lad and his English girlfriend? I'd actually be interested in your opinion.
What was your comment? I can't find it.
My post was:
I know a lass pretty well who started seeing a Muslim chap. She is a white English girl. She ended up getting pregnant and having a little boy. Now, he is absolutely terrified of telling his parents as they are strict muslims, and obviously this goes against their religion. He has decided he wont tell his folks and try and keep the kid a secret forever.
Now in a land where freedom and democracy is part of our culture, how is this right. This muslim lad has no freedom. He is bound by a set of rules that sets out what he can and cant do. In my opinion, there is no room for this way of life in our country.
The lad has been brought up in a Western world, and God knows what his parents would do if they found out. Would they turn the other cheek, I very much doubt it. But what do they expect? What do people expect to happen living in a Western country. This isn't a dig at Muslims, but it highlights the problems we face of living in society together with such vastly different beliefs and ways of life. It is naive to think we can live together in perfect harmony.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Remind me again, cos I forget easily. I've asked this one a dozen times but I can never remember any of the multitude of well thought-out answers:
What IS \"our culture\" exactly?
In my opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing at all, the one thing that defines 'our' British culture and Britisness, is a tradition of welcoming and giving a safe haven to strangers/people from countries and cultures different to ours.
Following Edward I expelling the Jews in 1290 (until Cromwell welcomed them and their money back in 1656, which ultimately led to financing overseas trade and the growth of the Empire for the next 350 years) no group of people have been refused entry to Britain, and a heck of a lot have come. Yes there have been individual cases of intolerance and conflict, the Dutch in the Isle of Axholme to pick a local example, anti-Irish feeling that lasted from 1850 to the end of the 1960's, but we have been able to integrate and tolerate immigrants to such an extent that Karl Marx and Napoleon III were living here at the same time.
The results of this are an ever changing society, habits and traditions but the culture is of tolerance.
-
MrFrost wrote:
You have to ask the question why he had 7 children without the means to provide for his family. Maybe because he knew the state would pay for it all?
I've got a young family, work 13 hours a day alot of the time. The Mrs works aswell. We have to pay our rent, bills, childcare. We don't have the luxury of housing benefit and it is a fcucking struggle.
You take people like this guy, he has worked for a few years granted, but spat out kids to fund his mod cons and his now luxourious pad.
Our Poor old nanna's who died without a penny to their names kept on pumping babies out with no obvious means of paying for their upbringing.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
What's your take BST on the scenario I spoke about earlier regarding the Muslim lad and his English girlfriend? I'd actually be interested in your opinion.
What was your comment? I can't find it.
My post was:
I know a lass pretty well who started seeing a Muslim chap. She is a white English girl. She ended up getting pregnant and having a little boy. Now, he is absolutely terrified of telling his parents as they are strict muslims, and obviously this goes against their religion. He has decided he wont tell his folks and try and keep the kid a secret forever.
Now in a land where freedom and democracy is part of our culture, how is this right. This muslim lad has no freedom. He is bound by a set of rules that sets out what he can and cant do. In my opinion, there is no room for this way of life in our country.
The lad has been brought up in a Western world, and God knows what his parents would do if they found out. Would they turn the other cheek, I very much doubt it. But what do they expect? What do people expect to happen living in a Western country. This isn't a dig at Muslims, but it highlights the problems we face of living in society together with such vastly different beliefs and ways of life. It is naive to think we can live together in perfect harmony.
So different to our own culture isn't it? When I worked on the manor estate and a lass became pregnant the irate father of the girl literally went hunting for the poor lad with two bricks to do unspeakable harm to him, so much so that he ran away from home for several months. It depends upon not only religious \"culture \" as you term it but how the family culture,regional culture or even an individuals interpretation of his \"culture\" as to how they react when presented with a situation.Having met quite lot of the Muslims who live in Sheffield over the past two years or so I can tell you Mr.Frost that just like everyone else here who claims to have a Christian background that there are wide variations to how much they all interpret their faith as we do. The problems occur when people try to lump people into groups and start painting pictures to try to frighten the populace into hating another person that they are evil because they are different from them. That is why I always object to the pathetic attempt to stir racism or the victimisation of people because of who they are or their particular circumstances as in your original story. Nothing is as simple as the tabloid press like to paint their pictures, and unfortunately the majority of \"readers\" who look at those rags struggle to see that. To qoute another famous Billy, \"When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory, don't forget there's two sides to every story.\"
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
What's your take BST on the scenario I spoke about earlier regarding the Muslim lad and his English girlfriend? I'd actually be interested in your opinion.
What was your comment? I can't find it.
My post was:
I know a lass pretty well who started seeing a Muslim chap. She is a white English girl. She ended up getting pregnant and having a little boy. Now, he is absolutely terrified of telling his parents as they are strict muslims, and obviously this goes against their religion. He has decided he wont tell his folks and try and keep the kid a secret forever.
Now in a land where freedom and democracy is part of our culture, how is this right. This muslim lad has no freedom. He is bound by a set of rules that sets out what he can and cant do. In my opinion, there is no room for this way of life in our country.
The lad has been brought up in a Western world, and God knows what his parents would do if they found out. Would they turn the other cheek, I very much doubt it. But what do they expect? What do people expect to happen living in a Western country. This isn't a dig at Muslims, but it highlights the problems we face of living in society together with such vastly different beliefs and ways of life. It is naive to think we can live together in perfect harmony.
So different to our own culture isn't it? When I worked on the manor estate and a lass became pregnant the irate father of the girl literally went hunting for the poor lad with two bricks to do unspeakable harm to him, so much so that he ran away from home for several months. It depends upon not only religious \"culture \" as you term it but how the family culture,regional culture or even an individuals interpretation of his \"culture\" as to how they react when presented with a situation.Having met quite lot of the Muslims who live in Sheffield over the past two years or so I can tell you Mr.Frost that just like everyone else here who claims to have a Christian background that there are wide variations to how much they all interpret their faith as we do. The problems occur when people try to lump people into groups and start painting pictures to try to frighten the populace into hating another person that they are evil because they are different from them. That is why I always object to the pathetic attempt to stir racism or the victimisation of people because of who they are or their particular circumstances as in your original story. Nothing is as simple as the tabloid press like to paint their pictures, and unfortunately the majority of \"readers\" who look at those rags struggle to see that. To qoute another famous Billy, \"When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory, don't forget there's two sides to every story.\"
You've not backed anything up there. This is something that has happened. Fact. The poor lad is scared, because he knows he betrayed his faith. My point was to show you hard it is for different cultures to mix and co-exist.
The poor kid that has been born will grow up, probably never knowing one side of its family. The lass in question, her family have no problem with the fact she has started a relationship with a Muslim and that they have a baby together. They are thrilled. Shouldn't the parents of the lad feel the same? Muslims are human aswell, and have human feelings and instincts. The fact that they are living in a Western society suggests that relationships will develop with people who aren't of their faith.
If we have to embrace the changes they bring to our country, then they should embrace things like this aswell.
-
You really don't get the point do you? The two people I point out are supposedly from THE SAME culture. Such an event is treated differently by different families no matter what their \"culture\". Perhaps we ought to follow your line of argument and search for absolute purity in our country in our various different so that none of us mix, then harmony would exist would it? Of course not. Of course you must be right, no Muslim in this country could ever accept anybody except themselves should exist should they? That all other people are subserviant to their beliefs? I think you are projecting your own opinions onto other people.
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
You really don't get the point do you? The two people I point out are supposedly from THE SAME culture. Such an event is treated differently by different families no matter what their \"culture\". Perhaps we ought to follow your line of argument and search for absolute purity in our country in our various different so that none of us mix, then harmony would exist would it? Of course not. Of course you must be right, no Muslim in this country could ever accept anybody except themselves should exist should they? That all other people are subserviant to their beliefs? I think you are projecting your own opinions onto other people.
No, its you who doesn't get the point. This muslim lad has fallen in love with a lass who isn't of the same faith. This goes against his beliefs and religion. He has had a child with her. Under Sharia law he'd probably be stoned.
Now, surely, after everyone suggesting our culture has to change through time because of the changes immigrants bring, surely they should also adapt they're beliefs and cultre in the same sense.
What chance has this lad got of a family life?
-
bobjimwilly wrote:
I hate Americanisms. Don't event get me started on high school \"proms\". :angry:
'kin dead right, end of year disco was good enough for us. Also on americanisms, can we go to the shops and say \"can I have\" and not \"Can I get\", its f'kin straight out of Hannah Montana.
-
Mr Frost.
In your little anecdote, take the term \"Muslim\" and replace it with \"Irish Catholic\". Take the term \"English\" and replace it with \"Protestant\". And you have a story that could have applied in Denaby in 1950.
The point?
\"Cultures\" change as they rub up alongside one another. No Denaby Catholic father would now go hunting down a lad because he had got his little lass pregnant and was a Protestant. They might well, as Barmby points out, go and kill the little t**t for defiling the lass, but the religion would be irrelevant.
Give it time. Islamic culture is a many-faceted creature. There are liberals as well as fundamentalists - just like there are in Christianity. Muslim \"culture\" in Britain can swing either way. By demonising and heaping abuse of the Muslim Britons, you are making a nasty, fundamentalist reaction more likely. Which, of course, is PRECISELY what the far right would like. They don't want the Muslims to slowly integrate like the Jews or the Catholics did, or like the Afro-Carribbeans have been doing for 50 years. They actively want Enoch's \"Rivers of Blood\" so that there will be a reaction from Liberal Britain that will result in a xenophobic uprising.
By the way, that \"Under Sharia Law he'd probably be stoned\" comment is simply f**king stupid. It assumes that Sharia (and Islam in general) is some monolithic entity, with rigorous, fixed ideals. You could also say, \"Under Western Law, a mentally subnormal kid who sets fire to a house and kills someone would be executed by electric chair.\" They would in some backward, bigotted places (like the Mid-West perhaps), but not in the vast majority of enlightened, civilised parts of the West. Similarly, adulterers are lashed or stoned in some of the more benighted parts of the Muslim world, but not in the cosmopolitan urban areas. There's a debate and a discussion going on within Islam. The more viciously bigotted Imams in the poor, benighted areas still hold their flocks in medieval terror. Just like our own religious leaders did to us until recently. It will change. It is changing.
In the meantime, you want to have a pop at a vicious, blood-thirsty alien culture that has already infiltrated and affected ours and will probably do so for the rest of this century? Go look west instead of east. As a great philosopher once said, \"Come on Down, the Devil's in town. He's stuck his missiles in your garden and his theories down your throat. And God knows what your going to do about it, cos I certainly don't.\"
-
nice one rovers wrote:
bobjimwilly wrote:
I hate Americanisms. Don't event get me started on high school \"proms\". :angry:
'kin dead right, end of year disco was good enough for us. Also on americanisms, can we go to the shops and say \"can I have\" and not \"Can I get\", its f'kin straight out of Hannah Montana.
Surely the correct term is \"Gi's...\" int it? As in \"Gi's one o them oer theer.\"
And while we're at it, next t**t who comes \"Trick or Treating\" round Chez Stubbs will get treated to my size 11s in his gonads and a lecture on the pernicious effect of American Cultural Imperialism.
-
So we can't speak against muslims, immigrants etc but we can have a right old pop at the Yanks.
Culture changes, blah blah blah.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
nice one rovers wrote:
bobjimwilly wrote:
I hate Americanisms. Don't event get me started on high school \"proms\". :angry:
'kin dead right, end of year disco was good enough for us. Also on americanisms, can we go to the shops and say \"can I have\" and not \"Can I get\", its f'kin straight out of Hannah Montana.
Surely the correct term is \"Gi's...\" int it? As in \"Gi's one o them oer theer.\"
And while we're at it, next t**t who comes \"Trick or Treating\" round Chez Stubbs will get treated to my size 11s in his gonads and a lecture on the pernicious effect of American Cultural Imperialism.
Hey, it's Scottish is trick or treat.
-
Your last two posts on this thread, Mr Frost, are two of the very best endorsements of Nazi political thought I have ever come across. I salute you. If not yet fully fledged, you are pursuing a course towards a political creed that was desstroyed by both war and the political will of the rest of the entire world. First the Jews, now the Muslims, next any bugger else who doesn't meet your particular vesrion of what constitutes being British. How about me? I have a French great grandmother. I have Irish about the same distance back. Where do you propose to draw a line? How do you make that judgement? What will happen when someone appeals because they've married a real, proper Britsh person? Or because they're related to Cameron? Or you?
This is now shameful.
And parenthetically, again you do make valid individual points. It is hard for different cultures to mix for example. But I really don't think you have considered where your thought process is leading you. An illustrative example, one which was put into practice, 60 years ago. Step 1: It's hard to mix cultures? OK. Chuck one of 'em out. Step 2: We don't like that minority over there? Make the buggers disappear. Step 3: We really don't like anyone we decide is mentally inferior? Murder 'em, quietly, in a hospital. Step 4: We don't like the smell of that bunch living over there. f**king well smoke 'em to death.
Once something is done, Mr Frost, it can never, never, never, be undone. Take that first step, and the next one isn't such a big stride, is it? We've got examples of that before our very eyes today: legislation to allow the original town centre cameras was specifically for town centre use in identified and known trouble spots. Each such camera needed formal prior approval from an appropriate independent person. Yet look where are we now 20 years later...
Until you think of the consequences of individual actions, you are never going to influence anybody, anywhere, to do anything.
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Your last two posts on this thread, Mr Frost, are two of the very best endorsements of Nazi political thought I have ever come across. I salute you. If not yet fully fledged, you are pursuing a course towards a political creed that was desstroyed by both war and the political will of the rest of the entire world. First the Jews, now the Muslims, next any bugger else who doesn't meet your particular vesrion of what constitutes being British. How about me? I have a French great grandmother. I have Irish about the same distance back. Where do you propose to draw a line? How do you make that judgement? What will happen when someone appeals because they've married a real, proper Britsh person? Or because they're related to Cameron? Or you?
This is now shameful.
And parenthetically, again you do make valid individual points. It is hard for different cultures to mix for example. But I really don't think you have considered where your thought process is leading you. An illustrative example, one which was put into practice, 60 years ago. Step 1: It's hard to mix cultures? OK. Chuck one of 'em out. Step 2: We don't like that minority over there? Make the buggers disappear. Step 3: We really don't like anyone we decide is mentally inferior? Murder 'em, quietly, in a hospital. Step 4: We don't like the smell of that bunch living over there. fcuking well smoke 'em to death.
Once something is done, Mr Frost, it can never, never, never, be undone. Take that first step, and the next one isn't such a big stride, is it? We've got examples of that before our very eyes today: legislation to allow the original town centre cameras was specifically for town centre use in identified and known trouble spots. Each such camera needed formal prior approval from an appropriate independent person. Yet look where are we now 20 years later...
Until you think of the consequences of individual actions, you are never going to influence anybody, anywhere, to do anything.
BobG
Bob, you are missing my point entirley.
I am not suggesting throwing anyone out because they are muslim. My point is how to solve problems like the one I mentioned regarding the muslim guy and his girlfriend. I know them both. He would love to be able to tell his parents and let them get to know his grandson. The reality is that it would probably tear his family apart.
The mixing of two cultures and religions with different beliefs is a scary thought. Her family have embraced it and have no problem.
Maybe there isn't a solution, and we have to co-exist the best we can whilst respecting each other without forming intimate relationships.
-
nice one rovers wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
nice one rovers wrote:
bobjimwilly wrote:
I hate Americanisms. Don't event get me started on high school \"proms\". :angry:
'kin dead right, end of year disco was good enough for us. Also on americanisms, can we go to the shops and say \"can I have\" and not \"Can I get\", its f'kin straight out of Hannah Montana.
Surely the correct term is \"Gi's...\" int it? As in \"Gi's one o them oer theer.\"
And while we're at it, next t**t who comes \"Trick or Treating\" round Chez Stubbs will get treated to my size 11s in his gonads and a lecture on the pernicious effect of American Cultural Imperialism.
Hey, it's Scottish is trick or treat.
Fu-ck-ing he-ll. Even more reason to kick seven shades oot o the little t**ts.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BobG wrote:
Your last two posts on this thread, Mr Frost, are two of the very best endorsements of Nazi political thought I have ever come across. I salute you. If not yet fully fledged, you are pursuing a course towards a political creed that was desstroyed by both war and the political will of the rest of the entire world. First the Jews, now the Muslims, next any bugger else who doesn't meet your particular vesrion of what constitutes being British. How about me? I have a French great grandmother. I have Irish about the same distance back. Where do you propose to draw a line? How do you make that judgement? What will happen when someone appeals because they've married a real, proper Britsh person? Or because they're related to Cameron? Or you?
This is now shameful.
And parenthetically, again you do make valid individual points. It is hard for different cultures to mix for example. But I really don't think you have considered where your thought process is leading you. An illustrative example, one which was put into practice, 60 years ago. Step 1: It's hard to mix cultures? OK. Chuck one of 'em out. Step 2: We don't like that minority over there? Make the buggers disappear. Step 3: We really don't like anyone we decide is mentally inferior? Murder 'em, quietly, in a hospital. Step 4: We don't like the smell of that bunch living over there. fcuking well smoke 'em to death.
Once something is done, Mr Frost, it can never, never, never, be undone. Take that first step, and the next one isn't such a big stride, is it? We've got examples of that before our very eyes today: legislation to allow the original town centre cameras was specifically for town centre use in identified and known trouble spots. Each such camera needed formal prior approval from an appropriate independent person. Yet look where are we now 20 years later...
Until you think of the consequences of individual actions, you are never going to influence anybody, anywhere, to do anything.
BobG
Bob, you are missing my point entirley.
I am not suggesting throwing anyone out because they are muslim. My point is how to solve problems like the one I mentioned regarding the muslim guy and his girlfriend. I know them both. He would love to be able to tell his parents and let them get to know his grandson. The reality is that it would probably tear his family apart.
The mixing of two cultures and religions with different beliefs is a scary thought. Her family have embraced it and have no problem.
Maybe there isn't a solution, and we have to co-exist the best we can whilst respecting each other without forming intimate relationships.
So we ban anybody from having \"intimate relationships\" with anyone from a different \"culture\". How Nazi is that Mr.Frost? Let us only breed the pure race eh, because we cannot mix and integrate? The only reason why it can't happen is because of the bigoted and racist attitudes of folks like yourself who love to point out the differences instead of seeing two human beings and create hatred. Pathetic.
-
Where did I say ban it you fool. The situation I explained is reason enough why it is difficult to happen. It is the family of the Muslim lad being bigoted surely as they won't embrace the fact he is in a relationship with a White British girl.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Where did I say ban it you fool. The situation I explained is reason enough why it is difficult to happen. It is the family of the Muslim lad being bigoted surely as they won't embrace the fact he is in a relationship with a White British girl.
If his family can't accept the situation, that is up to them.
You are generalising and saying we as society shouldn't allow the mixing of different cultures, because a minority may not agree with it - that is wrong. Plain and simple.
-
bobjimwilly wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Where did I say ban it you fool. The situation I explained is reason enough why it is difficult to happen. It is the family of the Muslim lad being bigoted surely as they won't embrace the fact he is in a relationship with a White British girl.
If his family can't accept the situation, that is up to them.
You are generalising and saying we as society shouldn't allow the mixing of different cultures, because a minority may not agree with it - that is wrong. Plain and simple.
Where have I said that. If you can read, you'll find I was discussing finding solutions to these problems.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Where have I said that. If you can read, you'll find I was discussing finding solutions to these problems.
Erm, here:
MrFrost wrote:
Maybe there isn't a solution, and we have to co-exist the best we can whilst respecting each other without forming intimate relationships.
-
Would you mind listing the \"solutions\" you have discussed to the \"problems\" you have mentioned? :huh:
-
Amazing all this talk about Sharia law and attitudes towards Muslims, yet the Beth Din exists as a civil court for Jews in this country - yet they faced similar discrimination and prejudice, now we accept their rights. Perhaps some of us on this site may eventually learn tolerance of differences.
-
MrFrost wrote:
So we can't speak against muslims, immigrants etc but we can have a right old pop at the Yanks.
Culture changes, blah blah blah.
We're having a pop at Americanisms, not Americans. You see, we're able to make the kind of distinction that you don't seem able to when talking about Muslims and immigrants.
-
Here you go Frosty. Another thing to get angry about. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294630/Shopping-centre-management-install-Asian-stand-toilets-following-cultural-awareness-course.html)
-
Haha. You really couldn't make it up. I presume these toilets are in addition to the more conventional kind and not in place of them? The story doesn't make that clear.
If the shopping centre feel a need to waste their money on this then that is up to them I suppose.
-
Snods Shinpad 2 wrote:
Here you go Frosty. Another thing to get angry about. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294630/Shopping-centre-management-install-Asian-stand-toilets-following-cultural-awareness-course.html)
Ha Ha !... let's hope there isn't one with a white stick visiting that... they'd be right in the S***
:laugh:
And another thing... how do you manage to read the Daily Quran on there !
-
MrFrost wrote:
Haha. You really couldn't make it up.
Well, they made up that paragraph about Thomas Crapper. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.
-
Thanks to the efforts of pioneers like the legendary Thomas Crapper, we have long since led the world in comfort and hygiene.
Only the Daily Mail would attempt to make someone feel patriotic about taking a dump.
-
Regardless of whether I sit or squat, I still wouldn't wipe my arse on that rag.
Mind, I did like that comment by Rosemary of London worrying about whether \"we\" would be given the option if western style toilets. One assumes she drives 200 miles up the M6 everytime she wants a Tom Kite. And now she'll have the pleasure of fulminating over Muslims taking over the country whilst she is defecating. As Claire of Matlock would say, in a Margo off The Good Life stylee, \"Really! I mean- REALLY!!\"
-
Back to the original topic, i'm glad someone has seen sense and decided to move this family on next April. Just a shame it has to be funded until then.
-
Sadly, I think this all goes back to individual philosophy and how you view your fellow human beings. If you think everyone is on the take, then this story does what the Mail probably intended, which is rile up and incite a certain elemental emotion. And it probably goes hand in hand with political views as well. But isn't this kind of story par for the course for them?
-
'thomas crapper' what i know about him
queen victoria was pissed off with the sewage problem back in london during her time.basically it was the norm to just throw
pots of piss/shit out of yer window onto street below.
queeen victoria asked 'thomas crapper' to come up with a solutuon.he went away and intoduced the first sit down bog with a flushing system...hence the saying going for a crap...
the said bog was installed into a doncaster hotel,to which the owner had the great idea of putting a charge to use the new flushing bog a single penny...hence the saying spending a penny'
as for the the muslim toilet idea,ok the muslims need this type of bog get them installed on the pretence that its not a
muslim only bog.
but this has got me thinking as the west is helping muslims
whatever way they can to bring their culture and way of living into the western life style
'what have the muslims done from their part to help intergrate' i ask?
1......?
-
oslorovers wrote:
'thomas crapper' what i know about him
queen victoria was pissed off with the sewage problem back in london during her time.basically it was the norm to just throw
pots of piss/shit out of yer window onto street below.
queeen victoria asked 'thomas crapper' to come up with a solutuon.he went away and intoduced the first sit down bog with a flushing system...hence the saying going for a crap...
And what you know about him is the complete myth that the Daily Mail seems to think is true as well. Good job they're not supposed to tell the truth about things, ain't it? ;)
-
going back to the muslim bog thing surely they must have health and safety issues.
for once you would not mind the health and safety work act
stepping in on this one and putting a block on it.
like it said too all the muslims at their homes will crap in a normall sit down bog so i cant see the issue for bending over
fcuking backwards to install them in a public place ffs
-
It will simply be down to economics. The shopping centre boss will see that there is a alot of custom from people who traditionally use crouching bogs (or maybe he/she wants to attract more people from crouching bog nations), and see it as a way of attracting more cash into the tills.
Plenty of times I've been abroad to places where they traditionally use crouching bogs, only to find Western bogs instead at hotels/airports/shops etc.
It's all down making £££'s, and ultimately it all gets flushed down the same tax pot.
-
the first time i experienced a muslim bog if i may call
it that was in moldovia 1997ish
it was not a pretty sight i tell yers and still haunts me today
as the smell makes me gip just to think about it.
i dont quite know how these shit houses are supposed to work but for sure this moldovian one was not working at all
all you could see was this massive pile of shite heaping up out
of the hole in the ground like a anthill
put me off me ale it did