Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article_7adnZyG6I2__d_InZ2dnUVZ7tidnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from them.


We can only pray that your predictions come true!

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 30/04/2015 18:03, Capitol wrote:
...
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,...

That is entirely a matter of opinion and I disagree with you.

UKIP are locked out of Tonights
Question Time for leaders even though their share of the vote is higher
than the limpdems!

We won't know what share of the vote they have until after next
Thursday. All else is conjecture.

We now have achieved censorship in our national
broadcaster. How do you like that? Do you support it?

It is no more censorship than is omitting the SNP, who are far more
likely to be important in the next parliament, or the Greens. It is
simply speaking to the leaders of the three parties with the most MPs.
That may or may not change next week, but for this week, it is still the
case that they are the three main parliamentary parties.


So you do support cesorship, I expected so.

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 30/04/2015 14:00, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
...
Only the likes of Farage and his supporters who don't possess a brain
cell
between them would believe refugees would risk life and limb to get to a
country when their sole purpose was to destroy it.

They destroy it by just being here in the numbers coming.

In 2014, the UK granted just over 14,000 requests for asylum. Are you
really frightened by that number?


Yes, it's 14K too many.

On 30/04/2015 18:52, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article_7adnZyG6I2__d_InZ2dnUVZ7tidnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from them.


We can only pray that your predictions come true!

+1

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/04/15 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from them.

Fantastic. That should solve the housing shortage

With luck all the full of hate people would go as well.

Given the abusive way you respond to some people who disagree with you,
I guess you will be off on the first boat?
--
Chris French

On 30/04/15 19:26, Chris French wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/04/15 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from them.

Fantastic. That should solve the housing shortage

With luck all the full of hate people would go as well.

Given the abusive way you respond to some people who disagree with you,
I guess you will be off on the first boat?

Contempt is not hate.

You need a socialist for that


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 00:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
We are also far from the most popular destination in the EU. In 2104,
we
were the sixth most popular choice, with the number of asylum seekers
being:

I'm also far from clear why Farage assumes those running away from
religious extremists - and willing to risk death in the process - are
going to be the very same religious extremists.


I'm also far from clear why Plowman assumes they are running away from
religious extremists or why Plowman assumes that Farage assumes that
they are going to be the very same religious extremists.

I suppose it was too much to assume you understood what asylum means.

**** all of those are seeking asylum.

In short it would seem to be just the usual straw men from the usual
lefty****

I did find it amusing seeing Farage berating the EU for its policies
being
the reason there is poverty in Africa, etc. As if he gave a monkeys.

Does anybody give a monkeys?

On 30/04/2015 20:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 00:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
We are also far from the most popular destination in the EU. In 2104,
we
were the sixth most popular choice, with the number of asylum seekers
being:

I'm also far from clear why Farage assumes those running away from
religious extremists - and willing to risk death in the process - are
going to be the very same religious extremists.


I'm also far from clear why Plowman assumes they are running away from
religious extremists or why Plowman assumes that Farage assumes that
they are going to be the very same religious extremists.

I suppose it was too much to assume you understood what asylum means.

**** all of those are seeking asylum.

In short it would seem to be just the usual straw men from the usual
lefty****

I did find it amusing seeing Farage berating the EU for its policies
being
the reason there is poverty in Africa, etc. As if he gave a monkeys.

Does anybody give a monkeys?




As a human being, I do.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/04/15 19:26, Chris French wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/04/15 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from them.

Fantastic. That should solve the housing shortage

With luck all the full of hate people would go as well.

Given the abusive way you respond to some people who disagree with you,
I guess you will be off on the first boat?

Contempt is not hate.

Don't think they are mutually exclusive.

And why should one have contempt for someone just because they hold a
differing political view


--
Chris French

On 30/04/15 20:56, Chris French wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/04/15 19:26, Chris French wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/04/15 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the
rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from
them.

Fantastic. That should solve the housing shortage

With luck all the full of hate people would go as well.

Given the abusive way you respond to some people who disagree with you,
I guess you will be off on the first boat?

Contempt is not hate.

Don't think they are mutually exclusive.

And why should one have contempt for someone just because they hold a
differing political view


Its not the different political view, its the reason why its held.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
I suppose it was too much to assume you understood what asylum means.

**** all of those are seeking asylum.

Even more wear to the crystal ball.

Don’t need any crystal ball, just look
at where they are coming from.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Only the likes of Farage and his supporters who don't possess a brain
cell between them would believe refugees would risk life and limb to
get to a country when their sole purpose was to destroy it.

Have fun explaining suicide bombers that do a lot more than just risk
life and limb.

Yes. The average suicide bomber risks dying by drowning on an overcrowded
boat before getting to his destination - taking care to keep his powder
dry.

Irrelevant to whether they risk a bit more than life and limb.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:24:36 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 30/04/2015 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
Also note that not a single one is Polish, but in 2011 there were over
1/2 million Polish in the UK. Not counting other nationailities of
course.
And that was 4 years ago.

So spouting that the UK has a low number of refugess and asylum seekers
is completely missing the point, some might think delibratly.

Do try to keep your attributions straight. Dave Plowman wrote about the
immigration rate. I wrote about the numbers of asylum seekers. If you
wish to dispute the immigration figures, you should be replying to DP.

I wonder why not many Poles seek asylum in the UK. Can anybody think of a
reason for that?

Whisky Dave, you really are truly special.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not the different political view, its the reason why its held.

I hold my views because I'd like a fair deal for all my fellow men.
Regardless of race or religion, etc.

Something right wingers will never ever understand.

--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not the different political view, its the reason why its held.

I hold my views because I'd like a fair deal for all my fellow men.

Its very far from clear that many of those 'asylum seekers'
are actually seeking asylum at all. They are in fact mostly
just flouting the immigration law that way. Nothing like
a fair deal to do that.

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2015 14:00, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
...
Only the likes of Farage and his supporters who don't possess a brain
cell
between them would believe refugees would risk life and limb to get to a
country when their sole purpose was to destroy it.

They destroy it by just being here in the numbers coming.

In 2014, the UK granted just over 14,000 requests for asylum. Are you
really frightened by that number?

There shouldn't be any at all.
They are supposed to go to the nearest safe country not cross Africa/Europe
to get here.

Most are economic migrants, here to sponge at worst and take jobs at best.

Even brain dead socialists are coming to realise this.
They are the biggest danger since Adolf Hitler.

They will turn this country into a replica of wherever they came from,
mostly third world ********s.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 15:55:42 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/04/2015 13:01, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 23:40:31 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 29/04/2015 21:45, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTwOap7ohc4

What that fool fails to recognise is that Britain has
HALF the immigration rate that Australia does.

We are also far from the most popular destination in the EU. In 2104,
we
were the sixth most popular choice, with the number of asylum seekers
being:

asylum seekers aren;lt teh same as immigrants wanting to come to the UK
or anywhere else. They are TWO differnt sets.

Nigel was specifically talking about Libya and the situation in the
Mediterranean.

then perhaps it's important to know the differncies

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html

Also note that not a single one is Polish, but in 2011 there were over 1/2
million Polish in the UK. Not counting other nationailities of course.
And that was 4 years ago.

So spouting that the UK has a low number of refugess and asylum seekers is
completely missing the point, some might think delibratly.

He is a brain dead socialist.
Socialists think they will vote labour.
They never think more than a couple of years ahead.

On 29/04/2015 21:45, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTwOap7ohc4

What that fool fails to recognise is that Britain has
HALF the immigration rate that Australia does.

Population density;

Australia 7.3/sq mi
UK 661.9/sq mi


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 01/05/15 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not the different political view, its the reason why its held.

I hold my views because I'd like a fair deal for all my fellow men.
Regardless of race or religion, etc.


So do I, but that's nit why you hold your views.

You hold them because you are either too stupid or too hypocritical to
see that the very last way your stated desires will ever be achieved is
by supporting the political ideologies that you do.

Something right wingers will never ever understand.

My contempt is not for your politics, its for your own stupidity and
bigotry that allows you to make a statement like that.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/2015 21:45, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTwOap7ohc4

What that fool fails to recognise is that Britain has
HALF the immigration rate that Australia does.

Population density;

Australia 7.3/sq mi
UK 661.9/sq mi

That is very misleading. What matters is what the population
density is in the area where most people are in both cases.

On 01/05/2015 07:25, harryagain wrote:
....
He is a brain dead socialist....

By your standards Harry, Attila the Hun was a socialist. I am what all
the parties want to attract - the floating voter. My vote goes to the
party that I think offers the best for the country at the time of each
election and I believe that having any one party in power for too long
is bad for the country.

Socialists think they will vote labour.

The Labour party stopped being a socialist party when Blair took over.
It is now simply left of centre.

They never think more than a couple of years ahead.

That is far more true of anybody who supports leaving the EU.

--
Colin Bignell

On 30/04/2015 18:54, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 30/04/2015 18:03, Capitol wrote:
...
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,...

That is entirely a matter of opinion and I disagree with you.

UKIP are locked out of Tonights
Question Time for leaders even though their share of the vote is higher
than the limpdems!

We won't know what share of the vote they have until after next
Thursday. All else is conjecture.

We now have achieved censorship in our national
broadcaster. How do you like that? Do you support it?

It is no more censorship than is omitting the SNP, who are far more
likely to be important in the next parliament, or the Greens. It is
simply speaking to the leaders of the three parties with the most MPs.
That may or may not change next week, but for this week, it is still the
case that they are the three main parliamentary parties.


So you do support cesorship, I expected so.

We both know you asked a loaded question and were going to claim that,
no matter how I replied. Given how the leaders were treated on Question
Time, I suspect Nigel is glad he wasn't invited.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:24:36 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 30/04/2015 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
Also note that not a single one is Polish, but in 2011 there were over
1/2 million Polish in the UK. Not counting other nationailities of
course.
And that was 4 years ago.

So spouting that the UK has a low number of refugess and asylum seekers
is completely missing the point, some might think delibratly.

Do try to keep your attributions straight. Dave Plowman wrote about the
immigration rate. I wrote about the numbers of asylum seekers. If you
wish to dispute the immigration figures, you should be replying to DP.

I wonder why not many Poles seek asylum in the UK. Can anybody think of a
reason for that?


I suspect some did before the Iron Curtain came down

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not the different political view, its the reason why its held.

I hold my views because I'd like a fair deal for all my fellow men.

Its very far from clear that many of those 'asylum seekers'
are actually seeking asylum at all. They are in fact mostly
just flouting the immigration law that way. Nothing like
a fair deal to do that.

I'd actually moved on to things in general. But since you never actually
read posts before replying, you'd not have realised this.


--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I hold my views because I'd like a fair deal for all my fellow men.
Regardless of race or religion, etc.


So do I,

That's the best joke you've made in ages.

but that's nit why you hold your views.

You seem to be using Wodney's crystal ball.

--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
I wonder why not many Poles seek asylum in the UK. Can anybody think
of a reason for that?


I suspect some did before the Iron Curtain came down


There's a large Polish contingent in this part of London. Dating back from
WW2.

--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not the different political view, its the reason why its held.

I hold my views because I'd like a fair deal for all my fellow men.

Its very far from clear that many of those 'asylum seekers'
are actually seeking asylum at all. They are in fact mostly
just flouting the immigration law that way. Nothing like
a fair deal to do that.

I'd actually moved on to things in general.

Like hell you did.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
I wonder why not many Poles seek asylum in the UK. Can anybody think
of a reason for that?


I suspect some did before the Iron Curtain came down


There's a large Polish contingent in this part of London.
Dating back from WW2.

Yes, but those basically had enough of a clue to notice
that things were a lot better in Britain than in Poland.

Nothing to do with asylum.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
I wonder why not many Poles seek asylum in the UK. Can anybody think
of a reason for that?


I suspect some did before the Iron Curtain came down


There's a large Polish contingent in this part of London. Dating back from
WW2.

as I remarked a few days ago.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
There's a large Polish contingent in this part of London.
Dating back from WW2.

Yes, but those basically had enough of a clue to notice
that things were a lot better in Britain than in Poland.

Nothing to do with asylum.

You are wrong there again. Is there anything you actually know about?

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 18:24:44 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/04/2015 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 15:55:42 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/04/2015 13:01, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 23:40:31 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 29/04/2015 21:45, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTwOap7ohc4

What that fool fails to recognise is that Britain has
HALF the immigration rate that Australia does.

We are also far from the most popular destination in the EU. In 2104, we
were the sixth most popular choice, with the number of asylum seekers being:

asylum seekers aren;lt teh same as immigrants wanting to come to the UK or anywhere else. They are TWO differnt sets.

Nigel was specifically talking about Libya and the situation in the
Mediterranean.

then perhaps it's important to know the differncies

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html

Also note that not a single one is Polish, but in 2011 there were over 1/2 million Polish in the UK. Not counting other nationailities of course.
And that was 4 years ago.

So spouting that the UK has a low number of refugess and asylum seekers is completely missing the point, some might think delibratly.

Do try to keep your attributions straight. Dave Plowman wrote about the
immigration rate. I wrote about the numbers of asylum seekers. If you
wish to dispute the immigration figures, you should be replying to DP.

If yuo want to know the total number of immigrants in the country then you have to count both. Asylum seekers still take up space and resources but aren't seen as immigrants on goventment stats. And that's just thos ethey know about and can count. This stat fiffling is also done for migration.
In that they use migration numbers rather than immigrant numbers.

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 18:41:18 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
As UKIP are the only party with a valid immigration policy,

Depends what you mean by valid. They claim they will reduce the rate of
immigration. But then so have the Tories and Labour at various times.

Of course if UKIP actually got power, no one would want to come here
anyway. The ports would be full of people leaving to get away from them.

Fantastic. That should solve the housing shortage

With luck all the full of hate people would go as well.

Oh come on, most (politions anyway) say that immigration is good for the economy. If people moved out how would that solve the housing shortage ?
After all moving 300,000 in doesn't do any harm to anyhting and has NO effect on the housing shortage, there's no housing shortage is there ?

I don;t see a housing shortage are houses getting shorter ;-)

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 18:47:06 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/04/2015 14:00, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
...
Only the likes of Farage and his supporters who don't possess a brain cell
between them would believe refugees would risk life and limb to get to a
country when their sole purpose was to destroy it.

They destroy it by just being here in the numbers coming.

In 2014, the UK granted just over 14,000 requests for asylum. Are you
really frightened by that number?

I wouldn't be if it were true. I never managed to find out what happened to the 5 or so that jumped out of a lorry a friend was unpacking. They disapeared apparently, and I bet they aren't the only ones that have arrived and the govenrment haven't counted.
Of course it's delibrate to use asymum seekers as they are reliavily few in numbers compared to legal immigration.
It's a bit like asking the Ugandan government or russian how many gays they have in their country.

or why the government is employing illigal, immigrants when thre's plenty of people of all races and religions legally in the country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...er-Agency.html

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 23:02:54 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:24:36 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 30/04/2015 16:37, whisky-dave wrote:
Also note that not a single one is Polish, but in 2011 there were over
1/2 million Polish in the UK. Not counting other nationailities of
course.
And that was 4 years ago.

So spouting that the UK has a low number of refugess and asylum seekers
is completely missing the point, some might think delibratly.

Do try to keep your attributions straight. Dave Plowman wrote about the
immigration rate. I wrote about the numbers of asylum seekers. If you
wish to dispute the immigration figures, you should be replying to DP.

I wonder why not many Poles seek asylum in the UK. Can anybody think of a
reason for that?

Why are we talking about asylum seekers anyway they can't take jobs in the UK or benifits other than about fiver a day.
We were talking about immigrantion.

On 01/05/2015 13:46, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 18:24:44 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
....
Do try to keep your attributions straight. Dave Plowman wrote about the
immigration rate. I wrote about the numbers of asylum seekers. If you
wish to dispute the immigration figures, you should be replying to DP.

If yuo want to know the total number of immigrants in the country then you have to count both....

If I wanted to talk about immigration, those figures are readily
available. However, Nigel was specifically talking about the situation
in the Mediterranean and those people are asylum seekers, hence the only
ones relevant to this thread.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
However, Nigel was specifically talking about the situation
in the Mediterranean and those people are asylum seekers, hence the only
ones relevant to this thread.

To some here, they are apparently all suicide bombers. ;-)

--
*What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 1 May 2015 15:04:04 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/05/2015 13:46, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 18:24:44 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
...
Do try to keep your attributions straight. Dave Plowman wrote about the
immigration rate. I wrote about the numbers of asylum seekers. If you
wish to dispute the immigration figures, you should be replying to DP.

If yuo want to know the total number of immigrants in the country then you have to count both....

If I wanted to talk about immigration, those figures are readily
available.

The true figures aren't, or at best well disquised.


However, Nigel was specifically talking about the situation
in the Mediterranean and those people are asylum seekers,

yes those are asylum seekers that will require resources in the UK.
Such as hpousing and medical care, even food. They aren;t that difernt from any other person currently in the UK from that point of view.
Asylum seekers, breathe they eat, they ****, they take up space sometimes called a footprint, so ignoring them isn't a good idea. Not counting them doesn;t mean they don;t exists.



hence the only
ones relevant to this thread.

You mean on this thread, titled OT Immigration Nigel Farage.

On 01/05/2015 15:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
However, Nigel was specifically talking about the situation
in the Mediterranean and those people are asylum seekers, hence the only
ones relevant to this thread.

To some here, they are apparently all suicide bombers. ;-)


Who, if they do it by choice, are generally well educated single men,
averaging around 21 years old, with strong religious or political
motivation.

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/05/2015 15:51, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 01/05/2015 15:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
However, Nigel was specifically talking about the situation
in the Mediterranean and those people are asylum seekers, hence the only
ones relevant to this thread.

To some here, they are apparently all suicide bombers. ;-)


Who, if they do it by choice, are generally well educated single men,
averaging around 21 years old, with strong religious or political
motivation.

And some women as well.

On 01/05/2015 15:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 May 2015 15:04:04 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
....
However, Nigel was specifically talking about the situation
in the Mediterranean and those people are asylum seekers,

yes those are asylum seekers that will require resources in the UK.
Such as hpousing and medical care, even food. They aren;t that difernt from any other person currently in the UK from that point of view.
Asylum seekers, breathe they eat, they ****, they take up space sometimes called a footprint, so ignoring them isn't a good idea. Not counting them doesn;t mean they don;t exists.

I was only counting them. They are the ones who are fleeing persecution,
many from their own government, and who need the protection of another
country.


hence the only
ones relevant to this thread.

You mean on this thread, titled OT Immigration Nigel Farage.

Harry's choice of title is misleading. The video link is Nigel blaming
the situation in the Med. on the bombing of Libya, although, in fact,
the largest numbers of those seeking asylum in the UK won't have come
from there.

--
Colin Bignell