No more immigrants.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

No more immigrants.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 27 of 85 < 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 >

legaleagle 12 Aug 15 9.38pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.18pm Why pick on the Thatcher years......income inequality has hardly improved. I'm not a supporter of the kind of crazy wealth distribution we have had since the seventies. However, allowing unfetted EU immigrants to complete with British workers for job positions not only affects their chances at jobs......Especially in selected professions but massively worsens their chances of being housed. It's like loony tunes time.....This country is building roughly half the number of houses it needs to every year......yet you and many on the left say....keep the 'freedom of movement' laws! Still, you're a modern leftie legal.....So you don't really give a damn about the working classes......Instead of saying 'restrict the numbers coming in'......You'd rather say 'build more houses'. A reality that's far less likely to happen and one that's partly out of government's hands anyway. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.20pm) I understand Stirling.Only thing is you don't actually answer the point I made. As for your patronising tosh in your fifth paragraph,you are better than that (or maybe not?),you would know nothing about my class "roots" or what I do or don't "care about" whatsoever.So,making silly absurd "points" about my supposed "leftiness" and everything that must (in the eyes of an expert like yourself)automatically go with it, seems to reflect exactly the kind of silliness posters from the "right" suggested recently the "left" on here engage in.Funny how they only seem to complain about it when its done by someone whose views they disagree with. Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.40pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Aug 15 9.38pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.18pm

Why pick on the Thatcher years......income inequality has hardly improved.

I'm not a supporter of the kind of crazy wealth distribution we have had since the seventies.

However, allowing unfetted EU immigrants to complete with British workers for job positions not only affects their chances at jobs......Especially in selected professions but massively worsens their chances of being housed.

It's like loony tunes time.....This country is building roughly half the number of houses it needs to every year......yet you and many on the left say....keep the 'freedom of movement' laws!

Still, you're a modern leftie legal.....So you don't really give a damn about the working classes......Instead of saying 'restrict the numbers coming in'......You'd rather say 'build more houses'.

A reality that's far less likely to happen and one that's partly out of government's hands anyway.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.20pm)

I understand Stirling.Only thing is you don't actually answer the point I made.

As for your patronising tosh in your fifth paragraph,you are better than that (or maybe not?),you would know nothing about my class "roots" or what I do or don't "care about" whatsoever.So,making silly absurd "points" about my supposed "leftiness" and everything that must (in the eyes of an expert like yourself)automatically go with it, seems to reflect exactly the kind of silliness posters from the "right" suggested recently the "left" on here engage in.Funny how they only seem to complain about it when its done by someone whose views they disagree with.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.40pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 12 Aug 15 9.43pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.29pm .................................................... I'm wondering then Stirling if you'd make it a priority then to revoke that part of the immigration rules that gives automatic right to enter and live here to anyone who is a Commonwealth citizen who had a parent who was a British citizen born here.The actual "migrant" doesn't need to have ever had any connection with the UK. Could be the child of someone who,for example,emigrated to Australia 60 years ago. Only thing is, I think many of the people (could be wrong) are from the old Commonwealth.Funny, but for some reason,you seem to hear people (say Farage as an example) bang on about "migrants" but only the ones of a different colour of ethnicity and not mention this group.Could there be any reason for that? If you genuinely want to help the "British" working class,wouldn't that be your starting point,eliminating a fast track for people significantly benefiting those of only one race/ethnicity and where there's no tie in of free movement of goods and services benefiting the UK, and promoting an immigration policy (given on any analysis even if current non EU rules were applied to EU nationals as you wish, immigration numbers might be reduced but likely 200,000 per annum)) not based on any seeming discrimination of grounds of race or ethnicity? Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.29pm) You can wonder all you like Legal but you have been told time and time again about my attitudes to these things. I don't give a monkey's about your skin colour....That's skin pigment and genetics. I do care about a person's culture and how much I can relate to it......But that's a question of social cohesion and a different topic....I don't believe in an 'EU free pass.' As far as this affects immigration, it doesn't. Immigration could be based upon a country's view of how much an individual is needed within its system.....Like Australia's points system. Plus a certain flexible number of political asylum cases. A nation state's first priority should be towards its own nationals and their job and housing prospects......Immigration figures should partly be affected by that concern. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.44pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

12 Aug 15 9.43pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.29pm
....................................................

I'm wondering then Stirling if you'd make it a priority then to revoke that part of the immigration rules that gives automatic right to enter and live here to anyone who is a Commonwealth citizen who had a parent who was a British citizen born here.The actual "migrant" doesn't need to have ever had any connection with the UK.

Could be the child of someone who,for example,emigrated to Australia 60 years ago.

Only thing is, I think many of the people (could be wrong) are from the old Commonwealth.Funny, but for some reason,you seem to hear people (say Farage as an example) bang on about "migrants" but only the ones of a different colour of ethnicity and not mention this group.Could there be any reason for that?

If you genuinely want to help the "British" working class,wouldn't that be your starting point,eliminating a fast track for people significantly benefiting those of only one race/ethnicity and where there's no tie in of free movement of goods and services benefiting the UK, and promoting an immigration policy (given on any analysis even if current non EU rules were applied to EU nationals as you wish, immigration numbers might be reduced but likely 200,000 per annum)) not based on any seeming discrimination of grounds of race or ethnicity?

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.29pm)

You can wonder all you like Legal but you have been told time and time again about my attitudes to these things.

I don't give a monkey's about your skin colour....That's skin pigment and genetics.

I do care about a person's culture and how much I can relate to it......But that's a question of social cohesion and a different topic....I don't believe in an 'EU free pass.'

As far as this affects immigration, it doesn't.

Immigration could be based upon a country's view of how much an individual is needed within its system.....Like Australia's points system.

Plus a certain flexible number of political asylum cases.

A nation state's first priority should be towards its own nationals and their job and housing prospects......Immigration figures should partly be affected by that concern.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.44pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Aug 15 9.43pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.36pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.31pm or real old,old Labour You mean the one that was anti EU? LOL. That was old Labour.Old old Labour was before the Common Market came into existence
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Aug 15 9.43pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.31pm

or real old,old Labour

You mean the one that was anti EU?

LOL. That was old Labour.Old old Labour was before the Common Market came into existence

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Aug 15 9.48pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.43pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.29pm .................................................... I'm wondering then Stirling if you'd make it a priority then to revoke that part of the immigration rules that gives automatic right to enter and live here to anyone who is a Commonwealth citizen who had a parent who was a British citizen born here.The actual "migrant" doesn't need to have ever had any connection with the UK. Could be the child of someone who,for example,emigrated to Australia 60 years ago. Only thing is, I think many of the people (could be wrong) are from the old Commonwealth.Funny, but for some reason,you seem to hear people (say Farage as an example) bang on about "migrants" but only the ones of a different colour of ethnicity and not mention this group.Could there be any reason for that? If you genuinely want to help the "British" working class,wouldn't that be your starting point,eliminating a fast track for people significantly benefiting those of only one race/ethnicity and where there's no tie in of free movement of goods and services benefiting the UK, and promoting an immigration policy (given on any analysis even if current non EU rules were applied to EU nationals as you wish, immigration numbers might be reduced but likely 200,000 per annum)) not based on any seeming discrimination of grounds of race or ethnicity? Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.29pm) You can wonder all you like Legal but you have been told time and time again about my attitudes to these things. I don't give a monkey's about your skin colour....That's skin pigment and genetics. I do care about a person's culture and how much I can relate to it......But that's a question of social cohesion and a different topic. As far as this affects immigration, it doesn't. Immigration could be based upon a country's view of how much an individual is needed within its system.....Like Australia's points system. Plus a certain flexible number of political asylum cases. A nation state's first priority should be towards its own nationals and their job and housing prospects......Immigration figures should partly be affected by that concern. I understand.But you haven't actually answered the question I asked and I don't don't recall ever asking you about the "Commonwealth national right of abode" part of the immigration rules ever before.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Aug 15 9.48pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.43pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.29pm
....................................................

Could be the child of someone who,for example,emigrated to Australia 60 years ago.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.29pm)

You can wonder all you like Legal but you have been told time and time again about my attitudes to these things.

I don't give a monkey's about your skin colour....That's skin pigment and genetics.

I do care about a person's culture and how much I can relate to it......But that's a question of social cohesion and a different topic.

As far as this affects immigration, it doesn't.

Immigration could be based upon a country's view of how much an individual is needed within its system.....Like Australia's points system.

Plus a certain flexible number of political asylum cases.

A nation state's first priority should be towards its own nationals and their job and housing prospects......Immigration figures should partly be affected by that concern.

I understand.But you haven't actually answered the question I asked and I don't don't recall ever asking you about the "Commonwealth national right of abode" part of the immigration rules ever before.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 12 Aug 15 9.49pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.38pm I understand Stirling.Only thing is you don't actually answer the point I made. As for your patronising tosh in your fifth paragraph,you are better than that (or maybe not?),you would know nothing about my class "roots" or what I do or don't "care about" whatsoever.So,making silly absurd "points" about my supposed "leftiness" and everything that must (in the eyes of an expert like yourself)automatically go with it, seems to reflect exactly the kind of silliness posters from the "right" suggested recently the "left" on here engage in.Funny how they only seem to complain about it when its done by someone whose views they disagree with. Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.40pm) There there legal. I suppose I was a little over the top in regards to you Just my little knock about rant about a certain kind of viewpoint. I thought I had answered the main point but fair enough. Yes, I would revoke the 'Commonwealth national right of abode'.....If it still exists it's a right that deserves its place in the past. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.53pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

12 Aug 15 9.49pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.38pm

I understand Stirling.Only thing is you don't actually answer the point I made.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.40pm)

There there legal.

I suppose I was a little over the top in regards to you

Just my little knock about rant about a certain kind of viewpoint.

I thought I had answered the main point but fair enough.

Yes, I would revoke the 'Commonwealth national right of abode'.....If it still exists it's a right that deserves its place in the past.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.53pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Aug 15 10.04pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.49pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.38pm I understand Stirling.Only thing is you don't actually answer the point I made. As for your patronising tosh in your fifth paragraph,you are better than that (or maybe not?),you would know nothing about my class "roots" or what I do or don't "care about" whatsoever.So,making silly absurd "points" about my supposed "leftiness" and everything that must (in the eyes of an expert like yourself)automatically go with it, seems to reflect exactly the kind of silliness posters from the "right" suggested recently the "left" on here engage in.Funny how they only seem to complain about it when its done by someone whose views they disagree with. Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.40pm) There there legal. I suppose I was a little over the top in regards to you Just my little knock about rant about a certain kind of viewpoint. I thought I had answered the main point but fair enough. Yes, I would revoke the 'Commonwealth national right of abode'.....If it still exists it's a right that deserves its place in the past. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.53pm) Thank you for answering the question.I pick up you don't want to expand on the other points/queries I made like why it so rarely seems to get mentioned so let's leave it. I didn't regard your comment as anything other than knock about,though knock about "tosh",any more than my response was simply an "in kind" one,though the point about selective blindness in some quarters on the "right" here was not inapposite
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Aug 15 10.04pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.49pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.38pm

I understand Stirling.Only thing is you don't actually answer the point I made.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.40pm)

There there legal.

I suppose I was a little over the top in regards to you

Just my little knock about rant about a certain kind of viewpoint.

I thought I had answered the main point but fair enough.

Yes, I would revoke the 'Commonwealth national right of abode'.....If it still exists it's a right that deserves its place in the past.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 9.53pm)

Thank you for answering the question.I pick up you don't want to expand on the other points/queries I made like why it so rarely seems to get mentioned so let's leave it.

I didn't regard your comment as anything other than knock about,though knock about "tosh",any more than my response was simply an "in kind" one,though the point about selective blindness in some quarters on the "right" here was not inapposite

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 12 Aug 15 10.09pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.26pm Quote Jimenez at 12 Aug 2015 9.21pm I actually did well out of being 'Upper working class' as did millions of others I hasten to add. If those at the bottom of the heap cant be bothered to get off their sorry asses then f*** them. You have to help yourself in this world grab it with both hands no one else is going to help you do that. We need to become a more entrepreneurial based nation where people don't rely on handouts. I'd like to see more tax incentives for people starting their own business especially those who employ others. Yeah, because the only reason people are poor is because they are lazy.....Simplistic half truth nonsense. Jeez, are you Donald Trump's love child? A typical Stirling retort!! Nope I didn't say that I merely stated that no one owes you a favour in life & you need to be able to help yourself before bemoaning your lot. I see people here begging outside subway stations not because there's NO work Its because the work being offered is deemed beneath them the same applies in The UK & before you start saying It doesn't pay well enough a lot of States in the US have bought in a minimum wage of $15-00 an hour. The problem? it seems that now that they are getting 15 bucks an hour they don't want it, why? because it affects there benefits!!! Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 12 Aug 15 10.09pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.26pm

Quote Jimenez at 12 Aug 2015 9.21pm

I actually did well out of being 'Upper working class' as did millions of others I hasten to add. If those at the bottom of the heap cant be bothered to get off their sorry asses then f*** them. You have to help yourself in this world grab it with both hands no one else is going to help you do that.
We need to become a more entrepreneurial based nation where people don't rely on handouts. I'd like to see more tax incentives for people starting their own business especially those who employ others.

Yeah, because the only reason people are poor is because they are lazy.....Simplistic half truth nonsense.

Jeez, are you Donald Trump's love child?

A typical Stirling retort!! Nope I didn't say that I merely stated that no one owes you a favour in life & you need to be able to help yourself before bemoaning your lot. I see people here begging outside subway stations not because there's NO work Its because the work being offered is deemed beneath them the same applies in The UK & before you start saying It doesn't pay well enough a lot of States in the US have bought in a minimum wage of $15-00 an hour. The problem? it seems that now that they are getting 15 bucks an hour they don't want it, why? because it affects there benefits!!!

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 12 Aug 15 11.11pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.48pm Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.43pm Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.29pm .................................................... I'm wondering then Stirling if you'd make it a priority then to revoke that part of the immigration rules that gives automatic right to enter and live here to anyone who is a Commonwealth citizen who had a parent who was a British citizen born here.The actual "migrant" doesn't need to have ever had any connection with the UK. Could be the child of someone who,for example,emigrated to Australia 60 years ago. Only thing is, I think many of the people (could be wrong) are from the old Commonwealth.Funny, but for some reason,you seem to hear people (say Farage as an example) bang on about "migrants" but only the ones of a different colour of ethnicity and not mention this group.Could there be any reason for that? If you genuinely want to help the "British" working class,wouldn't that be your starting point,eliminating a fast track for people significantly benefiting those of only one race/ethnicity and where there's no tie in of free movement of goods and services benefiting the UK, and promoting an immigration policy (given on any analysis even if current non EU rules were applied to EU nationals as you wish, immigration numbers might be reduced but likely 200,000 per annum)) not based on any seeming discrimination of grounds of race or ethnicity? Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.29pm) You can wonder all you like Legal but you have been told time and time again about my attitudes to these things. I don't give a monkey's about your skin colour....That's skin pigment and genetics. I do care about a person's culture and how much I can relate to it......But that's a question of social cohesion and a different topic. As far as this affects immigration, it doesn't. Immigration could be based upon a country's view of how much an individual is needed within its system.....Like Australia's points system. Plus a certain flexible number of political asylum cases. A nation state's first priority should be towards its own nationals and their job and housing prospects......Immigration figures should partly be affected by that concern. I understand.But you haven't actually answered the question I asked and I don't don't recall ever asking you about the "Commonwealth national right of abode" part of the immigration rules ever before. Highly amusing to find the Great Evader taking someone to task for not answering a question. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 12 Aug 15 11.11pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.48pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 12 Aug 2015 9.43pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 9.29pm
....................................................

Could be the child of someone who,for example,emigrated to Australia 60 years ago.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Aug 2015 9.29pm)

You can wonder all you like Legal but you have been told time and time again about my attitudes to these things.

I don't give a monkey's about your skin colour....That's skin pigment and genetics.

I do care about a person's culture and how much I can relate to it......But that's a question of social cohesion and a different topic.

As far as this affects immigration, it doesn't.

Immigration could be based upon a country's view of how much an individual is needed within its system.....Like Australia's points system.

Plus a certain flexible number of political asylum cases.

A nation state's first priority should be towards its own nationals and their job and housing prospects......Immigration figures should partly be affected by that concern.

Highly amusing to find the Great Evader taking someone to task for not answering a question.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 12 Aug 15 11.15pm
Quote Jimenez at 12 Aug 2015 10.09pm A typical Stirling retort!! Nope I didn't say that I merely stated that no one owes you a favour in life & you need to be able to help yourself before bemoaning your lot. I see people here begging outside subway stations not because there's NO work Its because the work being offered is deemed beneath them the same applies in The UK & before you start saying It doesn't pay well enough a lot of States in the US have bought in a minimum wage of -00 an hour. The problem? it seems that now that they are getting 15 bucks an hour they don't want it, why? because it affects there benefits!!! Well, seriously Jim.....Good luck with the kind of US that this is giving you. I'm 'of the right' but maybe not your type....I don't believe in the typical republican/thatcher mindset that the state only needs care about the hard working poor.....We moved away from the Victorian age because those ideas didn't work. Sure the lazy are a burden but lumped in with them are plenty of vulnerable people as well. Sure in nature, the runt of the litter is allowed to die. But personally.....I don't want to live in a hypothetical 'red in tooth and craw' culture. The system can be and is set up to encourage work......I think they are working towards the correct system......Even though reducing working tax credits is going to hurt me financially as a teacher. More fool me for choosing the profession. Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 11.22pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

12 Aug 15 11.15pm

Quote Jimenez at 12 Aug 2015 10.09pm

A typical Stirling retort!! Nope I didn't say that I merely stated that no one owes you a favour in life & you need to be able to help yourself before bemoaning your lot. I see people here begging outside subway stations not because there's NO work Its because the work being offered is deemed beneath them the same applies in The UK & before you start saying It doesn't pay well enough a lot of States in the US have bought in a minimum wage of -00 an hour. The problem? it seems that now that they are getting 15 bucks an hour they don't want it, why? because it affects there benefits!!!

Well, seriously Jim.....Good luck with the kind of US that this is giving you.

I'm 'of the right' but maybe not your type....I don't believe in the typical republican/thatcher mindset that the state only needs care about the hard working poor.....We moved away from the Victorian age because those ideas didn't work.

Sure the lazy are a burden but lumped in with them are plenty of vulnerable people as well.

Sure in nature, the runt of the litter is allowed to die.

But personally.....I don't want to live in a hypothetical 'red in tooth and craw' culture.

The system can be and is set up to encourage work......I think they are working towards the correct system......Even though reducing working tax credits is going to hurt me financially as a teacher.

More fool me for choosing the profession.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Aug 2015 11.22pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Aug 15 11.22pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 11.11pm Highly amusing to find the Great Evader taking someone to task for not answering a question. Thanks Perhaps better to be Great than a non entity?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Aug 15 11.22pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 11.11pm

Highly amusing to find the Great Evader taking someone to task for not answering a question.

Thanks

Perhaps better to be Great than a non entity?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 9.47am
It was Michael Hessletine's policy of 'the right to buy' that sold off council homes, but effectively the Housing Boom was a product of Thatcher's era, and stimulated a problem that increased through the Major and Blair years. The problem is that there has never been control of rental prices, other than the free market, but the wide range of council property and fixed rents acted as a balance to the system (getting a council property wasn't too difficult and as such private rental was held by cheaper competition and smaller demand). With the rise of property as a means of investment, prices rose dramatically, and so did rents as private landlords purchased properties to rent to conver mortgages (with a view to then selling the property at a profit). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Aug 15 9.47am

It was Michael Hessletine's policy of 'the right to buy' that sold off council homes, but effectively the Housing Boom was a product of Thatcher's era, and stimulated a problem that increased through the Major and Blair years.

The problem is that there has never been control of rental prices, other than the free market, but the wide range of council property and fixed rents acted as a balance to the system (getting a council property wasn't too difficult and as such private rental was held by cheaper competition and smaller demand).

With the rise of property as a means of investment, prices rose dramatically, and so did rents as private landlords purchased properties to rent to conver mortgages (with a view to then selling the property at a profit).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Aug 15 10.15am
Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 11.22pm Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 11.11pm Highly amusing to find the Great Evader taking someone to task for not answering a question. Thanks Perhaps better to be Great than a non entity? Just for completeness: why do you think we need any immigration controls and what problems would the controls address. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 13 Aug 15 10.15am

Quote legaleagle at 12 Aug 2015 11.22pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 11.11pm

Highly amusing to find the Great Evader taking someone to task for not answering a question.

Thanks

Perhaps better to be Great than a non entity?

Just for completeness: why do you think we need any immigration controls and what problems would the controls address.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 27 of 85 < 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

No more immigrants.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors