S Viemeister wrote:
On 5/13/2016 2:55 PM, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 17:58, Tim Streater wrote:
wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.
On average it is.
Depends what your benchmark is.
I just look it up in Winky:

England: 1054 per sq mile
UK: 662
France: 301
Germany: 583
Netherlands: 1056

Simples.

Scotland 174 average and 23 in the Highlands.

That's one of the things I like about the Highlands.


What, that's it's a desolate waste with **** weather?

Low population density doesn't sit well with economic prosperity. Why do
think people migrate towards cities?

Tim

--
Trolls and troll feeders go in my killfile

whisky-dave wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

I still think they are undercounting even with the above.

More likely to be undercounting by not
allowing for those who can't find a job
when they show up and go home because
they can't or never intended to work in
Britain for very long, particularly with the
kids taking a year off before going to uni etc.

Fredxxx wrote
whisky-dave wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

I still think they are undercounting even with the above.

I do think NI numbers show the tip of an ice-berg. Many will have children
and partners who don't work.

Sure, but plenty dont too.

What is interesting is to ask why these numbers are being distorted

They aren't. There are a number of ways to work out how many
of them there are when you dont religiously count them as they
cross the border and even if you did that, it would be hard to
separate those who are just tourists or visitors from those who
plan to stay for quite a while even if you ask them at the border.

and wonder what other stats are being used to mislead us.

Mindless conspiracy theory.

On 13/05/16 23:53, Tim+ wrote:
Low population density doesn't sit well with economic prosperity. Why do
think people migrate towards cities?

Oh but it does.

You only need to look at the USA to see that.

What doesn't sit well is low population density and no natural
resources...think antartica...



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:27, Nightjar cpb wrote:
it is more than offset by the benefits to the UK economy from EU
migrants:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...20bn-ucl-study




Oh no, someone quoting the 'Guradian' as an authority!

I thought that a synopsis might be simpler for the average Brexit
supporter to understand. If you want the full report from UCL, it is
he

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf


I see that as usual, you are ignoring the costs!

Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 17:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

I just look it up in Winky:

England: 1054 per sq mile
UK: 662
France: 301
Germany: 583
Netherlands: 1056

Simples.


Scotland 174 average and 23 in the Highlands.


I thought the UK had overtaken the Netherlands recently?

On 14/05/2016 12:48, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:27, Nightjar cpb wrote:
it is more than offset by the benefits to the UK economy from EU
migrants:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...20bn-ucl-study




Oh no, someone quoting the 'Guradian' as an authority!

I thought that a synopsis might be simpler for the average Brexit
supporter to understand. If you want the full report from UCL, it is
he

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf


I see that as usual, you are ignoring the costs!

If you have an issue with the conclusions, take it up with the
economists at UCL.

--
Colin Bignell

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
France has half the population density of the UK. As a result, it's a
more pleasant environment in lots of ways. We should be looking to
reduce the population, not increase it.

You think Paris less congested than London?

I'd expect any capital city to be similarly congested to any other, by
and large. What have this to do with anything?

It's where most of the population of the country lives, and
in other similarly congested major cities in that country.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

I just look it up in Winky:

England: 1054 per sq mile
UK: 662
France: 301
Germany: 583
Netherlands: 1056

Simples.

What matters is the population density where
most live, not the average for the whole country.

On 13/05/2016 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:17, Adrian wrote:
Don't forget - there are more people in work in this country, as a
proportion of the population, than there have EVER been.

And that frankly is the most crippling indictment of socialism one can
utter.

More people 'employed' and real incomes falling.

And millions of people hooked on *in-work* benefits. To the myopic
socialists who think these people are here 'paying taxes', the
value of the in-work benefits, plus child-benefit, 'free' NHS,
education, housing benefit massively exceeds any tax they might
be paying. Only the single unattached workers getting more than
minimum wage and on PAYE are actually paying anything.



Whatever happened to the leisured society? Why build robots and then
keep people in stupid mindless jobs?

I suppose with a education and political correctness geared to making
them fit for only that, and not even leisure, what else can they do?

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And millions of people hooked on *in-work* benefits. To the myopic
socialists who think these people are here 'paying taxes', the
value of the in-work benefits, plus child-benefit, 'free' NHS,
education, housing benefit massively exceeds any tax they might
be paying. Only the single unattached workers getting more than
minimum wage and on PAYE are actually paying anything.

Absolutely. Scrap the lot. Go back to when taxes were only levied to wage
war. And every river an open sewer. And the plague. And so on.

--
*I yell because I care

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

On Friday, 13 May 2016 17:20:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.


The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.


Oz would be the obvious example.

I don't think Oz is in the EU although they were in the eurovision song contest.

No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Well just because I don't believe in uncontrolled immigration that DOES NOT mean I believe in torturing or terrorising them and subjecting them to Wodney even as a neighbour let alone sharing a country with him is just too cruel a punishment


Or the more logical thing of not ****ing up their country so they stay
there.

I always had the impression that when we were in the EEC the 8 or 10 strongest (financailly) countries would bring a poorer country under it's EEC wing, by investing in it and it's people rather than taking all those that could work, then take all their medical and skilled staff and leave the country and it's poorer inhabitents to rote in the name of EU progress.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And millions of people hooked on *in-work* benefits. To the myopic
socialists who think these people are here 'paying taxes', the
value of the in-work benefits, plus child-benefit, 'free' NHS,
education, housing benefit massively exceeds any tax they might
be paying. Only the single unattached workers getting more than
minimum wage and on PAYE are actually paying anything.

Absolutely. Scrap the lot. Go back to when taxes were only levied to wage
war. And every river an open sewer. And the plague. And so on.


Yep. There's no alternatives in between.

Dave, you're a kind of parody of the Remain campaign.

--
Les

On Tue, 17 May 2016 08:00:00 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

You mean those that have come from syria ?

You do realise that Syria isn't an EU country, so whether a Syrian can
come to the UK is already entirely, 100% the UK government's decision?

(with the one caveat of various UN treaties on refugees)

If a Syrian becomes an EU citizen, then the fact they used to be Syrian
is irrelevant. They're an EU citizen.

On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 16:29:21 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 08:00:00 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

You mean those that have come from syria ?

You do realise that Syria isn't an EU country, so whether a Syrian can
come to the UK is already entirely, 100% the UK government's decision?

But they can;t come here from Syria and claim to be from the EU. can they.



(with the one caveat of various UN treaties on refugees)

If a Syrian becomes an EU citizen,

and how does that happen.

then the fact they used to be Syrian
is irrelevant. They're an EU citizen.

exactly.

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And millions of people hooked on *in-work* benefits. To the myopic
socialists who think these people are here 'paying taxes', the
value of the in-work benefits, plus child-benefit, 'free' NHS,
education, housing benefit massively exceeds any tax they might
be paying. Only the single unattached workers getting more than
minimum wage and on PAYE are actually paying anything.

Absolutely. Scrap the lot. Go back to when taxes were only levied to
wage war. And every river an open sewer. And the plague. And so on.


Yep. There's no alternatives in between.

You apparently want to dismantle the welfare state. Including the NHS,
which is probably the most popular part of it. BTW, we had free education
long before the NHS and welfare state. I would hardly call that a
'between' or centre view.

Dave, you're a kind of parody of the Remain campaign.

And if you truly believe what you wrote at the top of the page, more right
wing than anyone else I know of. But please carry on. Nice to see the true
BREXIT colours.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 15:23:24 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 17:20:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.


The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

In the case of Muslims, Saudi Arabia.

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too. With economic
migrants the only thing that makes sense is to let them go where they
want to go as long as where they want to go wants to have them.

Britain does with quite a few of them, particularly in areas
where not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to qualify in those areas like medicine etc.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities.
And France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

I don't think Oz is in the EU although
they were in the eurovision song contest.

And did a hell of a lot better than you lot did too.

No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Well just because I don't believe in uncontrolled
immigration that DOES NOT mean I believe in
torturing or terrorising them and subjecting them
to Wodney even as a neighbour let alone sharing
a country with him is just too cruel a punishment

The turks feel otherwise.

Or the more logical thing of not ****ing
up their country so they stay there.

I always had the impression that when we were in the EEC the
8 or 10 strongest (financailly) countries would bring a poorer
country under it's EEC wing, by investing in it and it's people

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

rather than taking all those that could work, then take all
their medical and skilled staff and leave the country and
it's poorer inhabitents to rote in the name of EU progress.

Or that either.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And millions of people hooked on *in-work* benefits. To the myopic
socialists who think these people are here 'paying taxes', the
value of the in-work benefits, plus child-benefit, 'free' NHS,
education, housing benefit massively exceeds any tax they might
be paying. Only the single unattached workers getting more than
minimum wage and on PAYE are actually paying anything.

Absolutely. Scrap the lot. Go back to when taxes were only levied to
wage war. And every river an open sewer. And the plague. And so on.


Yep. There's no alternatives in between.

You apparently want to dismantle the welfare state. Including the NHS,
which is probably the most popular part of it. BTW, we had free education
long before the NHS and welfare state. I would hardly call that a
'between' or centre view.

Dave, you're a kind of parody of the Remain campaign.

And if you truly believe what you wrote at the top of the page,

He didn’t, someone else did, ****wit.

more right wing than anyone else I know of.

Another lie with the turnip alone.

But please carry on. Nice to see the true BREXIT colours.

You don’t even know whether ANDREW wants to leave or not.

On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 17:11:22 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 15:23:24 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 17:20:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.


The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities. And
France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

In the case of Muslims, Saudi Arabia.

Didn't know Saudi Arabia was part of the EU.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 00:09:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too.

Yes so differnt places then.

With economic
migrants the only thing that makes sense is to let them go where they
want to go as long as where they want to go wants to have them.

So what happens when the country they want to go to doesn't want them ?
Do we use democracy to decide where they go ? IF so who gets to vote.

Britain does with quite a few of them, particularly in areas
where not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to qualify in those areas like medicine etc.

They are prepared and always have been, they travel all over the world.
The trouble is is so expensive to study in the UK few but the wealthy can actually afford it.




The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities.
And France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

So, you got a lot more free space.

Which is why I was asking about the best place to put them.
Putting them in over crowded areas with housing shortages, a level of poverty which means food banks are required, doesnt seem the best place to me.



I don't think Oz is in the EU although
they were in the eurovision song contest.

And did a hell of a lot better than you lot did too.

yuo think 'we' want to win and have to host the bloody thing that loses money.
That's teh sort of thing the EU is good at, wasting money.
Maybe that's where part of the 350 million a week goes, as few seem to know.



No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Well just because I don't believe in uncontrolled
immigration that DOES NOT mean I believe in
torturing or terrorising them and subjecting them
to Wodney even as a neighbour let alone sharing
a country with him is just too cruel a punishment

The turks feel otherwise.

well provided there's enough people like you that can do their ordering for them and build houses that's OK then they should go to OZ.


I always had the impression that when we were in the EEC the
8 or 10 strongest (financailly) countries would bring a poorer
country under it's EEC wing, by investing in it and it's people

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

So what is the point of the EU to destroy other countries or just take all their health workers and engineers as economic migrants.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 00:24:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

As the article says, although it does its best not to,
a large number of EU migrants don't stay long.

I don't believe that's true.

It is anyway.

Everytime this happens the govenment admits it's previous figures are
wrong.

Separate matter entire to whether that general point is

That the UK govenment haven't a clue how many come to this country and stay illegally here, considering they can;t even count the legal ones properly, which is why they keep uping the figures.
Years ago previosu estimates were 8,000 now it's 2.4 million.
And they still aren't counting illegal immigration.



Any method of counting must be flawed unless you
do that as part of the census and have some way of
checking who is lying about their circumstances.

Which is why we know the govenment stats are under-estimates at best and worst blatant lies.
This is partly why there's problems with school places, because the goventment havent; a clue how many children they are inviting to the UK or how many children adults will have in the UK.
How can the UK not know pretty accuratly how many babies are born in the UK each day ?




What happens is that they are then labled differntly by those
doing thee officail counting. Such as becoming an EU citizen.

Those are ALREADY EU citizens, that's how they
get to move to Britain if they feel like doing that.

You mean those that have come from syria ?

Keep this **** up and I will just flush it where it belongs.

Is syria in the EU are syrians EU citizens.


Quite a few who discover their employment prospects aren't
great and who can't afford to stay around with no job for long.

Then they are economic migrnats then aren't they.

Corse they are.

So will be looking for work and if tehy couldnlt find work in their own country what makes you think they will find work here ?



Yopu might be corect in that some only come for 3-4 years to study
at univirsity, such as the 50+ chinese research students we have who
will most likely go home once they have completed thier PhD.

And quite a few drop out and have to go home too.

Not that many here if any do that with PHd undergrads yes.
Perhaps they sign on for doing the corse and then don't turn up for
lectures
or labs, so how are they counted as you say you assume they return.

Of course some of them just do that as a way to get into the
country legally and never intended to do that course to completion.

Yes a significant number for some unis one place London met.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19419395





As measured by the govenment

You get the same result when measured by anyone else too.

No you won't.

We know you do. The OECD standardised unemployment
rates only differ from the official govt unemployment rates
by a couple of decimal points at most

illigal immigrants don't registar to be counted.


They are counted as employed although they
aren't employed because they are iin education.

Those are not counted as unemployed because they arent
unemployed, because they are in the education system instead.

They aren't on leaving school. You can;t claim JSA until 18.



Same with those who choose not to work for whatever reason.

No it isn't.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too.

Yes so differnt places then.

Not always. Australia accepts lots of all of the above,
just has quota for some categories like asylum seekers
and genuine refugees and bans some ways of getting
here completely like showing up in a leaky boat from
Indonesia or Shri Lanka with no papers. If you do that
you mostly get shipped back to where you came from
or at most end up on Nauru with no possibility of
ever being accepted in Australia.

With economic migrants the only thing that makes
sense is to let them go where they want to go as
long as where they want to go wants to have them.

So what happens when the country
they want to go to doesn't want them ?

Those economic migrants get to see
if somewhere else will accept them.

Do we use democracy to decide where they go ?

Nope.

IF so who gets to vote.

No one does.

Britain does with quite a few of them, particularly in areas
where not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to qualify in those areas like medicine etc.

They are prepared and always have
been, they travel all over the world.

I was talking about the locals, not the migrants.

The trouble is is so expensive to study in the
UK few but the wealthy can actually afford it.

Plenty of the migrants get qualified back home where
they are coming from before moving to Britain where
not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to get qualified.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities.
And France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

So, you got a lot more free space.

It has nothing to do with free space.

Which is why I was asking about the best place to put them.

There is no such animal.

Putting them in over crowded areas with housing
shortages, a level of poverty which means food banks
are required, doesnt seem the best place to me.

Everywhere has food banks, because some choose to
**** what benefits they get against the wall on booze
and drugs and show up at the food bank for free food.

I don't think Oz is in the EU although
they were in the eurovision song contest.

And did a hell of a lot better than you lot did too.

yuo think 'we' want to win and have to
host the bloody thing that loses money.

Winning doesnt see you host anything.

That's teh sort of thing the EU
is good at, wasting money.

Corse Britain never does anything like that, eh ?

Maybe that's where part of the 350 million a week goes,

Corse it is. And some of it comes back too.

as few seem to know.

Because they are too stupid to look at the numbers.

No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Well just because I don't believe in uncontrolled
immigration that DOES NOT mean I believe in
torturing or terrorising them and subjecting them
to Wodney even as a neighbour let alone sharing
a country with him is just too cruel a punishment

The turks feel otherwise.

well provided there's enough people like you
that can do their ordering for them and build
houses that's OK then they should go to OZ.

If they all did, your NHS would implode.

I always had the impression that when we were in the EEC the
8 or 10 strongest (financailly) countries would bring a poorer
country under it's EEC wing, by investing in it and it's people

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

So what is the point of the EU to destroy other countries

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

or just take all their health workers and
engineers as economic migrants.

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

As the article says, although it does its best not to,
a large number of EU migrants don't stay long.

I don't believe that's true.

It is anyway.

Everytime this happens the govenment admits it's previous figures are
wrong.

Separate matter entire to whether that general point is

That the UK govenment haven't a clue how many
come to this country and stay illegally here,

That is a bare faced lie.

considering they can;t even count the legal ones properly,

Another bare face lie.

which is why they keep uping the figures.

Another bare face lie.

Years ago previosu estimates were 8,000 now it's 2.4 million.

Corse there is no possibility of anything changing over that time, eh ?

And they still aren't counting illegal immigration.

Another bare face lie.

Any method of counting must be flawed unless you
do that as part of the census and have some way of
checking who is lying about their circumstances.

Which is why we know the govenment stats are
under-estimates at best and worst blatant lies.

Another bare face lie with that last.

This is partly why there's problems with school places,

Another bare face lie.

because the goventment havent; a clue how
many children they are inviting to the UK

No one is being invited, at most some have to
be allowed, most obviously with the EU citizens.

or how many children adults will have in the UK.

Even the parents themselves dont know that.

How can the UK not know pretty accuratly how
many babies are born in the UK each day ?

Of course they do. But they dont know how many of them
will be still in Britain at the time they are required to start
school, or where they will be in Britain at the time either.

What happens is that they are then labled differntly by those
doing thee officail counting. Such as becoming an EU citizen.

Those are ALREADY EU citizens, that's how they
get to move to Britain if they feel like doing that.

You mean those that have come from syria ?

Keep this **** up and I will just flush it where it belongs.

Is syria in the EU are syrians EU citizens.

You were warned.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 21:43:48 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too.

Yes so differnt places then.

Not always. Australia accepts lots of all of the above,

What doi you mean by Australia here are you refering to teh govenment or the people or the law/legislation ?


just has quota for some categories like asylum seekers
and genuine refugees.

I see a new term genuine refugees.
can you tell me what symbol they have on their forehead or other part of their anatomy so we can tell them from none genuine refugees ?


and bans some ways of getting
here completely like showing up in a leaky boat from
Indonesia or Shri Lanka with no papers.

Does banning such a thing stop it happeneing , as I've seen OZ boarder control on UK TV.

If you do that
you mostly get shipped back to where you came from
or at most end up on Nauru with no possibility of
ever being accepted in Australia.

Nauru is that some sort of hell for immigrants or some sort of threat
given out to stop none genuine refugees ?

What about economic migrants can Australia ban them ?


With economic migrants the only thing that makes
sense is to let them go where they want to go as
long as where they want to go wants to have them.

So what happens when the country
they want to go to doesn't want them ?

Those economic migrants get to see
if somewhere else will accept them.

and if no one wants them ?



Britain does with quite a few of them, particularly in areas
where not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to qualify in those areas like medicine etc.

They are prepared and always have
been, they travel all over the world.

I was talking about the locals, not the migrants.

Lots of locals have left the UK to work aboard an ex's sister trained as a nurse in London, then went back to ireland as a nurse as she was paid twice as much in ireland as she could earnt in Lonon, that was 15 years ago though.


The trouble is is so expensive to study in the
UK few but the wealthy can actually afford it.

Plenty of the migrants get qualified back home where
they are coming from before moving to Britain where
not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to get qualified.

They are prepared to put in the years and do.
But first you need to put in the infrasturcer required.
if you expect sonmeone leaving school to go into nursing
it's likely they will need to move to a large city to train.
Not many school, leavers can afford to rent a place in central or even outer london, so in the past specail blocks of hosing were put aside for such things now this doesn;t really happen or due to demand is far to expensive.
I bet you couldn't afford to live in London.



The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities.
And France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

So, you got a lot more free space.

It has nothing to do with free space.

it has everything to do with it otherwise they wouldn;t be talking about building more housing.


Which is why I was asking about the best place to put them.

There is no such animal.

Yes there is depending on their needs.


Putting them in over crowded areas with housing
shortages, a level of poverty which means food banks
are required, doesnt seem the best place to me.

Everywhere has food banks, because some choose to
**** what benefits they get against the wall on booze
and drugs and show up at the food bank for free food.

Some probbaly do and that included those seeking aslylum and/or looking for work.




That's teh sort of thing the EU
is good at, wasting money.

Corse Britain never does anything like that, eh ?

yes it does I see that here quite often and working in a govenrment organisation I can see how it happens.



Maybe that's where part of the 350 million a week goes,

Corse it is. And some of it comes back too.

Of course it does. I do the same, but I don;t need to employ someone
on 50k to tell me what sandwiches I should buy and that person doesnlt need an assistant and an office in brussels either.



as few seem to know.

Because they are too stupid to look at the numbers.

So they employ others to look at the numbers to tell them what they mean.



No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Well just because I don't believe in uncontrolled
immigration that DOES NOT mean I believe in
torturing or terrorising them and subjecting them
to Wodney even as a neighbour let alone sharing
a country with him is just too cruel a punishment

The turks feel otherwise.

well provided there's enough people like you
that can do their ordering for them and build
houses that's OK then they should go to OZ.

If they all did, your NHS would implode.

Not that many Ausies in the NHS now, I have an AUS friend that works in the ambulance service he's treated like **** because threr's plenty of EU people looking for jobs so they set a wage to reflect that. He typically has to work 14 hours shifts. When you can employ people from all over the world you tend to choose the cheapest you can get.
He has been her for 20 years, he's spanish girlfriend who;'s lived in teh UK for 25+ years has just brought a flat in barcelona because she can't afford one in London.


I always had the impression that when we were in the EEC the
8 or 10 strongest (financailly) countries would bring a poorer
country under it's EEC wing, by investing in it and it's people

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

So what is the point of the EU to destroy other countries

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

So you think stripping a country of it's workforce is a good thing.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 21:54:31 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/



That the UK govenment haven't a clue how many
come to this country and stay illegally here,

That is a bare faced lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6...illegal-worker

There are people, in the UK working illegally that the government don;t know about.



considering they can;t even count the legal ones properly,

Another bare face lie.

What's it like to be completely gullible ?


which is why they keep uping the figures.

Another bare face lie.



Years ago previosu estimates were 8,000 now it's 2.4 million.

Corse there is no possibility of anything changing over that time, eh ?

I would expect a govenment to realise that.
So they planed for an extra 8000 people in london and today it's 2.4 milliohn perhaps that's why we have a housing shortage.

Can you tell me why they are building so many flats and houses in London,
seems silly building them doesn;t it if no ones here to buy them.
The UK birthrate had almost levelled out the birth bump was just after the war.


And they still aren't counting illegal immigration.

Another bare face lie.

The most significant change in this estimate is however the inclusion of children born in the UK to illegal migrants. For the LSE team illegal migrants oscillate between 417,000 and 863,000, including a population of UK-born children ranging between 44,000 and 144,000.



Any method of counting must be flawed unless you
do that as part of the census and have some way of
checking who is lying about their circumstances.

Which is why we know the govenment stats are
under-estimates at best and worst blatant lies.

Another bare face lie with that last.

So are children born to illgal immigrants in a country illegal or are they citizens fom the country they are born in. ?





because the goventment havent; a clue how
many children they are inviting to the UK

No one is being invited, at most some have to
be allowed, most obviously with the EU citizens.

exactly so how many places do you allocate to the uninvited.
How many places to you set at the dinner table for uninvited guests ?

Oh I see there are NO illegal immigrants in Australia sorry I forgot.


or how many children adults will have in the UK.

Even the parents themselves dont know that.

But you're saying the govenemment does know.



How can the UK not know pretty accuratly how
many babies are born in the UK each day ?

Of course they do.

How. Because unless someone reports the birth, are you saying the govenment is psychic in some way ?




But they dont know how many of them
will be still in Britain at the time they are required to start
school, or where they will be in Britain at the time either.

yes lots of things they don't know.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too.

Yes so differnt places then.

Not always. Australia accepts lots of all of the above,

What doi you mean by Australia here are you refering
to teh govenment or the people or the law/legislation ?

The govt. Its the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed to come here and that is varied
depending on the situation here with the numbers of
economic migrants being allowed in varying with the
unemployment rate here etc. The numbers of asylum
seekers and genuine refugees allowed in in any particular
year is mostly varied based on the circumstances outside
the country what is happening civil war and war wise etc.

We've recently decided to accept 20K Syrians for example.

And its been done like that for getting on for a century now.

Prior to WW2 people were mostly free to come
and go as they pleased as long as they were white.

After WW2 we accepted lots of genuine refugees that
were the result of the utter shambles in europe. Initially
the population wasnt too keen on the wogs from Italy
and Greece and Malta etc and there was quite a bit of
govt action to make those allowed in less visible to the
public.

Eventually we ended up with lots of the dregs of the
middle east, particularly from Lebanon etc too.

Hordes of genuine refugees as a result of the Vietnam war etc.

Almost entirely govt policy driven.

You lot did quite a bit of that with commonwealth
country individuals after the war too.

just has quota for some categories like
asylum seekers and genuine refugees.

I see a new term genuine refugees.

Those are the ones that aren't just claiming to be refugees.

can you tell me what symbol they have on their forehead or other
part of their anatomy so we can tell them from none genuine refugees ?

Keep that **** up and it will be flushed where it belongs.

and bans some ways of getting here completely
like showing up in a leaky boat from
Indonesia or Shri Lanka with no papers.

Does banning such a thing stop it happeneing ,

Yep, we get **** all showing up in leaky boats anymore.

Had just one boat load this year, from Shri Lanka,
who were returned to Shri Lanka in days, quite literally.

as I've seen OZ boarder control on UK TV.

Those are the ones who show up on commercial aircraft.

We deal with those that show up in leaky boats
from Shri Lanka, Indonesia etc very differently.

If you do that you mostly get shipped back to where
you came from or at most end up on Nauru with no
possibility of ever being accepted in Australia.

Nauru is that some sort of hell for immigrants

Only for those that show up in leaky boats from Indonesia
etc, mostly coming from the middle east, Afghanistan etc.

And it is nothing like hell, just makes it clear to them that
they will never be allowed into Australia. Some are even
paid to go anywhere that will accept them other than
Australia.

or some sort of threat given out to stop none genuine refugees ?

Its not just a threat, there are hundreds of them on Nauru.

What about economic migrants can Australia ban them ?

It can, but we arent that stupid. We have always had much higher
numbers of economic migrants per capita than you lot have.

So has Canada.

With economic migrants the only thing that makes
sense is to let them go where they want to go as
long as where they want to go wants to have them.

So what happens when the country
they want to go to doesn't want them ?

Those economic migrants get to see
if somewhere else will accept them.

and if no one wants them ?

That's their problem.

Britain does with quite a few of them, particularly in areas
where not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to qualify in those areas like medicine etc.

They are prepared and always have
been, they travel all over the world.

I was talking about the locals, not the migrants.

Lots of locals have left the UK to work aboard

Yep thats been going on for centurys now.

Unsurprising given what a soggy little frigid island yours is.

an ex's sister trained as a nurse in London, then went back
to ireland as a nurse as she was paid twice as much in ireland
as she could earnt in Lonon, that was 15 years ago though.

Yeah, lots of our doctors and nurses come from Britain and Ireland.

The trouble is is so expensive to study in the
UK few but the wealthy can actually afford it.

Plenty of the migrants get qualified back home where
they are coming from before moving to Britain where
not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to get qualified.

They are prepared to put in the years and do.

Not in enough numbers to provide what the NHS needs.

But first you need to put in the infrasturcer required.
if you expect sonmeone leaving school to go into nursing
it's likely they will need to move to a large city to train.

In fact the bulk of the school leavers are already in a large city.

Not many school, leavers can afford to rent
a place in central or even outer london,

So they get to stay at home until they are qualified.

so in the past specail blocks of hosing were
put aside for such things now this doesn;t really
happen or due to demand is far to expensive.

I bet you couldn't afford to live in London.

You're just plain wrong about that. I can quite literally afford to live
anywhere.

The most densely populated parts of any country are the cities.
And France is generally little different to the UK in that.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

So, you got a lot more free space.

It has nothing to do with free space.

it has everything to do with it otherwise they
wouldn;t be talking about building more housing.

That's higher density housing, not free space.

Which is why I was asking about the best place to put them.

There is no such animal.

Yes there is depending on their needs.

Nope, no such animal as best place.

Putting them in over crowded areas with housing
shortages, a level of poverty which means food banks
are required, doesnt seem the best place to me.

Everywhere has food banks, because some choose to
**** what benefits they get against the wall on booze
and drugs and show up at the food bank for free food.

Some probbaly do and that included those
seeking aslylum and/or looking for work.

And those who are working too.

That's teh sort of thing the EU
is good at, wasting money.

Corse Britain never does anything like that, eh ?

yes it does I see that here quite often and working in
a govenrment organisation I can see how it happens.

Thats what every govt does.

Maybe that's where part of the 350 million a week goes,

Corse it is. And some of it comes back too.

Of course it does. I do the same, but I don;t need to employ
someone on 50k to tell me what sandwiches I should buy

Your govt does that anyway.

and that person doesnlt need an
assistant and an office in brussels either.

They have an office in London instead.

as few seem to know.

Because they are too stupid to look at the numbers.

So they employ others to look at the
numbers to tell them what they mean.

Yep, more money ****ed against the wall.

No shortage of space there. But then
they'd have Wodney as a neighbour.

Well just because I don't believe in uncontrolled
immigration that DOES NOT mean I believe in
torturing or terrorising them and subjecting them
to Wodney even as a neighbour let alone sharing
a country with him is just too cruel a punishment

The turks feel otherwise.

well provided there's enough people like you
that can do their ordering for them and build
houses that's OK then they should go to OZ.

If they all did, your NHS would implode.

Not that many Ausies in the NHS now,

Yeah, much better pay elsewhere now.

I have an AUS friend that works in the ambulance
service he's treated like **** because threr's plenty
of EU people looking for jobs so they set a wage
to reflect that. He typically has to work 14 hours
shifts. When you can employ people from all over the
world you tend to choose the cheapest you can get.

You lot always operated like that
with commonwealth country people.

Thats why you have so many of those from Jamaica etc there.

He has been her for 20 years, he's spanish girlfriend
who;'s lived in teh UK for 25+ years has just brought
a flat in barcelona because she can't afford one in London.

That has always been the downside of any successful big city.

Sydney and Melbourne are even less affordable than London.

I always had the impression that when we were in the EEC the
8 or 10 strongest (financailly) countries would bring a poorer
country under it's EEC wing, by investing in it and it's people

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

So what is the point of the EU to destroy other countries

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

So you think stripping a country of it's workforce is a good thing.

Nope, I have said the exact opposite and you can check that
using groups.google if you can work out how to use it.

No country has ever been stripped of its workforce.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

That the UK govenment haven't a clue how many
come to this country and stay illegally here,

That is a bare faced lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6...illegal-worker

There are people, in the UK working illegally
that the government don;t know about.

Yes, but it is a bare faced lie to say that the govt doesnt
have a clue about how many of them there are.

They catch plenty of them and so they do have
good idea about how many of them there are.

considering they can;t even count the legal ones properly,

Another bare face lie.

What's it like to be completely gullible ?

They count the legal ones properly
because they have to have NI.

which is why they keep uping the figures.

Another bare face lie.

Years ago previosu estimates were 8,000 now it's 2.4 million.

Corse there is no possibility of anything changing over that time, eh ?

I would expect a govenment to realise that.
So they planed for an extra 8000 people in london and today it's 2.4
milliohn

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
there were a few events like the complete implosion of
much of the world financial system in 2008 etc that
might just have had some effect on those numbers.

perhaps that's why we have a housing shortage.

Could be.

Can you tell me why they are building so many flats and houses in
London, seems silly building them doesn;t it if no ones here to buy them.
The UK birthrate had almost levelled out the birth bump was just after the
war.

It has **** all to do with the birth rate.

And they still aren't counting illegal immigration.

Another bare face lie.

The most significant change in this estimate is however the
inclusion of children born in the UK to illegal migrants. For
the LSE team illegal migrants oscillate between 417,000 and
863,000, including a population of UK-born children ranging
between 44,000 and 144,000.

Irrelevant to that bare faced lie of yours.

Any method of counting must be flawed unless you
do that as part of the census and have some way of
checking who is lying about their circumstances.

Which is why we know the govenment stats are
under-estimates at best and worst blatant lies.

Another bare face lie with that last.

So are children born to illgal immigrants in a country illegal

Depends on the country.

or are they citizens fom the country they are born in. ?

Depends on the country.

because the goventment havent; a clue how
many children they are inviting to the UK

No one is being invited, at most some have to
be allowed, most obviously with the EU citizens.

exactly so how many places do you allocate to the uninvited.

There are no places.

How many places to you set at the dinner table for uninvited guests ?

Dont have a dinner table and haven't set
places on one for more than 50 ****ing years.

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs

or how many children adults will have in the UK.

Even the parents themselves dont know that.

But you're saying the govenemment does know.

I never ever said anything remotely like that, liar.

How can the UK not know pretty accuratly how
many babies are born in the UK each day ?

Of course they do.

How.

Because they have to be registered and almost everyone does that.

Because unless someone reports the birth,

They do.

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs

But they dont know how many of them will be still
in Britain at the time they are required to start school,
or where they will be in Britain at the time either.

yes lots of things they don't know.

Including when your boozing will kill you.

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 20:50:35 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too.

Yes so differnt places then.

Not always. Australia accepts lots of all of the above,

What doi you mean by Australia here are you refering
to teh govenment or the people or the law/legislation ?

The govt. Its the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same.
I believe we should decide who can come to the UK, if we want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to have them.
What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people that she has invited to Germany are now EU citizens so should be allowed to come to the UK, France or any other country in the world just because Germany innvited them into their couintry.


to come here and that is varied
depending on the situation here with the numbers of
economic migrants being allowed in varying with the
unemployment rate here etc. The numbers of asylum
seekers and genuine refugees allowed in in any particular
year is mostly varied based on the circumstances outside
the country what is happening civil war and war wise etc.

We've recently decided to accept 20K Syrians for example.

why doesnt; Austalia join the EU it;s a wonderful organisation,
yuo get up to 10 times back what you piut in, in terms of value.
I would have thought most of the free world would like to sign up for something like that.


And its been done like that for getting on for a century now.

wow....
The road I work on was built in 1288 .


Prior to WW2 people were mostly free to come
and go as they pleased as long as they were white.

yes I know, keeping the abos in check too.


After WW2 we accepted lots of genuine refugees

What si a that genuine refugee.
How do you spot them from a fake one ?


were the result of the utter shambles in europe. Initially
the population wasnt too keen on the wogs from Italy
and Greece and Malta etc

Not sure the term wogs was used for these people in the UK.
I've only ever know the term wogs to be use to describe black people
as it came from the term golliwogs.



and there was quite a bit of
govt action to make those allowed in less visible to the
public.

How do you do that...
in teh UK we;d call them EU citizens rather thatn use the country where they were born.


Eventually we ended up with lots of the dregs of the
middle east, particularly from Lebanon etc too.

Hordes of genuine refugees as a result of the Vietnam war etc.

Almost entirely govt policy driven.

You lot did quite a bit of that with commonwealth
country individuals after the war too.

Yes but we were govenring them as part of the commonwealth
I didn't know Australia and Vietnam were linked like that.

just has quota for some categories like
asylum seekers and genuine refugees.

I see a new term genuine refugees.

Those are the ones that aren't just claiming to be refugees.

So those claiming to be refugees might not be refugees so what are they then, as I'm sure AUs isnlt teh only country in the word that gets confused by those climing to be refugees but aren't genuine refugees, which yuo haven;t explained the differnce between.



can you tell me what symbol they have on their forehead or other
part of their anatomy so we can tell them from none genuine refugees ?

Keep that **** up and it will be flushed where it belongs.

How do you tell a genuine refugee from any other sort of refugee ?



and bans some ways of getting here completely
like showing up in a leaky boat from
Indonesia or Shri Lanka with no papers.

Does banning such a thing stop it happeneing ,

Yep, we get **** all showing up in leaky boats anymore.

Had just one boat load this year, from Shri Lanka,
who were returned to Shri Lanka in days, quite literally.

So they weren't genuine refugees then is that it ?





If you do that you mostly get shipped back to where
you came from or at most end up on Nauru with no
possibility of ever being accepted in Australia.

Nauru is that some sort of hell for immigrants

Only for those that show up in leaky boats from Indonesia
etc, mostly coming from the middle east, Afghanistan etc.

and if those were to show up in Greece ?


And it is nothing like hell, just makes it clear to them that
they will never be allowed into Australia. Some are even
paid to go anywhere that will accept them other than
Australia.

That's what I think the EU should be doing.


or some sort of threat given out to stop none genuine refugees ?

Its not just a threat, there are hundreds of them on Nauru.

What about economic migrants can Australia ban them ?

It can, but we arent that stupid. We have always had much higher
numbers of economic migrants per capita than you lot have.

So has Canada.

I assume you can prove that and show why that is a better than using
economic migrants per sqsuare kilometer of country or by the number of free houses.



I was talking about the locals, not the migrants.

Lots of locals have left the UK to work aboard

Yep thats been going on for centurys now.

Yes lots going to europe as economic migrants as they can;t afford to live in the UK.


Unsurprising given what a soggy little frigid island yours is.

Makes you wonder how and why people come to the UK as economic migrants.



an ex's sister trained as a nurse in London, then went back
to ireland as a nurse as she was paid twice as much in ireland
as she could earnt in Lonon, that was 15 years ago though.

Yeah, lots of our doctors and nurses come from Britain and Ireland.

So why wopn;t they pay a reasonable wage to those that have studied and worked to become nurses and doctors in teh UK.
Answer because it;'s cheaper to import migrants/ asymul seekers and refugess
from other countries than our own.


The trouble is is so expensive to study in the
UK few but the wealthy can actually afford it.

Plenty of the migrants get qualified back home where
they are coming from before moving to Britain where
not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to get qualified.

They are prepared to put in the years and do.

Not in enough numbers to provide what the NHS needs.

Because training is so expensive in the UK due to many things one of which is housing because the UK has a housing shortage.



But first you need to put in the infrasturcer required.
if you expect sonmeone leaving school to go into nursing
it's likely they will need to move to a large city to train.

In fact the bulk of the school leavers are already in a large city.

But are students mostly still living with their parents.


Not many school, leavers can afford to rent
a place in central or even outer london,

So they get to stay at home until they are qualified.

But most want to travel around the EU because its such a great place for free movement, that's what happens when you give people the choice.


So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

So, you got a lot more free space.

It has nothing to do with free space.

it has everything to do with it otherwise they
wouldn;t be talking about building more housing.

That's higher density housing, not free space.

But we in the UK don't want to live in such high density.
We spend the last 20 years pulling down high rise blocks now were' building them back up again.




Which is why I was asking about the best place to put them.

There is no such animal.

Yes there is depending on their needs.

Nope, no such animal as best place.
Then how do they decide where they want to live,
Surely all those heading to Germany are heading their because it;'s the best place for them, why aren't they heading to saudia arabia where the majity have the same religion and way oif life that that have had.





Maybe that's where part of the 350 million a week goes,

Corse it is. And some of it comes back too.

Of course it does. I do the same, but I don;t need to employ
someone on 50k to tell me what sandwiches I should buy

Your govt does that anyway.

Does what anyway, my govenment has nevr told me what sandwiches I can buy.



as few seem to know.

Because they are too stupid to look at the numbers.

So they employ others to look at the
numbers to tell them what they mean.

Yep, more money ****ed against the wall.

Yes and that is one of the main reasons why the EU isn't working.




Not that many Ausies in the NHS now,

Yeah, much better pay elsewhere now.

That;s why those in the UK that have trained in teh UK abd owe thousands\in fees and noew can;t get a mortgage or even afford the rent leave the UK with their skills. That's wht my friend did when he went to AUS.



I have an AUS friend that works in the ambulance
service he's treated like **** because threr's plenty
of EU people looking for jobs so they set a wage
to reflect that. He typically has to work 14 hours
shifts. When you can employ people from all over the
world you tend to choose the cheapest you can get.

You lot always operated like that
with commonwealth country people.

Thats why you have so many of those from Jamaica etc there.

Yes because we have jobs they are willing to do, but we can't employ them because we are taking people from the EU instead.

There was a report on teh news regarding wandsworth prison over crowding
apparently 50% of those there were no UK born.
So not everyone that comes to the UK is employed.
In fact thos ethat were interviewed were romainian.
One who 'earns; £3k a week from pick-pocketing saidf when he come out he'll come out he'll continue as there's no other way he can make £3k a week.




He has been her for 20 years, he's spanish girlfriend
who;'s lived in teh UK for 25+ years has just brought
a flat in barcelona because she can't afford one in London.

That has always been the downside of any successful big city.

A downside that says those that live here (from any country) can't afford to buy a place in the country they live. So how do ecomonic migrants and refugees afford to live here after they have given their last 100 euros to trafficars ?


Sydney and Melbourne are even less affordable than London.

Really prove it.

That's why my friend emigrated to melbourne, he had a house with a swimming pool in the garden.

As usauly you're lying through your teeth.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/top-10-mos...ut-top-1508215

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 21:23:48 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

That the UK govenment haven't a clue how many
come to this country and stay illegally here,

That is a bare faced lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6...illegal-worker

There are people, in the UK working illegally
that the government don;t know about.

Yes, but it is a bare faced lie to say that the govt doesnt
have a clue about how many of them there are.

The govt doesnt, they employ people to try to work it out usually grad studetns that need to earn a bit of spare cash.



They catch plenty of them and so they do have
good idea about how many of them there are.

They know how many they catch.
counting the number of fish you catch does not tell you how many fish are in the ocean.


considering they can;t even count the legal ones properly,

Another bare face lie.

What's it like to be completely gullible ?

They count the legal ones properly
because they have to have NI.

My american flatmate had an NI number, but no valid visa for over 5 years,
when she went back the the USA she went via ireland so didntl have to show a pssport and said she'd lost it. She'd done that twice before to come and go between the USA and UK.
Maybe she didntl stand out much being a punk with leather jacket and bright purple hair with an american accent, that must have fooled immigration no end.



I would expect a govenment to realise that.
So they planed for an extra 8000 people in london and today it's 2.4
milliohn

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
there were a few events like the complete implosion of
much of the world financial system in 2008 etc that
might just have had some effect on those numbers.

What effect ?


perhaps that's why we have a housing shortage.

Could be.

Can you tell me why they are building so many flats and houses in
London, seems silly building them doesn;t it if no ones here to buy them.
The UK birthrate had almost levelled out the birth bump was just after the
war.

It has **** all to do with the birth rate.

So it's to house immigrants coming to the UK then is it ?
Asylum seekers and economic refugees who can;t afford (as on the news) to build a home for his family which would cost 8,000 euros (including labour) coming to buy places near me which start at 350K for a 1 bed flat or studio..

http://www.leytoncentral.com/

note the cool why they change the E.






And they still aren't counting illegal immigration.

Another bare face lie.

The most significant change in this estimate is however the
inclusion of children born in the UK to illegal migrants. For
the LSE team illegal migrants oscillate between 417,000 and
863,000, including a population of UK-born children ranging
between 44,000 and 144,000.

Irrelevant to that bare faced lie of yours.

proves it's not a lie.



How many places to you set at the dinner table for uninvited guests ?

Dont have a dinner table and haven't set
places on one for more than 50 ****ing years.

That;s what happens when you have no friends and live in a **** hole I guess.


reams of your **** flushed where it belongs



How can the UK not know pretty accuratly how
many babies are born in the UK each day ?

Of course they do.

How.

Because they have to be registered and almost everyone does that.

But not years in advance, which is why we have a school places shorttage.



But they dont know how many of them will be still
in Britain at the time they are required to start school,
or where they will be in Britain at the time either.

yes lots of things they don't know.

Including when your boozing will kill you.

Well yes, I did have 3 pints of ale on saturady (5pm to 10pm) that's the most I've had in one day so far this year.
Maybe I should cut dowm

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The govt. It‘s the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same. I believe we should decide who
can come to the UK, if we want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to
have them.

Which is what happens at the moment.

What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people that she has
invited to Germany are now EU citizens so should be allowed to come to
the UK, France or any other country in the world just because Germany
innvited them into their couintry.

Why on earth would a Syrian granted asylum in Germany - then German
citizenship years afterwards - want to come to work in a poor country like
the UK?

--
*Re-elect nobody

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

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

And not all of the UK is densely populated either.

On average it is.

Depends what your benchmark is.

But still doesnlt answer the question of where is the best place
to put asylum seekers, refegees and economic migrants.

There is no such place and what can make sense with economic
migrants is completely different to the others too.

Yes so differnt places then.

Not always. Australia accepts lots of all of the above,

What doi you mean by Australia here are you refering
to teh govenment or the people or the law/legislation ?

The govt. Its the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same.

Not possible while ever Britain is in the EU and even if
it left, there is still the problem with the Commonwealth.

We're in the fortunate position that none of the asylum
seekers or genuine refugees are coming from places that
we want to go in large numbers and most of the countrys
they are coming from dont even want them to leave so
we can do what we like as far as the numbers we choose
to accept and there will be no bad consequences for us
because of that.

Even with the economic migrants, hardly any of us want
to migrate to the countrys they are coming from and so
again, we can do what we like on the numbers of them
we choose to accept with no consequences for us.

Britain is very different with the very large numbers of
Brits that choose to migrate for whatever reason to
the EU and the whole of the world so with economic
migrants particularly, Britain can't just slam the door
shut because it decides it's too overcrowded already
without massive downsides for Brits that want to leave.

I believe we should decide who can come to the UK, if we
want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to have them.

Britain is free to allow any numbers it likes
from anywhere in the world to move to Britain.

What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people
that she has invited to Germany are now EU citizens

She is in fact doing nothing of the sort.

so should be allowed to come to the UK, France or any other country
in the world just because Germany innvited them into their couintry.

She is in fact doing nothing of the sort and Germany has
never done that with its guest workers that it has needed
to have even during the war for demographic reasons.

to come here and that is varied depending on the
situation here with the numbers of economic migrants
being allowed in varying with the unemployment rate
here etc. The numbers of asylum seekers and genuine
refugees allowed in in any particular year is mostly
varied based on the circumstances outside the
country what is happening civil war and war wise etc.

We've recently decided to accept 20K Syrians for example.

why doesnt; Austalia join the EU

It never got invited.

reams of your silly stuff flushed where it belongs

And its been done like that for getting on for a century now.

wow....
The road I work on was built in 1288 .

Prior to WW2 people were mostly free to come
and go as they pleased as long as they were white.

yes I know, keeping the abos in check too.

Nothing to do with the abos, you lot dealt with those.

After WW2 we accepted lots of genuine refugees who
were the result of the utter shambles in europe. Initially
the population wasnt too keen on the wogs from Italy
and Greece and Malta etc

Not sure the term wogs was used for these people in the UK.
I've only ever know the term wogs to be use to describe
black people as it came from the term golliwogs.

Like hell it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#Origin

and there was quite a bit of govt action to make
those allowed in less visible to the public.

How do you do that...

All the events in the media of the time which basically
meant the newspapers and radio were the minister
publicly greeting the white ones as they showed on
boats here. The wogs from Italy, Greece etc never got that.

in teh UK we;d call them EU citizens rather
thatn use the country where they were born.

That is a bare faced lie.

Eventually we ended up with lots of the dregs of the
middle east, particularly from Lebanon etc too.

Hordes of genuine refugees as a result of the Vietnam war etc.

Almost entirely govt policy driven.

You lot did quite a bit of that with commonwealth
country individuals after the war too.

Yes but we were govenring them as part of the commonwealth

The commonwealth involved no governing.

It was a voluntary association that quite a few of the
ex colonys chose not to be part of, particularly the
ones that had to kick you lot out.

reams of your silly stuff flushed where it belongs

just has quota for some categories like
asylum seekers and genuine refugees.

and bans some ways of getting here completely
like showing up in a leaky boat from
Indonesia or Sri Lanka with no papers.

Does banning such a thing stop it happeneing ,

Yep, we get **** all showing up in leaky boats anymore.

Had just one boat load this year, from Sri Lanka,
who were returned to Shri Lanka in days, quite literally.

So they weren't genuine refugees then is that it ?

Corse they weren't.

If you do that you mostly get shipped back to where
you came from or at most end up on Nauru with no
possibility of ever being accepted in Australia.

Nauru is that some sort of hell for immigrants

Only for those that show up in leaky boats from Indonesia
etc, mostly coming from the middle east, Afghanistan etc.

and if those were to show up in Greece ?

That's the EU's problem.

And it is nothing like hell, just makes it clear to them that they
will never be allowed into Australia. Some are even paid to go
anywhere that will accept them other than Australia.

That's what I think the EU should be doing.

It is, they are being shipped back to Turkey.

or some sort of threat given out to stop none genuine refugees ?

Its not just a threat, there are hundreds of them on Nauru.

What about economic migrants can Australia ban them ?

It can, but we arent that stupid. We have always had much higher
numbers of economic migrants per capita than you lot have.

So has Canada.

I assume you can prove that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...migration_rate
Twice as many in fact.

I was talking about the locals, not the migrants.

Lots of locals have left the UK to work aboard

Yep thats been going on for centurys now.

Yes lots going to europe as economic migrants
as they can;t afford to live in the UK.

**** move to europe for that reason.

Unsurprising given what a soggy little frigid island yours is.

Makes you wonder how and why people
come to the UK as economic migrants.

You only have took at where they are coming from to see why they do.

an ex's sister trained as a nurse in London, then went back
to ireland as a nurse as she was paid twice as much in ireland
as she could earnt in Lonon, that was 15 years ago though.

Yeah, lots of our doctors and nurses come from Britain and Ireland.

So why wopn;t they pay a reasonable wage to those that have
studied and worked to become nurses and doctors in teh UK.

They do.

Answer because it;'s cheaper to import migrants/ asymul
seekers and refugess from other countries than our own.

Wrong, as always.

The trouble is is so expensive to study in the
UK few but the wealthy can actually afford it.

Plenty of the migrants get qualified back home where
they are coming from before moving to Britain where
not enough of the locals are prepared to put in the
years of study to get qualified.

They are prepared to put in the years and do.

Not in enough numbers to provide what the NHS needs.

Because training is so expensive in the UK due to many things
one of which is housing because the UK has a housing shortage.

Like hell it has outside London.

But first you need to put in the infrasturcer required.
if you expect sonmeone leaving school to go into nursing
it's likely they will need to move to a large city to train.

In fact the bulk of the school leavers are already in a large city.

But are students mostly still living with their parents.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Not many school, leavers can afford to rent
a place in central or even outer london,

So they get to stay at home until they are qualified.

But most want to travel around the EU because
its such a great place for free movement,

Nope, because its close. Plenty come here too.

And hordes travel in asia too.

that's what happens when you give people the choice.

Its actually what happens when travel is very cheap.

So where is the best place to put asylum seekers, refeegees and
economic migrants the most densly populated areas or the least.

Oz would be the obvious example.

We already take a lot more of those per capita than you lot do.

So, you got a lot more free space.

It has nothing to do with free space.

it has everything to do with it otherwise they
wouldn;t be talking about building more housing.

That's higher density housing, not free space.

But we in the UK don't want to live in such high density.

Bull****.

We spend the last 20 years pulling down high rise
blocks now were' building them back up again.

Yes, you lot actually are that stupid.

Which is why I was asking about the best place to put them.

There is no such animal.

Yes there is depending on their needs.

Nope, no such animal as best place.

Then how do they decide where they want to live,

Mostly determined by where they work.

Surely all those heading to Germany are heading
their because it;'s the best place for them,

Nope, because its as good the alternatives.

why aren't they heading to saudia arabia

Plenty do head to all sorts of places like that,
more to places like Bahrain etc than Saudi tho
because Saudi isnt much of a place to live what
with the fact the women can't drive there and
you can't easily get ****ed either.

where the majity have the same religion
and way oif life that that have had.

Maybe that's where part of the 350 million a week goes,

Corse it is. And some of it comes back too.

Of course it does. I do the same, but I don;t need to employ
someone on 50k to tell me what sandwiches I should buy

Your govt does that anyway.

Does what anyway, my govenment has
nevr told me what sandwiches I can buy.

It has certainly told you what you should be buying.

as few seem to know.

Because they are too stupid to look at the numbers.

So they employ others to look at the
numbers to tell them what they mean.

Yep, more money ****ed against the wall.

Yes and that is one of the main
reasons why the EU isn't working.

Its working a hell of a lot better than no EU did.

Not that many Ausies in the NHS now,

Yeah, much better pay elsewhere now.

That;s why those in the UK that have trained in teh UK
abd owe thousands\in fees and noew can;t get a mortgage
or even afford the rent leave the UK with their skills.

They've been doing that for centurys now even heading off
for places that were notorious for being the white man's grave.

That's wht my friend did when he went to AUS.

Plenty of you lot have done that for centurys now.

I have an AUS friend that works in the ambulance
service he's treated like **** because threr's plenty
of EU people looking for jobs so they set a wage
to reflect that. He typically has to work 14 hours
shifts. When you can employ people from all over the
world you tend to choose the cheapest you can get.

You lot always operated like that
with commonwealth country people.

Thats why you have so many of those from Jamaica etc there.

Yes because we have jobs they are willing to do, but we can't
employ them because we are taking people from the EU instead.

Odd that Britain has one of the lowest
unemployment rates of the majors in the EU.

There was a report on teh news regarding wandsworth prison
over crowding apparently 50% of those there were no UK born.

Your prison have always been massively overcrowded, so over crowded
that you lot shipped lots of your criminals out of the country.

You lot are born criminals.

So not everyone that comes to the UK is employed.

A likely story.

In fact thos ethat were interviewed were romainian.
One who 'earns; £3k a week from pick-pocketing saidf
when he come out he'll come out he'll continue as
there's no other way he can make £3k a week.

Corse none of the locals ever do anything like that, eh ?

He has been her for 20 years, he's spanish girlfriend
who;'s lived in teh UK for 25+ years has just brought
a flat in barcelona because she can't afford one in London.

That has always been the downside of any successful big city.

A downside that says those that live here (from any country)
can't afford to buy a place in the country they live.

They can't afford a place in the country they came from either.

So how do ecomonic migrants and refugees afford to live
here after they have given their last 100 euros to trafficars ?

They arent that stupid.

Sydney and Melbourne are even less affordable than London.

Really

Yep.

prove it.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-affordability

That's why my friend emigrated to melbourne, he had a house with a
swimming pool in the garden.

As usauly you're lying through your teeth.

Nope.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-affordability

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/top-10-mos...ut-top-1508215

That isnt the cost of housing, stupid.

Singapore has in fact MUCH cheaper housing than London.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

That the UK govenment haven't a clue how many
come to this country and stay illegally here,

That is a bare faced lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6...illegal-worker

There are people, in the UK working illegally
that the government don;t know about.

Yes, but it is a bare faced lie to say that the govt doesnt
have a clue about how many of them there are.

The govt doesnt,

Another bare faced lie.

they employ people to try to work it out

That's the govt, stupid.

usually grad studetns that need to earn a bit of spare cash.

Another bare faced lie.

They catch plenty of them and so they do have
good idea about how many of them there are.

They know how many they catch.
counting the number of fish you catch does
not tell you how many fish are in the ocean.

Counting the number of illegals you catch and comparing
that with the number of foreigners you know are in the
country claiming to be visitors or tourists does they do
have a good idea about how many of them there are.

considering they can;t even count the legal ones properly,

Another bare face lie.

What's it like to be completely gullible ?

They count the legal ones properly
because they have to have NI.

My american flatmate had an NI number, but no valid visa for over 5 years,

The govt can compare the details on that NI with the
visa and see that that NI isnt being used by a legal anymore.

when she went back the the USA she went via ireland
so didntl have to show a pssport and said she'd lost it.
She'd done that twice before to come and go between
the USA and UK. Maybe she didntl stand out much being
a punk with leather jacket and bright purple hair with an
american accent, that must have fooled immigration no end.

Irrelevant to your lie that the govt doesnt
know how many legals there are.

I would expect a govenment to realise that.
So they planed for an extra 8000 people in
london and today it's 2.4 milliohn

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
there were a few events like the complete implosion of
much of the world financial system in 2008 etc that
might just have had some effect on those numbers.

What effect ?

Seeing a lot more extra people in London where the
unemployment rate is one of the lowest of the majors
in the EU.

perhaps that's why we have a housing shortage.

Could be.

Can you tell me why they are building so many flats and houses in
London,
seems silly building them doesn;t it if no ones here to buy them. The UK
birthrate had almost levelled out the birth bump was just after the war.

It has **** all to do with the birth rate.

So it's to house immigrants coming to the UK then is it ?

Its to sell to whoever wants to buy them, stupid.

Asylum seekers and economic refugees who can;t afford (as on the news)

So it must be gospel, eh ?

to build a home for his family which would cost 8,000
euros (including labour) coming to buy places near
me which start at 350K for a 1 bed flat or studio.

Just because some fool journo claims something...

http://www.leytoncentral.com/

note the cool why they change the E.

That's done to suck in suckers like you, stupid.

And they still aren't counting illegal immigration.

Another bare face lie.

The most significant change in this estimate is however the
inclusion of children born in the UK to illegal migrants. For
the LSE team illegal migrants oscillate between 417,000 and
863,000, including a population of UK-born children ranging
between 44,000 and 144,000.

Irrelevant to that bare faced lie of yours.

proves it's not a lie.

Another bare faced lie.

How many places to you set at the dinner table for uninvited guests ?

Dont have a dinner table and haven't set
places on one for more than 50 ****ing years.

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs

How can the UK not know pretty accuratly how
many babies are born in the UK each day ?

Of course they do.

How.

Because they have to be registered and almost everyone does that.

But not years in advance,

So your question was just another steaming turd.

which is why we have a school places shorttage.

Nope, they have that because it is impossible to know how
many there will be and where they will be by the time they
need to go to school. When Britain ends up much more
popular to those who choose to move there than some shiny
bum guessed, THAT'S why you have a school places shortage.

But they dont know how many of them will be still
in Britain at the time they are required to start school,
or where they will be in Britain at the time either.

yes lots of things they don't know.

Including when your boozing will kill you.

Well yes, I did have 3 pints of ale on saturady
(5pm to 10pm) that's the most I've had in one
day so far this year.
Maybe I should cut dowm

Drink much more, so we get rid of you sooner.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The govt. It's the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same. I believe we should decide who
can come to the UK, if we want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to
have them.

Which is what happens at the moment.

What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people that she has
invited to Germany are now EU citizens so should be allowed to come to
the UK, France or any other country in the world just because Germany
innvited them into their couintry.

Why on earth would a Syrian granted asylum in Germany - then German
citizenship years afterwards - want to come to work in a poor country like
the UK?

Because they speak much better english than german and realise
that they will have a lot more choices in future when they speak
better english than if they spoke german instead.

On Friday, 20 May 2016 13:40:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The govt. It壮 the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same. I believe we should decide who
can come to the UK, if we want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to
have them.

Which is what happens at the moment.

What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people that she has
invited to Germany are now EU citizens so should be allowed to come to
the UK, France or any other country in the world just because Germany
innvited them into their couintry.

Why on earth would a Syrian granted asylum in Germany - then German
citizenship years afterwards - want to come to work in a poor country like
the UK?


Language. And benefits. Family already here.
And they might get granted asylum in Greece/Italy, not Germany.
And unemployment.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germ...mployment-rate

On Friday, 20 May 2016 13:40:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The govt. It壮 the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same. I believe we should decide who
can come to the UK, if we want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to
have them.

Which is what happens at the moment.

Camooron soad no originally nw the numbers are creaping up as the pressure to teke refugess increase, now it's 3000 kids.


What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people that she has
invited to Germany are now EU citizens so should be allowed to come to
the UK, France or any other country in the world just because Germany
innvited them into their couintry.

Why on earth would a Syrian granted asylum in Germany - then German
citizenship years afterwards - want to come to work in a poor country like
the UK?

Because as yet it's not a poor country than syria.

On Saturday, 21 May 2016 02:59:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote

The govt. Its the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same.

Not possible while ever Britain is in the EU .

That's why the outers want to leave the EU ****wit.

and even if
it left, there is still the problem with the Commonwealth.

We can decide who to let in with the common wealth or rather the EU can't tell us who comes or goes.


We're in the fortunate position that none of the asylum
seekers or genuine refugees are coming from places that
we want to go in large numbers.

Are you sure about that. Where do 'we' want to go in large numbers ?



and most of the countrys
they are coming from dont even want them to leave so
we can do what we like as far as the numbers we choose
to accept and there will be no bad consequences for us
because of that.

except voting BREXIT perhaps.


Even with the economic migrants, hardly any of us want
to migrate to the countrys they are coming from and so
again, we can do what we like on the numbers of them
we choose to accept with no consequences for us.

The key part here is 'choosing to accept' them which is a choice we don't have.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ing-to-uk.html


http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...g-18k-10958602




Britain is very different with the very large numbers of
Brits that choose to migrate for whatever reason to
the EU and the whole of the world so with economic
migrants particularly, Britain can't just slam the door
shut because it decides it's too overcrowded already

why not.


without massive downsides for Brits that want to leave.

why not.
Brits are ****ing off because they can;t affording living in london and some part of the UK.


I believe we should decide who can come to the UK, if we
want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to have them.

Britain is free to allow any numbers it likes
from anywhere in the world to move to Britain.

Who owns britain.
I can not invite anyone I want to come and live in london.

reams of your silly stuff flushed where it belongs




Not sure the term wogs was used for these people in the UK.
I've only ever know the term wogs to be use to describe
black people as it came from the term golliwogs.

Like hell it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#Origin


Use in British English

"Wog" in the UK is a derogatory and racially offensive slang word referring to a dark-skinned or olive-skinned person


Use in Australian English

In Australia, the term 'wog' refers to residents of Southern European, Eastern European, and Middle Eastern ethnicity or appearance. The slur became widely diffused with an increase in immigration from Europe, mainly Italy, Greece, Malta, Poland, Croatia, and Ukraine, after the Second World

You might not notice the diffence but perhaops that's because you were brought up by americans.


and there was quite a bit of govt action to make
those allowed in less visible to the public.

How do you do that...

All the events in the media of the time which basically
meant the newspapers and radio were the minister
publicly greeting the white ones as they showed on
boats here. The wogs from Italy, Greece etc never got that.

See we don't normamly use that term for italians of greeks.
We tended to use the more spics which came from american TV.



reams of your silly stuff flushed where it belongs


Had just one boat load this year, from Sri Lanka,
who were returned to Shri Lanka in days, quite literally.

So they weren't genuine refugees then is that it ?

Corse they weren't.

Why did they go to Australia ?


If you do that you mostly get shipped back to where
you came from or at most end up on Nauru with no
possibility of ever being accepted in Australia.

Nauru is that some sort of hell for immigrants

Only for those that show up in leaky boats from Indonesia
etc, mostly coming from the middle east, Afghanistan etc.

and if those were to show up in Greece ?

That's the EU's problem.

yes and not ours if we left the EU that's the point.






But first you need to put in the infrasturcer required.
if you expect sonmeone leaving school to go into nursing
it's likely they will need to move to a large city to train.

In fact the bulk of the school leavers are already in a large city.

But are students mostly still living with their parents.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

you wouldn't know you live in Australia.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 20 May 2016 13:40:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The govt. It壮 the govt that determines what numbers
of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and economic
migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same. I believe we should decide who
can come to the UK, if we want syrians in the UK we should be allowed
to
have them.

Which is what happens at the moment.

Camooron soad no originally nw the numbers are creaping up
as the pressure to teke refugess increase, now it's 3000 kids.

Clearly Britain is allowed to have them.

What we don;t want is Merkal claiming millions of people that she has
invited to Germany are now EU citizens so should be allowed to come to
the UK, France or any other country in the world just because Germany
innvited them into their couintry.

Why on earth would a Syrian granted asylum in Germany - then German
citizenship years afterwards - want to come to work in a poor country
like
the UK?

Because as yet it's not a poor country than syria.

Irrelevant to why that syrian would not stay in Germany.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The govt. Its the govt that determines
what numbers of asylum seekers and genuine
refugees and economic migrants are allowed.

and I believe the UK should be the same.

Not possible while ever Britain is in the EU .

That's why the outers want to leave the EU ****wit.

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

and even if it left, there is still the
problem with the Commonwealth.

We can decide who to let in with the common wealth

But have to consider how viable the commonwealth
would be if you lot just slam the door to them now.

It aint about trade anymore, its much more
about movement of people within it now
and has been for a very long time now.

or rather the EU can't tell us who comes or goes.

Duh.

We're in the fortunate position that none of the
asylum seekers or genuine refugees are coming
from places that we want to go in large numbers.

Are you sure about that.

Yep.

Where do 'we' want to go in large numbers ?

Not where the asylum seekers and
genuine refugees are coming from.

and most of the countrys they are coming from dont
even want them to leave so we can do what we like
as far as the numbers we choose to accept and there
will be no bad consequences for us because of that.

except voting BREXIT perhaps.

The BREXIT vote is completely irrelevant to us.

Even with the economic migrants, hardly any of us want
to migrate to the countrys they are coming from and so
again, we can do what we like on the numbers of them
we choose to accept with no consequences for us.

The key part here is 'choosing to accept' them which is a choice we don't
have.

Duh.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ing-to-uk.html

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...g-18k-10958602

All completely irrelevant to what is being discussed
in this sub thread, why you lot can't do what we do.

Britain is very different with the very large numbers of
Brits that choose to migrate for whatever reason to
the EU and the whole of the world so with economic
migrants particularly, Britain can't just slam the door
shut because it decides it's too overcrowded already

why not.

Said that in the next bit, stupid.

without massive downsides for Brits that want to leave.

why not.
Brits are ****ing off because they can;t affording
living in london and some part of the UK.

BULL****. Brits are ****ing off because they have
decided that things are better where they are ****ing
off to and they have been doing that for centuries now.

And if the places you lot want to **** off to slam the door
because you lot have slammed yours, you have a problem.

I believe we should decide who can come to the UK, if we
want syrians in the UK we should be allowed to have them.

Britain is free to allow any numbers it likes
from anywhere in the world to move to Britain.

Who owns britain.

No one does just like with any other country.

I can not invite anyone I want to come and live in london.

You arent Britain, stupid.

Not sure the term wogs was used for these people in the UK.
I've only ever know the term wogs to be use to describe
black people as it came from the term golliwogs.

Like hell it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#Origin

Use in British English

"Wog" in the UK is a derogatory and racially offensive slang
word referring to a dark-skinned or olive-skinned person

Pity about that immortal phrase 'the wogs begin at Calais'

and there was quite a bit of govt action to make
those allowed in less visible to the public.

How do you do that...

All the events in the media of the time which basically
meant the newspapers and radio were the minister
publicly greeting the white ones as they showed on
boats here. The wogs from Italy, Greece etc never got that.

See we don't normamly use that term for italians of greeks.

Your problem.

Had just one boat load this year, from Sri Lanka,
who were returned to Shri Lanka in days, quite literally.

So they weren't genuine refugees then is that it ?

Corse they weren't.

Why did they go to Australia ?

They decided that their prospects were better here than there.

They found out otherwise.

If you do that you mostly get shipped back to where
you came from or at most end up on Nauru with no
possibility of ever being accepted in Australia.

Nauru is that some sort of hell for immigrants

Only for those that show up in leaky boats from Indonesia
etc, mostly coming from the middle east, Afghanistan etc.

and if those were to show up in Greece ?

That's the EU's problem.

yes and not ours if we left the EU that's the point.

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

And given that they are the result of what you lot have
been doing in the middle east for centurys now, they are
still you problem even if Britain did leave the middle east.

Just like all those pakis and indians and countless other wogs are too.

On 23/05/2016 11:46, whisky-dave wrote:


Camooron soad no originally nw the numbers are creaping up as the pressure to teke refugess increase, now it's 3000 kids.

He said no to the refugees in the EU, he has always said he would take
refugees from the camps on the border.