UKIP candidate suspended over racist comments

[Tintinnabulate]

A senior UK Independence Party member has posted a racist comment on Community Care.

In response to a post by Community Care’s Outside Left blogger on asylum, Paul Wiffen – who is chair of UKIP London and a parliamentary candidate, said:

“You left-wing scum are all the same, wanting to hand our birthright to Romanian gypsies who beat their wives and children into begging and stealing money they can gamble with, Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us all under medieval Sharia law, the same Africans who sold their Afro-Caribbean brothers into a slavery that Britain was the first to abolish (but you still want to apologize for!)”

Wiffen, who is standing as an MP in Ilford South at the next election, continued: “Worry about where we are going to live and grow food, you ******, not the UKIP policy that might just save your worthless skin!”

Wiffen, who stood as an MEP for Scotland in 2009, also said: “”Britain is full, you prat! Even your scummy, illiterate Grauniad admits it! In the circumstances, I think ‘get lost’ is positively polite. ‘Go forth and multiply’ elsewhere would be my wording.”

Paul Wiffen has now been suspended as a UKIP Parliamentary candidate.

[Hecktix]

Sorry UKIP aren't racist.

This is absolutely disgraceful tbh, just showing more of UKIP as the BNP in a pink dress with a flower in it's hair.

[Tintinnabulate]

Lord Pearson said that while the language that he used was “clearly unacceptable, the subject he raised should be the subject of national debate”.

So wait, even their leader wants a debate on it? How can they be racist :rolleyes:?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So wait, even their leader wants a debate on it? How can they be racist :rolleyes:?

Immigration shouldn't be debated - are you seriously suggesting that?

As for this case, yeah he was sterotyping and thats wrong and the party took the right action. However what he did state does occur as we are fighting islamic extremism (fact), Africans did sell their brothers to the slave trade (fact) and Romanian gypsies do use their children to beg on the streets (fact). He's generalising, but hes certainly not being racist.

[Tintinnabulate]

Immigration shouldn't be debated - are you seriously suggesting that?

As for this case, yeah he was sterotyping and thats wrong and the party took the right action. However what he did state does occur as we are fighting islamic extremism (fact), Africans did sell their brothers to the slave trade (fact) and Romanian gypsies do use their children to beg on the streets (fact). He's generalising, but hes certainly not being racist.

Your replies are so predictable. Let me demonstrate:


Tash :] says:
*LOOL UT will reply saying "well we did the right thing, suspended him"


and you said


thats wrong and the party took the right action.

And your senior member said "(all) muslims".

To be honest:


Immigration shouldn't be debated - are you seriously suggesting that?

That isnt the same as discussing "(All) Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us all under medieval Sharia law" which your leader wants.

If you don't think what he said is racist then you clearly need to look up the definition of racists.

This is not racist:

White people are nutters who want to kill the whole world

NOT.

:rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

The fact is, islam is not a race Saurav - it is a religion, you know like when people label the Catholic Church as child molesters - the same goes for this. It is generalising and pretty poor for a politician to come out with it, but it is certainly not racism and i'd suggest you go and look up the meaning of racism.

[Tintinnabulate]

The fact is, islam is not a race Saurav - it is a religion, you know like when people label the Catholic Church as child molesters - the same goes for this. It is generalising and pretty poor for a politician to come out with it, but it is certainly not racism and i'd suggest you go and look up the meaning of racism.

You are trying to excuse these comments on a matter of technicality relating to the word racism, if it isn't racism, it's discrimination which is equally as bad.


Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief.

and UKIP believe that my friend.

[Jordy]

All political parties have loose cannons, some recent examples, Geoff Hoon offering to influence the law for money, Conservative's Chris Graylings comments in regard to a gay couple being rejected from a B&B, Lib Dem candidate over his derogatory remarks on Twitter and now this. That's not to say it shouldn't be reported but once again, suspending him was the right thing to do, much like suspending Geoff Hoon was.

[Tintinnabulate]

The fact is, islam is not a race Saurav - it is a religion, you know like when people label the Catholic Church as child molesters - the same goes for this. It is generalising and pretty poor for a politician to come out with it, but it is certainly not racism and i'd suggest you go and look up the meaning of racism.

You also dodged the below:

And your senior member said "(all) muslims".

To be honest:


Immigration shouldn't be debated - are you seriously suggesting that?

That isnt the same as discussing "(All) Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us all under medieval Sharia law" which your leader wants.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are trying to excuse these comments on a matter of technicality relating to the word racism, if it isn't racism, it's discrimination which is equally as bad.

and UKIP believe that my friend.

Its a negative comment, but its not racist as you suggest as racist is discriminating based on somebodies race, a bit like the Labour Party has a candidate shortlist policy based on race or did you not know that?

Would you care to point out which UKIP policies incite racism or discrimination?


All political parties have loose cannons, some recent examples, Geoff Hoon for example, offering to influence the law for money, Conservative's Chris Graylings comments in regard to a gay couple being rejected from a B&B, Lib Dem candidate over his derogatory remarks on Twitter and now this. That's not to say it shouldn't be reported but once again, suspending him was the right thing to do, much like suspending Geoff Hoon was.

Indeed.


You also dodged the below:

And your senior member said "(all) muslims".

To be honest:

That isnt the same as discussing "(All) Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us all under medieval Sharia law" which your leader wants.

Where does 'our dear leader' say this? :P

As for the all muslims, he did not say all muslims in the quote you have provided unless you have mistakeninly quoted him, he said all left wing scum but did not say all muslims, check your quote and i'll reconsider that then as its a very stupid comment if he did say that all muslims were nutters, not that its not a generalising and petty remark anyway.

[Tintinnabulate]

Its a negative comment, but its not racist as you suggest as racist is discriminating based on somebodies race, a bit like the Labour Party has a candidate shortlist policy based on race or did you not know that?

Would you care to point out which UKIP policies incite racism or discrimination?



Indeed.



Where does 'our dear leader' say this? :P

As for the all muslims, he did not say all muslims in the quote you have provided unless you have mistakeninly quoted him, he said all left wing scum but did not say all muslims, check your quote and i'll reconsider that then as its a very stupid comment if he did say that all muslims were nutters, not that its not a generalising and petty remark anyway.

Its amazing how far you will go to defend racist scums that is UKIP.


Where does 'our dear leader' say this? :P

You stated you had read the Telegraph article?


Lord Pearson said that while the language that he used was “clearly unacceptable, the subject he raised should be the subject of national debate”.

There you go.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its amazing how far you will go to defend racist scums that is UKIP.

You stated you had read the Telegraph article?

There you go.

1) I am simply asking you for racist/discriminatory policies of UKIP to be listed, so far you have failed to list any.

2) I have read the article, however you have worded it as though Lord Pearson agrees that muslims are nutters, which he has not said or agrees with hence why he suspended this man from his post. He has said that he agress a debate is needed on the issue which revolves around immigration.

[jrh2002]

Wow :o Sounds like a top bloke to me. +Rep to the UKIP man.

[Catzsy]

1) I am simply asking you for racist/discriminatory policies of UKIP to be listed, so far you have failed to list any.

2) I have read the article, however you have worded it as though Lord Pearson agrees that muslims are nutters,] which he has not said or agrees with hence why he suspended this man from his post. He has said that he agress a debate is needed on the issue which revolves around immigration.

That's the problem. They can't see to get any realistic perspective. If he has said extremist terrorist muslims who want to bomb and kill people using their faith as an excuse that would be fine. I also think there should be a debate about immigration then we will see exactly what they mean or don't mean.

[Technologic]

This is what i hate about UKIP, they're all foul mouthed fools with no respect.

[Swastika]

Dander, why do you keep making threads against UKIP?
Get into politics or something rather than spamming the current afairs section with anti-UKIP threads.

[Tash.]

Dander, why do you keep making threads against UKIP?
Get into politics or something rather than spamming the current afairs section with anti-UKIP threads.

I hate to say this, but these threads are really quite few when you look at how many threads are posted daily jumping on every miniscule thing the Labour Party does wrong by certain members. He can post whatever he wants, the same as those other members have.

On topic: Frankly what he wrote was deplorable, vile and very misinformed. I can't say i'd want anyone capable of spouting such rubbish representing me for anything.

[Swastika]

Fair play to you, but to be quite honest, i think people have quite a right to be angry at what labour has done for the country, or should i say not done?
What this UKIP fella has said could quite easily be seen as racist, but Dander is quite obviously getting as much anti-UKIP information as possible and posting it because he clearly see's UKIP as a threat.
I mean, look at his signature, does that not have "i believe UKIP are a threat" written all over it?


I hate to say this, but these threads are really quite few when you look at how many threads are posted daily jumping on every miniscule thing the Labour Party does wrong by certain members. He can post whatever he wants, the same as those other members have.

On topic: Frankly what he wrote was deplorable, vile and very misinformed. I can't say i'd want anyone capable of spouting such rubbish representing me for anything.

[Tash.]

Fair play to you, but to be quite honest, i think people have quite a right to be angry at what labour has done for the country, or should i say not done?
What this UKIP fella has said could quite easily be seen as racist, but Dander is quite obviously getting as much anti-UKIP information as possible and posting it because he clearly see's UKIP as a threat.
I mean, look at his signature, does that not have "i believe UKIP are a threat" written all over it?

Not really, UKIP aren't a threat, but members on here wish to speak about them so they become an issue. Fortunately, the members who support them on this forum aren't representative of society or we'd be in big big trouble. His signature is in reaction to another members.

And no, his comments cannot be seen as racist, they are racist. There's no getting away from that.

[Tintinnabulate]

Dander, why do you keep making threads against UKIP?
Get into politics or something rather than spamming the current afairs section with anti-UKIP threads.

I made what? 2 threads in a year about UKIP? And both were articles from newspapers which UKIP supporters ensured they didnt post. However, they will post anything minor which is bad about Labour.


I mean, look at his signature, does that not have "i believe UKIP are a threat" written all over it?

Threat? Seriously? You obviously know zero about politics if you honestly think they are a threat. My signature was in reply to Undertakers signature. Stop crying just because you support UKIP and I don't.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=638596

OMG A THREAD AGAINST LABOUR. You aren't flaming that person? Oh wait that's correct, its flaming Labour, not UKIP. How can you tell people off for posting bad things about other parties.

So Jayme, stop being pathetic.

[Swastika]

This is second time you have made comments about me and are wrong.
You realy need to know what your talking about before you can post on what my views are and are not.
If you knew anything, you would know i do NOT support UKIP, i support nobody.
I am, however, interested in what UKIP have to say and agree with SOME of their views, such as withdrawing from the EU.

Im not flaming for your information, im just sick of you crying over UKIP, and if they're not a threat to you then why do you keep posting about them at every oppentunity?
To get back at undertaker? If so, grow up.
Oh, and i wouldnt flame somebody who made a thread against labour because i hate labour, this country DOES need change. You and your idiotic party have had a long 13 years in charge and has done nothing good for the country.

Edit- Oh and im not being pathetic, dont try and talk down to me.


I made what? 2 threads in a year about UKIP? And both were articles from newspapers which UKIP supporters ensured they didnt post. However, they will post anything minor which is bad about Labour.



Threat? Seriously? You obviously know zero about politics if you honestly think they are a threat. My signature was in reply to Undertakers signature. Stop crying just because you support UKIP and I don't.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=638596

OMG A THREAD AGAINST LABOUR. You aren't flaming that person? Oh wait that's correct, its flaming Labour, not UKIP. How can you tell people off for posting bad things about other parties.

So Jayme, stop being pathetic.

[Tintinnabulate]

This is second time you have made comments about me and are wrong.
You realy need to know what your talking about before you can post on what my views are and are not.
If you knew anything, you would know i do NOT support UKIP, i support nobody.
I am, however, interested in what UKIP have to say and agree with SOME of their views, such as withdrawing from the EU.

Im not flaming for your information, im just sick of you crying over UKIP, and if they're not a threat to you then why do you keep posting about them at every oppentunity?
To get back at undertaker? If so, grow up.
Oh, and i wouldnt flame somebody who made a thread against labour because i hate labour, this country DOES need change. You and your idiotic party have had a long 13 years in charge and has done nothing good for the country.

Edit- Oh and im not being pathetic, dont try and talk down to me.

Sorry please dont shoot me :rolleyes:
Wow 2 threads in a year about UKIP in a year means I am crying over it? Did God forget to give you a brain or a tiny bit of common sense?

Why do I keep posting about UKIP at every opportunity? I am bloody replying to members such as Undertaker about his views on UKIP. Its called a debate. Sorry I know its hard for you to understand what a debate means, but try looking it up in a dictionary. That might help you, but I doubt it considering you are clueless.

No, its called a bit of a fun. People have anti Labour things in their signature. Holy crap, they are having a go at me, and should grow up :rolleyes:.

Stop acting childish and I will give you respect. Act like the way you are, you are getting no respect from me.

OMG RULE A11 SAYS YOU MUST VOTE LABOUR. MANAGEMENT NEED TO STOP CRYING OVER LABOUR!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Maybe you should stop crying over Labour before telling others to stop crying over UKIP?

[Swastika]

Hard for me to understand what a debate is? LOL, *REMOVED*.
Don't try and act better than me, like labour does, you will loose, like labour is going to.
Why am i clueless because i disagree with the views that you have?
To say you are debating when you clearly jump on members backs who have a view of UKIP is abit dumb.
Ask undertaker, if he thinks your hellbent on not seeing the good points about UKIP, you are blanking them all together and just solely focusing on labour, have an open mind, like me, then maybe ill take your pathetic little cheapshots off you.
And to be honest, i don't care if i got e-respect off you on habboxforum, maybe you should have a reality check if you actually believe i care what somebody like you thinks of me.
Im clearly not crying over labour either, i just disagree with their views, very strongly - especially when it comes to the armed forces and sending troops to warzones with in-correct kit and not enough ammunition to even carry out a mission.
Maybe you should ask your friends and family, if you even have any friends, what they think about labour or any other party? Not everybody agrees with labour and yours and their views, alot of people don't.
Im NOT solely UKIP and agree with parts of each party out there.

*REMOVED*

Edited by Nicola (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude to other forum members

Sorry please dont shoot me :rolleyes:
Wow 2 threads in a year about UKIP in a year means I am crying over it? Did God forget to give you a brain or a tiny bit of common sense?

Why do I keep posting about UKIP at every opportunity? I am bloody replying to members such as Undertaker about his views on UKIP. Its called a debate. Sorry I know its hard for you to understand what a debate means, but try looking it up in a dictionary. That might help you, but I doubt it considering you are clueless.

No, its called a bit of a fun. People have anti Labour things in their signature. Holy crap, they are having a go at me, and should grow up :rolleyes:.

Stop acting childish and I will give you respect. Act like the way you are, you are getting no respect from me.

OMG RULE A11 SAYS YOU MUST VOTE LABOUR. MANAGEMENT NEED TO STOP CRYING OVER LABOUR!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Maybe you should stop crying over Labour before telling others to stop crying over UKIP?

[FlyingJesus]

I agree with plenty of UKIP policy but this individual deserved to be suspended no matter what party he's from. I don't think it's fair to claim that all UKIP members think this way as clearly the majority of their candidates haven't been removed and aren't getting bad personal press, so it's best in this thread I think to stick to discussing the man in question rather than the party that he's making look foolish.



“You left-wing scum are all the same, wanting to hand our birthright to Romanian gypsies who beat their wives and children into begging and stealing money they can gamble with, Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us all under medieval Sharia law, the same Africans who sold their Afro-Caribbean brothers into a slavery that Britain was the first to abolish (but you still want to apologize for!)”

Quite a ridiculous statement frankly. I can't claim to know anything about gypsies so I'll leave that alone, and I suppose it could easily be argued that the part about "Muslim nutters" refers only to the extremists who believe in Sharia law (as seen from the latter part of the clause), but to talk then of slavery was a really bad move. Britain was not by a long shot the first to abolish slavery, and to suggest that the modern African immigrants are the same people who "sold their Afro-Caribbean brothers" holds about as much weight as the idea that because British people in the past owned slaves, all Brits are slave traders.

For me, it's his general attitude that makes him a poor politician rather than his actual statement, but still good riddance.

[Tintinnabulate]

Hard for me to understand what a debate is? LOL, *REMOVED*.
Don't try and act better than me, like labour does, you will loose, like labour is going to.
Why am i clueless because i disagree with the views that you have?
To say you are debating when you clearly jump on members backs who have a view of UKIP is abit dumb.
Ask undertaker, if he thinks your hellbent on not seeing the good points about UKIP, you are blanking them all together and just solely focusing on labour, have an open mind, like me, then maybe ill take your pathetic little cheapshots off you.
And to be honest, i don't care if i got e-respect off you on habboxforum, maybe you should have a reality check if you actually believe i care what somebody like you thinks of me.
Im clearly not crying over labour either, i just disagree with their views, very strongly - especially when it comes to the armed forces and sending troops to warzones with in-correct kit and not enough ammunition to even carry out a mission.
Maybe you should ask your friends and family, if you even have any friends, what they think about labour or any other party? Not everybody agrees with labour and yours and their views, alot of people don't.
Im NOT solely UKIP and agree with parts of each party out there.

*REMOVED*

UKIP are a dream party and unfornatunately you are naive enough to believe them. And ofcourse I can say that about UT that he doesn't see Labour's positives.
Majority of the older members of this forum - who can actually vote - support Labour. Wonder why ...

[Swastika]

Age has nothing to do with it, im 17, i can vote next year - i know whats wrong and right with my community at this time.
The labour party, as far as i can see, has done nothing to help my area, which is one of the worst in the country, so should be top of the list to help out?
What ill say to you Dander sir, is write a letter to Mr Brown and ask him to help out Middlesbrough, then ill have faith in the labour party.
And i do see the positives about labour, such as the amount of money my mother gets from child support and child tax credit, for being a single mother, that money helps out alot, i applaud labour for that.


UKIP are a dream party and unfornatunately you are naive enough to believe them. And ofcourse I can say that about UT that he doesn't see Labour's positives.
Majority of the older members of this forum - who can actually vote - support Labour. Wonder why ...

[alexxxxx]

UKIP are a dream party and unfornatunately you are naive enough to believe them. And ofcourse I can say that about UT that he doesn't see Labour's positives.
Majority of the older members of this forum - who can actually vote - support Labour. Wonder why ...

im 18 and im gonna vote lib-dem ;)

[Hitman]

People can see with their own eyes what is happening to the country. Of course, we all have different opinions, so some people will think the country is doing well and others won't.

Regarding age, I don't see that as a problem. Of course, if you're under 18 you can't vote, but you can get involved and anybody can agree to a policy, there are no age limits for agreeing with something. Of course, young people might not fully understand but I'd say later teens would perfectly. I'm 17 so I miss the vote by a year, but if I were 18 I would vote UKIP. They have policies that I like and agree with.

[Tintinnabulate]

im 18 and im gonna vote lib-dem ;)

Well you aren't voting UKIP is my point :P Only a minority are.

[Catzsy]

Well you aren't voting UKIP is my point :P Only a minority are.

Well tbh Saurav I think maybe most of us are wasting too much energy on the UKIP threads. In the real world they don't really figure a great deal. Maybe one day but not yet. :P

[lazerman]

Majority of the older members of this forum - who can actually vote - support Labour. Wonder why ...


Really?

Where the proof?

Out of your bum?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's the problem. They can't see to get any realistic perspective. If he has said extremist terrorist muslims who want to bomb and kill people using their faith as an excuse that would be fine. I also think there should be a debate about immigration then we will see exactly what they mean or don't mean.

The muslim nutters was slang, hes not a professional politician but the party took the right action. UKIP has a clear policy on immigration, so what do you really think the policy is? - are you implying that we want to ban all muslims/blacks - if so, quite frankly your just one of the many who are pushing people to the extreme right (the BNP) because when they attempt to be moderate (UKIP) they are just called/made out to be racists.


UKIP are a dream party and unfornatunately you are naive enough to believe them. And ofcourse I can say that about UT that he doesn't see Labour's positives.
Majority of the older members of this forum - who can actually vote - support Labour. Wonder why ...

I do see Labours positives; the continuation of the Trident nuclear missile defence. The points you make are quite frankly childish and i'd expect someone whos older than myself to give some good points and at least challenge me on some policy points - it doesnt matter what age they [people] are, infact while we are at it I presume that all your family vote Labour hence why you also vote Labour - that is not the case for most UKIP supporters because its a small party which is growing and growing at every election. That is all irrelvent anyway to the debate, the debates on here should be about policy and not things like the age of forum members which shows desperation to prove some sort of a point to everybody.

Every single Labour point you make, I always reply and say what I feel about it. Now lets talk immigration then and get something started; UKIP want to introduce a tight immigration system which will bar criminals/people of skills we do not need/those financially incapable of handling themselves from gaining entry to the United Kingdom

Now do you agree or disagree with that UKIP policy on immigration?

[Inseriousity.]

What ill say to you Dander sir, is write a letter to Mr Brown and ask him to help out Middlesbrough, then ill have faith in the labour party.

I wrote to my local labour mp and he helped me out straight away (woo go boro!).... well, until he died anyway. :(

I don't vote for UKIP but I agree with previous posters who say that one politican can't represent the entire party.

[Fez]

My local (Labour) MP has pretty much being helping my family since I was born. Helping my grandmother getting housing before I was born, helping my mother get housing when I was older, I interviewed him for the school, wrote to him about a few bothering things.

He's retiring this election, John Battle, and he's pretty much the most honest (and only) politician I've ever met.

Since he's going, along with Labour, it's only right for a new government to take its place. Out with the old, in with the new.

As offtopic as it gets really.

[Catzsy]

The muslim nutters was slang, hes not a professional politician but the party took the right action. UKIP has a clear policy on immigration, so what do you really think the policy is? - are you implying that we want to ban all muslims/blacks - if so, quite frankly your just one of the many who are pushing people to the extreme right (the BNP) because when they attempt to be moderate (UKIP) they are just called/made out to be racists.


No not at all I am saying they should word their press releases better so there can be no doubt as to what they mean.Too many male chicken ups and the moment. :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

No not at all I am saying they should word their press releases better so there can be no doubt as to what they mean. Too many male chicken ups and the moment. :P

My bad as i've misread it obviously, apologies. :)

On the point of local MPs and councillors thats developed here;- my local MP (who is standing down this May) is Labour and he's the total opposite to my views however I respect him because he stands by his values over things such as the invasion of Iraq and isn't afraid to stand upto the offical party line - now thats an MP you can have some faith in. The guy in question in this epidsode (Peter Wiffen of UKIP) has now resigned as he made comments about the Queen as well it appears; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8620684.stm

[Tintinnabulate]

I presume that all your family vote Labour hence why you also vote Labour

You are wrong :) I actually don't really know who my parents support. I doubt my brother gives a crap. So nope, I am not supporting Labour because my family is. I have challenged you on many policies, but unfortunately you just dodge them and make excuses, which gets a little annoying after a while. I therefore stop replying as you keep repeating yourself and keep avoiding questions. Then you think you have won, when in fact you haven't :).

Tell me Undertaker, do you want to stop people from other countries coming here for a job for the next 5 years?

[Fez]

I like how must of the debate between the hyper politically literate (compliment) is largely just "OMG STOP DODGING, DODGIN! I DIDN'T DODGE!"

[Tintinnabulate]

I like how must of the debate between the hyper politically literate (compliment) is largely just "OMG STOP DODGING, DODGIN! I DIDN'T DODGE!"

Unfortunately, the fact is, thats what UT does alot of the time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are wrong :) I actually don't really know who my parents support. I doubt my brother gives a crap. So nope, I am not supporting Labour because my family is. I have challenged you on many policies, but unfortunately you just dodge them and make excuses, which gets a little annoying after a while. I therefore stop replying as you keep repeating yourself and keep avoiding questions. Then you think you have won, when in fact you haven't :).

Tell me Undertaker, do you want to stop people from other countries coming here for a job for the next 5 years?


Unfortunately, the fact is, thats what UT does alot of the time.

No i'm sorry I do not dodge topics, I often end up asking you for a straight reply over and over again in debates to which you never seem to reply. So i'm glad your now getting involed in the immigration debate for once so i'll reply now; visas exist so people would not be prevented from coming here for a job over the 5-year freeze.

[AgnesIO]

In reply to a few people about 'people have a right to be angry about what labour has done to this country'...

Virtually all the other parties would be just as useless.

[Catzsy]

No i'm sorry I do not dodge topics, I often end up asking you for a straight reply over and over again in debates to which you never seem to reply. So i'm glad your now getting involed in the immigration debate for once so i'll reply now; ]visas exist so people would not be prevented from coming here for a job over the 5-year freeze.[/B]

So what are people who come in on 'visas' to work called Dan? They are called immigrants.:P Again they need to word their statements more carefully.

[Tintinnabulate]

No i'm sorry I do not dodge topics, I often end up asking you for a straight reply over and over again in debates to which you never seem to reply. So i'm glad your now getting involed in the immigration debate for once so i'll reply now; visas exist so people would not be prevented from coming here for a job over the 5-year freeze.

So am I right in saying that you believe that you want to still allow people to come to this country and find a job in the next 5 years?


[/B]

So what are people who come in on 'visas' to work called Dan? They are called immigrants.:P Again they need to word their statements more carefully.

Exactly so I am a little confused as to what he really wants. Wonder if he is even sure himself...

[-:Undertaker:-]

[/B]

So what are people who come in on 'visas' to work called Dan? They are called immigrants.:P Again they need to word their statements more carefully.

According to Jordy who i've just spoke to about it, it depends on the visa. The visa for working is not classed as immigration as they are not settled in the United Kingdom. For example Austrialia has a strict immigration policy but allows workers to commute if need be to the country but not settle as it is an entirely seperate issue.


So am I right in saying that you believe that you want to still allow people to come to this country and find a job in the next 5 years?

I want to allow people to come and work in this country but not allow them to settle here on a permanent basis for the time being while we sort out the immigration system which is being abused and is out of control.

[Tintinnabulate]

Age has nothing to do with it, im 17, i can vote next year - i know whats wrong and right with my community at this time.
The labour party, as far as i can see, has done nothing to help my area, which is one of the worst in the country, so should be top of the list to help out?
What ill say to you Dander sir, is write a letter to Mr Brown and ask him to help out Middlesbrough, then ill have faith in the labour party.
And i do see the positives about labour, such as the amount of money my mother gets from child support and child tax credit, for being a single mother, that money helps out alot, i applaud labour for that.

What makes you think Tories / Lib Dems / UKIP / BNP etc would fix this issue?


I want to allow people to come and work in this country but not allow them to settle here on a permanent basis for the time being while we sort out the immigration system which is being abused and is out of control.

Why not? You need 5 years to fix the issue and permanent residency requires that the person stay for 4 years. So in about 4 years, you should almost have the issue resolved. Meaning, you can still allow people in and let them settle in as by the time they have lived here for 4 years, the immigration issue would have been nearly solved.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What makes you think Tories / Lib Dems / UKIP / BNP etc would fix this issue?

Because the parties you have listed (except the Liberal Democrats) traditonally stand for lower taxes across the board thus helping the lower end of the scale especially.


Why not? You need 5 years to fix the issue and permanent residency requires that the person stay for 4 years. So in about 4 years, you should almost have the issue resolved. Meaning, you can still allow people in and let them settle in as by the time they have lived here for 4 years, the immigration issue would have been nearly solved.

The reason being because those who are coming here now would be settling under the flawed rules we have now, meaning that it would be adding to the problem whereas a 5-year freeze would allow for a new system to be set up which only allows those who conform to British needs into the country.

[Tintinnabulate]

Because the parties you have listed (except the Liberal Democrats) traditonally stand for lower taxes across the board thus helping the lower end of the scale especially.

Labour: # A commitment not to raise any of the rates of income tax and not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares


The reason being because those who are coming here now would be settling under the flawed rules we have now, meaning that it would be adding to the problem whereas a 5-year freeze would allow for a new system to be set up which only allows those who conform to British needs into the country.

I don't understand how having to live here for 4 years before becoming a permanent residence is flawed? and please explain what exactly you mean by "conform to British needs".
To me it sounds like "if you aren't going to help us make more money, sod off". What happened to having Britain as a multi-cultural country?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour: # A commitment not to raise any of the rates of income tax and not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares

I don't understand how having to live here for 4 years before becoming a permanent residence is flawed? and please explain what exactly you mean by "conform to British needs".
To me it sounds like "if you aren't going to help us make more money, sod off". What happened to having Britain as a multi-cultural country?

Does that pledge include national insurance, fuel prices and various other stealth taxes - I didnt think so.

On the second part, because the system at the moment is flawed let me give you an example. UKIP make government tommorow and an immigrant applies for settlement in this country despite the fact we are not in need of his skills (if he has any), if UKIP did not freeze the system instantly on gaining office then that would mean many like him would end up gaining access to the country and thus destroying the whole point of introducing a new immigration system while deporting those who do not work, those who commit crime and those who are extremists.


if you aren't going to help us make more money, sod offYes, thats what every other country does. I dont care whether your black, brown, green or yellow - if you are going to come here and make money thus benefitting the country then you are as welcome as hell to come here, if you are not and intend to survive on the pockets of the British taxpayer then you can sod off because at the end of the day if you are of no use to my country then you are not welcome and its the same system/line of thought in every other country around the world.

[Tintinnabulate]

Does that pledge include national insurance, fuel prices and various other stealth taxes - I didnt think so.

On the second part, because the system at the moment is flawed let me give you an example. UKIP make government tommorow and an immigrant applies for settlement in this country despite the fact we are not in need of his skills (if he has any), if UKIP did not freeze the system instantly on gaining office then that would mean many like him would end up gaining access to the country and thus destroying the whole point of introducing a new immigration system while deporting those who do not work, those who commit crime and those who are extremists.

Yes, thats what every other country does. I dont care whether your black, brown, green or yellow - if you are going to come here and make money thus benefitting the country then you are as welcome as hell to come here, if you are not and intend to survive on the pockets of the British taxpayer then you can sod off because at the end of the day if you are of no use to my country then you are not welcome and its the same system/line of thought in every other country around the world.

A lot of British people are of no use to your country. They sit on their lazy asses and do nothing all day and survive on other peoples pockets too. Shall we kick them out too? If no, then why not? Its the same thing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A lot of British people are of no use to your country. They sit on their lazy asses and do nothing all day and survive on other peoples pockets too. Shall we kick them out too? If no, then why not? Its the same thing.

No but we do not need more useless lazy people as we have enough already, like you say.

[Tintinnabulate]

No but we do not need more useless lazy people as we have enough already, like you say.

You only want those who will help this country but still wont give them permanent residency? Why should they come here then ...
And how will you prove who is an extremist?

[Fez]

You only want those who will help this country but still wont give them permanent residency? Why should they come here then ...
And how will you prove who is an extremist?

If people just want to come over here to LIVE and WORK, then that's fine by me. But if they want to come over here just to LIVE then first they have to prove they can contribute to the economy. That means WORKING.

I'm not sure if this is in UKIP's policies, but if an immigrant comes to work here for more than an allocated amount of time, speaks English and doesn't invite all of his second cousins over to squat with him illegally, then he should be given Britain citizenship and offered places to live; along with having to pay his share of taxes.

That's what the Lib Dems say, but I'm sure it's not just the Lib Dems.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You only want those who will help this country but still wont give them permanent residency? Why should they come here then ...
And how will you prove who is an extremist?

I would give them permanent residency after the 5-year freeze, its unfortunate that we need a freeze but its needed as we are in a situation where the system is totally out of control and is being abused which causes immense strain to the country as well as creating harmful social issues such as higher crime rates. They will come here for work, a lot of people such as French and Germans commute to the United Kingdom to the London financial sector for work and then return home. Those who wish to settle here would have to wait for a period of 5 years until the new system as been set up and the problems we have now are sorted. After the 5-year freeze (hopefully sooner depending on the time period it takes) they could then apply to permanently settle in the United Kingdom provided they;

- Are financially capable of supporting themselves.
- Are of working age which will benefit this country economically.
- Have qualifications which this country requires.
- Do not have a criminal record.
- Do not hold extremist views (would most likely come under the record issue).

[Fez]

- Do not hold extremist views (would most likely come under the record issue).

What defines 'extremist' views, this is a Democracy and all and I don't think it should be up to a government body to determine 'extremist views', aside from the obvious.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What defines 'extremist' views, this is a Democracy and all and I don't think it should be up to a government body to determine 'extremist views', aside from the obvious.

I would deem it as anyone who is deemed a threat to national security. I am a great believer in freedom of speech and democracy however I do not think it right to allow people in who only wish to stir up hatred with violence. The line to define this is difficult I agree, however I believe it should only cover those who want to wage war on the western world (in short, obvious threats to national security).

[Fez]

I would deem it as anyone who is deemed a threat to national security. I am a great believer in freedom of speech and democracy however I do not think it right to allow people in who only wish to stir up hatred with violence. The line to define this is difficult I agree, however I believe it should only cover those who want to wage war on the western world (in short, obvious threats to national security).

It would be hard to draw the line given the diversity of our immigration pooling. We can draw one line at people who would harm the country and its citizens and I guess it could stretch to foreign policy in regards to wanting to act violence on ethnic groups. Although that may follow under hate crimes.

[Tintinnabulate]

I would give them permanent residency after the 5-year freeze, its unfortunate that we need a freeze but its needed as we are in a situation where the system is totally out of control and is being abused which causes immense strain to the country as well as creating harmful social issues such as higher crime rates. They will come here for work, a lot of people such as French and Germans commute to the United Kingdom to the London financial sector for work and then return home. Those who wish to settle here would have to wait for a period of 5 years until the new system as been set up and the problems we have now are sorted. After the 5-year freeze (hopefully sooner depending on the time period it takes) they could then apply to permanently settle in the United Kingdom provided they;

- Are financially capable of supporting themselves.
- Are of working age which will benefit this country economically.
- Have qualifications which this country requires.
- Do not have a criminal record.
- Do not hold extremist views (would most likely come under the record issue).
You claim you dont dodge questions but you clearly do as I asked the below and you dodged it.


And how will you prove who is an extremist?

Anyway, if they are here, working, why should they have to wait 5 years for the system to be set up etc? Why not just give those who work the treatment of getting permanent residency within 4 years?

And if you dislike lazy asses so much, why not kick out those who do not work because they actually cba to?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You claim you dont dodge questions but you clearly do as I asked the below and you dodged it.

I posted just above you how you would define an extremist; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=638552&p=6412033#post6412033 - I have not dodged the question, more like you dodged the answer.


Anyway, if they are here, working, why should they have to wait 5 years for the system to be set up etc? Why not just give those who work the treatment of getting permanent residency within 4 years?

And if you dislike lazy asses so much, why not kick out those who do not work because they actually cba to?I just explained why we need a freeze, because the system needs sorting out and it will take a matter of years for the new system to be implemented. Those who apply now are applying under this system, so it would be pointless for a UKIP government to come in and say "alright we are sorting it out now" while at the same time the old system would continue running for a period of 5 years, and the old system is the problem. The issue with 'lazy asses'; how can we deport people who are solely British citzens? - we cannot, but we dont need more of them from other countries as we have enough of our own.

Theres the common sense solution of not adding to the problem, and allowing people in who will add to the problem just deepens the problem.

[Swastika]

I just think labour have had enough time to do it, and havnt done it, why not give somebody else a shot at helping the community?


What makes you think Tories / Lib Dems / UKIP / BNP etc would fix this issue?

[Catzsy]

According to Jordy who i've just spoke to about it, it depends on the visa. The visa for working is not classed as immigration as they are not settled in the United Kingdom. For example Austrialia has a strict immigration policy but allows workers to commute if need be to the country but not settle as it is an entirely seperate issue.

I want to allow people to come and work in this country but not allow them to settle here on a permanent basis for the time being while we sort out the immigration system which is being abused and is out of control.


Definition of immigration from the Oxford Dictionary of economics:

Immigration
Movement of foreign nationals to reside in a country. This does not include people on short visits, for business or as tourists. Immigrants may come with the intention of permanent settlement or with the intention of returning home after a prolonged stay.

So that means that people entering the country with a work permit which I guess is going to be not a short visit are immigrants. As I said before they cannot say they are freezing immigration and then allow people into work. The one statement totally disagrees with the other. :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Definition of immigration from the Oxford Dictionary of economics:

So that means that people entering the country with a work permit which I guess is going to be not a short visit are immigrants. As I said before they cannot say they are freezing immigration and then allow people into work. The one statement totally disagrees with the other. :P

A work permit is a short visit, often they fly home or only spend a few days here and then fly home before flying back. This would not be stopped as it would harm business and there is no reasonable objection to it as it is healthy to the economy and benefits this country. The statements (UKIP policy) do not disagree with one another or overlap one another; permanent settlement in the United Kingdom is frozen for a 5-year period whereas visas for business are granted.

[Catzsy]

A work permit is a short visit, often they fly home or only spend a few days here and then fly home before flying back. This would not be stopped as it would harm business and there is no reasonable objection to it as it is healthy to the economy and benefits this country. The statements (UKIP policy) do not disagree with one another or overlap one another; permanent settlement in the United Kingdom is frozen for a 5-year period whereas visas for business are granted.

I am not saying it is not healthy but what you were saying is that they weren't immigrants but they are. But work permits are not for a short visit - they are granted usually for 6 months or more and whether they fly back every weekend is irrelevant and they are not 'business' visas as that is a totally separate issue. So what they are basically doing is going to a points policy which has already been announced by the government. I do think it's a bit 'pie in the sky though' as you can't just withdraw from the EU - it wouldn't that easy. What about all the people that are here already from EU Countries they don't have visas. What would happen to them?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Come on Dan - you know it is not a short visit :P They are treated as immigrants. I am not saying it is not healthly - their mini manifesto states that immigration is to be frozen for 5 years. That's what most people are going to read. Business visas have nothing to do with permits/visas for work. What they should have said is that they plan to control immigration not freeze it. :P

They would allow visas for short work visits but not for permanent settlement - there is a very clear difference and one that a government (a competant one at least) is capable of handling. The issue of settled immigration is the issue, not the work schemes which generate enormous income for this country. The settled immigration question is the big issue because its a massive social issue involving crime and the failure of intergration which is taking place and its worrying because what Enoch Powell predicted will come true if we carry on as it is now.

We need a managed system.

[Catzsy]

They would allow visas for short work visits but not for permanent settlement - there is a very clear difference and one that a government (a competant one at least) is capable of handling. The issue of settled immigration is the issue, not the work schemes which generate enormous income for this country. The settled immigration question is the big issue because its a massive social issue involving crime and the failure of intergration which is taking place and its worrying because what Enoch Powell predicted will come true if we carry on as it is now.

We need a managed system.

Yes - sorry I edited my post. You are quick off the mark here :P