How the Government has declared war on white English people

Post Reply New Topic

1. Just because someone has their asylum claim rejected, does NOT mean that the claim was fraudulent. It is increasingly difficult to get a case accepted (even after appeal) for reasons id be happy to elaborate on.

2. I dont doubt that some people do as you say, but not all people travelling without documentation are going to be economic migrants. In fact, it may even be the case that the majority of political refugees travel without documentation, or under fake IDs (for reasons that should become obvious if you consider it for a while)



Please give examples of how they are 'too lenient'. When people are being forcibly sent to places they risk execution or torture for 'human rights' political activism, and literally handed over to the authorities, i say that is being too strict.

Its not just a matter of fitting a narrowly-defined criteria, you are then likely to need to provide proof (preferably documentary proof, which you cant get).



IIRC a majority of afghani refugees settle in neighbouring Iran. Iran isnt even a refugee convention signatory afaik (unlikely considering the amount they actively produce). Im not up to date on the figures, but the UK isnt anywhere near the top of the league when it comes to refugee distribution, not even within just the EU.

Look at how difficult it is to get a claim accepted in the UK, if people travel this far it shows how much harsher the other signatories are. Its a myth that anyone travels through a 'safe' country, because nowhere is safe anymore. Pick an option - 45%/55%/65% chance of being killed?

Even this point overlooks the impracticality of organising a parachute drop off a commercial airliner, which would account for many cases.

What is the explanation for all this immigration ? I hope someone has a better reason then 'the labour party is trying to destroy the country it despises' - that's just pathetic.

How about : in a global economy where increasing the output of your economy is the only thing that matters, and the no 1 reason why politicians stay in power, the only way to achieve this is to continually import more and more workers.

You're right on the second part, but that doesn't exclude many of those with influence in government using the situation to settle scores that relate to their links with the far-left. As for increasing output, they could quite easily do that by letting less academically inclined kids leave school at 16 or 14, rather than drifting to the position of forced education to the age of 21. That's doing nothing positive for our economy. In fact, it's wasting huge potential by forcing some of the most intelligent in society into huge debt in order to get a degree, and perhaps moving them away from education before they can move on to more advanced work in academia. Also, by diluting exam standards it deceives people into thinking they are achieving more than they really are. Furthermore, it devalues traditional trades that have always been learnt hands-on, the successful mastery of which often requires more intelligence than some second-rate degree in tourism. The whole mess is contrived by politicians to serve themselves, and the immigration situation is part of that.

You have said a lot of things in one paragraph, it's hard to take it all in.

'When you say those in government are settling scores ... ' - what does this mean ?

Kids leaving at 16 - I thought did leave at 16, don't they ? Although I am not sure this is a good thing, how would poor people ever become middle class ?

Diluting exam standards ... is obviously occurring (by 2 grades apparently over 10 years for ALevels). I hate the lying about this. I think what the government is trying to do is to prevent the selection of rich children over poor children in order to allow all classes access to good jobs. They can't talk of this openly hence the lying.


Anyway, the increase in output and consumption is killing our planet (as well as causing immigration problems) and a stead-state economy would solve both problems, if it is possible to implement.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. What I was explaining was that the situation outlined in the original post in this thread is a by-product of what you outlined in the second part of your first response to me. That's to say, one of the main reasons we've got the immigrant problem is so that politicians can keep the economy growing with cheap labour whilst convincing the rest of us that we don't need to get our hands dirty anymore, as everyone has a second-rate degree from a second-rate university and can work for some corporate master, from the comfort of an air-conditioned office, earning £7p.h, and pretend they're middle class! But, that doesn't then stop them using that situation to further other ends, as described in codarac's original post. Many of our Labour overseers have their roots firmly planted in extreme-left politics; if an opportunity presents itself to destroy traditional beliefs, and culture, then they'll do it.


Some do leave at 16, but the government is doing it's best to get more people to stay on. In fact, there was talk of making it compulsory to stay on to 18. My argument is that if you let those who don't want to continue in full-time education work, then you free resources to concentrate on those who do, and are intellectually capable of benefiting. Personally, I think the top few percent of students, regardless of class background, should get free education right up to phd level. That would really benefit society as a whole.


Yes, there's truth to that. The current economic philosophy is unsustainable longterm. We're already seeing problems in this country with infrastructure unfit for the current population level. We don't have enough water in dry summers, and have to abstract vast quantities from aquifers that feed river ecosytems, resulting in their destruction. We don't have enough houses and so have to rip-up what's left of our countryside in an attempt to rectify the ptoblem. We dredge vast quantities of biomass from our surrounding seas to feed ourselves and our livestock, with little regard to the consequences.

It's really all one big tangled-web of deceit that one day will come crashing down around our ears. We've imported the greed of corporate America, and woven it with some of the worst socialism can offer. To be honest, when i drive around this country and see what Blair has created, I feel nothing but disgust.

You do realise that I'm not talking in extremes here. Im aware that people travel from "there" to here for a variety of reasons, political, economic or otherwise. Some are viable reasons, others are not.

I still debate that anyone can travel half the planet from a troubled area, with a valid reason to leave, and not find any safe haven til they reach the UK. Some of these "valid" reasons are not neccesarily as clear cut as they might seem either. An example that springs to mind is the Kosovan/serbian issue. Yes, there was a nasty war, yes, exceedingly bad things occured during it, and yes, I can see why someone might not wish to be part of that. However, where I live had a very high proportion of kosovan asylum seekers in it, and generally they consisted of males aged between approx 18 and 35. the concept was that they were a target for Serbian militaries, because they were of reasonable active duty age. On one level, that seems fair. But consider that ethnic cleansing (wonderful euphemism) was used by the Serbs on whole families. It seems somewhat unusual that these young men would abandon their womenfolk and children and migrate en masse. Theres also the thought that Kosovo had a military force itself. I may be extending my own values somewhat onto them, but surely the right thing to do would be send your women and children here, then actually fight to liberate your home? I also note that many of the same immigrants are STILL here, and surely that war is long over? Surely they have a homeland to rebuild?

Methinks that perhaps our government bodies are not so much lenient, as woefully confused. I note that serving Iraqi translators are liable to be refused asylum once we leave Iraq, despite the quite obvious danger WE have put them in. Theres the small matter of the Ghurka as well, people who have more than earned the right to live here by any stretch of the imagination, who are getting the s**t end of the stick too. also, many of the cases I see reported of people being deported lean towards "easy targets" like law abiding citizens, young mothers etc.
On the other hand, there are plenty of reports of crimes commited by asylum seekers and immigrants who SHOULD have been deported but werent, and even after capture, seem to end up staying by claiming they will be executed upon return to their mother country. Could that possibly be because the crimes they commit are punishable by death "at home" and the reason they came here to begin with is to escape that punishment?

You mention political activism.. I note that political activism in many places equates to blowing s**t up. yes, it can mean just protesting, but surely a case by case study would be a good idea. HOW you were an activist might well be important.

I dont know enough about that particular country to really comment in any depth. In general though, the trouble with fighting for liberation is that its futile without an organised resistance. Often men travel alone because it is they who are specifically targetted, people-smuggling fees are extortionate, plus the dangers and stresses of trying to escape can easily be more hazardous than simply staying put & keeping a low profile. Overall, this may (perhaps rightfully) be percieved as the safest option for women & children.

International relations can be an important factor in how biased the adjudicators are going to be. I think the UK intervened in that conflict?, that would suggest that relations with that country were extremely low beforehand, so granting status to its refugees would have made a political statement. If the UK had good diplomatic relations including lucrative trade agreements with them, then id expect fewer applicants to have been granted status.



I mean things like pro-democracy, pro-womens rights (sharia) etc. These are the cases that are usually brought to my attention. Journalism & leafleting etc - peaceful methods rather than miltarism.

Often the official refusal letters from the home office will state 'you knew this act was illegal in your country, therefore this must be considered an example of prosecution not persecution'. This culturally relativist insistence that prosecution and persecution must always be mutually exclusive is often applied to peaceful activists, for example trade-unionists, conscientious objectors or simply possessing a salmon rushdie book!

Violent extremism, (pretty much anything illegal over here really) would definately fall under 'prosecution' criteria, so would not be considered a valid reason (taken alone)

I mean, I'm all for you guys having control over your own borders and it SHOULD be (though it unfortunately isn't) your choice on who you let into the country, but isn't Olso one of the most beautiful cities in Europe? I am doubting that it's that bad. And Swedish culture still seems very much alive. Foreign peoples who refuse to integrate and assimilate can't possibly be that damaging to a government unless they over populate the natives, and even that will take decades. Also, they're more likely to live in their own communities, and most of them don't openly seek conflict.

This thread is a decade old.

This is why most forums have a rule against posting to old threads.

Shampoo Recommendation For OP
VVV

Anyone who think that the British government is waging war on crackers is a weak little sissy with no life.

Protip: Jews and black people aren't responsible for your perpetual virginity. Quit bitching and go lift some weights.

I don't see any point to resurrecting this old thread; I can't see any good coming from it!

Locked...