Soldier put behind the unemployed, criminals and asylum seekers on housing register

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

Attitudes like mine? I'm sorry but my opinions on this subject and on the subject of the awards systems in schools are hugely different. You haven't heard my thoughts on that matter, and you are unlikely to in this thread because it's not about that, but please stop casting assumptions on my beliefs. I've noticed that people tend to do that around here, and I am slightly irritated at being painted as something I aren't.

Back to the point at hand, you cannot compare things which happened after WWI and WWII to now, the society is vastly different and families are not comparable to what we see now. The point is, from the sounds of it this soldier has left the army through choice and has thus left himself and his family homeless. Anybody who decides to leave a property and ask to be placed on a social housing register is given the same treatment. If you have another option for housing, no matter how bad that option may be, unfortunately you are expected to remain there until adequate housing can be found. To me, that's the correct method to use. For example, if a couple break up, and one half of the partnership is then left with the need to find somewhere else to live, you are given no preferrential treatment because where you are, no matter how bearable it is to live there on a personal level, you are adequately housed. Similarly in this case, he was adequately housed by the army and he chose to leave. Why others on that list, perhaps who have been waiting several months/years themselves should be penalised and dropped a few places due to his choice is beyond me.

---

The soldier was given point blank refusal initially from his council let's not forget. There is clearly an issue with the priority system if he has to split up with his wife to ensure they get a Council House, Labour is making no attempt to change things like this, nor are they meeting their housing targets where it is a necessity that they do, regardless of a recession. Like I said, the Iraq/Afghan wars are nothing like the World Wars, but at the end of the day, they are soldiers risking their lives for queen and country, yet when they return to this country they are treated as second class citizens. That has not changed and never will.

I never stated your views on rewards in the education system, I said people with a similar mindset and attitude as yours are the people who think everyone should be rewarded, despite them not doing anything. You will find that people aren't putting words in your mouth, but you just think you're being victimised constantly by the evil right wingers (Technically I just have put words in your mouth with that statement but there's no other way of putting it).

Some excellent posts by Hitman, I definitely understand what your saying. What confuses me though Tash, why are you blaming Dan for British people moving abroad and calling him a hypocrite? He isn't one of those people moving abroad, perhaps you should moan at those people instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

The soldier was given point blank refusal initially from his council let's not forget. There is clearly an issue with the priority system if he has to split up with his wife to ensure they get a Council House, Labour is making no attempt to change things like this, nor are they meeting their housing targets where it is a necessity that they do, regardless of a recession. Like I said, the Iraq/Afghan wars are nothing like the World Wars, but at the end of the day, they are soldiers risking their lives for queen and country, yet when they return to this country they are treated as second class citizens. That has not changed and never will.

---

They aren't being treated like second class citizens in this case though.. he is being treated exactly the same as any other human being with the same/similar personal circumstances as him. What you are advocating is that we treat soldiers as better than a normal person, simply because they chose to go abroad and fight. As I have said, much respect to them for that choice, but it's not as if we are forcing them to do this. If we were, then sure give them preferential everything but you make your choices in life and you deal with the outcome. You don't use that choice to try and get ahead in life or in this case, in a line of people who are probably just as in need as him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

I never stated your views on rewards in the education system, I said people with a similar mindset and attitude as yours are the people who think everyone should be rewarded, despite them not doing anything. You will find that people aren't putting words in your mouth, but you just think you're being victimised constantly by the evil right wingers (Technically I just have put words in your mouth with that statement but there's no other way of putting it).

---

Where did I say that I am being victimised by right wingers? I haven't as you rightly acknowledged, it just so happens that in this debate, and in many others on here, I am up against someone who is on the right wing. I didn't say, nor do I think, that everyone should be rewarded no matter what they have done. I actually don't think getting social housing is much of a reward, what I said was he should wait like the rest of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Some excellent posts by Hitman, I definitely understand what your saying. What confuses me though Tash, why are you blaming Dan for British people moving abroad and calling him a hypocrite? He isn't one of those people moving abroad, perhaps you should moan at those people instead.

---

I aren't blaming Dan for anything? I was simply using an example whereby British people go abroad and don't learn the language and set on changing the places they have moved to, to emphasise that those who moan about foreigners moving here and not speaking English are being hypocritical. It's hardly my fault if he fits into that category of people. I wasn't moaning at him, I was illustrating a point much like he does for me on many occasions, casting aspersions on my political leaning and such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

A housing boom that isn't artificially inflated is fine but not when it is because ot just leads to a big crash. I would have thought you would have agreed with that. Well we are in the EU which a conservative government took is into - not even the next government whoever it is can get away with not paying. What taxes exactly have they put up apart from the 10p to 20p for the lowest earners which was substituted by a higher tax allowance?

---

The Conservative government (rightly or wrongly) did not take us into the European Union it took us into the European Economic Community which at the time Prime Minister Heath promised it would not become a political union, despite the fact when asked in later years 'did he know it would become a 'United States of Europe' he replied yes. Nobody has ever had a choice, those in their 50s were asked in the 1970s whether or not they wanted to be in an economic community and not a political, social and economic union.

As for taxation with this government, well where to start really; fuel duty, alcohol taxes, cigarette duty, council tax - the list goes on. Why do you think the Taxpayers Alliance is so critical of this government, could it possibly be the fact that this government raises tax after tax to fund their wasteful spending programmes?

Quote:

---

I find it fair that people are placed on a waiting list for a house in the order they request it. There are certain factors that put you above other people no matter when you join the list, namely whether you have children, so the fact that he has those will mean he won't be at the bottom of the list at all. He will simply be behind the people with children who asked for the housing first. That I find fair.

---

So I shall take that as 'yes I find it fair that a solider is put on the housing list behind asylum seekers, criminals and people who have never worked.' - am I correct?

Quote:

---

The logistics of what you are saying are mind blowing. You say you want the government to build more prisons, well even if you were to see this become reality we still would not have the space to house people indefinitely for crimes which are considered fairly minor such as theft. It is my personal opinion that simply sticking someone in prison, amongst other offenders, then letting them out does not work. Even if you do keep them in prison until you deem them safe, if you let them out on the streets, with possibly nowhere to live and no job, they will reoffend. It's simple. You don't want these people given houses, so where are they supposed to live? You don't want them given benefits, well then you find them somewhere to work, because i'm sure I wouldn't particularly be happy employing someone with multiple offences of theft.

---

Yes I do and here are the simple reason why;

• They cannot re-offend and destroy lives when they are in prison.
• This country spends billions on the European Union/foreign aid so we do have the money.
• If they re-offend then double their previous sentence, they may re-offend once but at least its better than the constant cycle where they re-offend again and again.

I am sorry, but am I to be given a house? - no. So why on earth is it that those who offend and break the law should be rewarded with houses and benefits. It is little wonder why people are so disillusioned with politics and it is because of views such as that. Do you seriously suggest that if we talk to the criminals they will stop reoffending?

Why should families like mine (who have not committed crime after crime) pay for those who break the law time and time again to have a nice house to 'prevent them committing more crime'? - you tell me that. The fact is that people in this country need to stop blaming everything else but themselves and take some bleeding responsibility because when you steal something, when you vandalise something the fact is that you make that choice.

Quote:

---

I actually live in an area which is quite bad for theft and quite violent crimes, infact a number of such people live a 5 minute walk from my house. So yes, i'm aware of what these people are like, I went to school with their offspring and they are no different. Prison does not work, their parents have been in there and they come out no different. Things need to be done on a deeper level, to ensure that the next generation don't continue the work of their parents in this manner. Placing people in prison indefinitely will simply make them more corrupt.

---

So in your logic, people who commit crimes & do bad should be rewarded for their bad behaviour with housing and benefits while the rest of us (who abide by the law) have to work and work and get nothing for free, meanwhile having to pay higher taxes to support the criminal scum? - it is your concept that is everything wrong with this country, your socialist ideals which rots everything it touches.

Quote:

---

I aren't attempting to ignore that, I live not far from these people on a housing estate, believe me when I say that I am aware what these people are like. However, I do take offence to the fact that you are implying that the majority of people living on housing estates do not work. If you don't live on one, you don't know what goes on. I'll happily admit I do not live on the worst of estates, there are much worse, but really implying that the majority of people who live on housing estates are either unemployed, criminals or both is below the belt.

---

As far as I am aware I have not said or implied that the majority of people on housing estates are criminals, if I have then I take that back as that is not true. Would you kindly like to point out to me where I have said that the majority of people on housing estates are criminals?

Quote:

---

The fact is that no, my mum does not echo those principles. Everybody would love lower taxes, reality is it just isn't going to happen. Even discounting immigration, our population is growing and aging. This means that we need both more housing and more care facilities, both which cost huge amounts of money, which unfortunately we all have to chip in with. I'm unsure what you mean by 'smaller state' but i'm going to presume you mean removing all unneccessaries from the country, thus reducing the population. Well i'm afraid if you are advocating that, might as well try and chuck out all those unmentionable corners of society such as couples who reproduce despite having no means to actually care for those children. The majority of such people are white, 'english' people. I doubt you'd say throw them out. I won't accept this country is right wing, but I see it becoming increasingly xenophobic, particularly amongst the naive and it's frightening.

---

So your mum is against the concept of lower taxes, more prisons, smaller state and the principle of minimum state interference with the lives of the people;- if so then she is in the minority, which sadly at the moment is the ruling elite in this country. I am afraid low taxes are possible, the direct payments per year for example to the European Union are roughly around the cost of £240 per person in this country. When consider lets say, half work of the population then that is £480 per person per year just in costs to the European Union (of which the vast majority are against anyway). To add up all the government waste in this country is astronomical, and I figure we could cut all taxes to the state by half and still keep services such as the NHS running.

As for the smaller state it just goes to show you either; a) do not have a clue what you are on about or b) are cynically trying to make me out to be a racist. Dont you dare suggest or imply that I am suggesting we throw out all non-white people and shame on you for doing so. The concept of small state is pretty simple and is has nothing to do with population or immigration. The state at the moment (the state is the government, the force which runs the country along with the civil service and so forth) is far too big. Infact I think the public sector now stands at 53% of the working population and that is astounding. The public sector (aka the state) does not generate wealth and is the reason why taxes have ballooned to such great heights, therefore the state needs to be drastically cut which would save hundreds of billions even possibly touching onto a trillion a year. That would be the driving force which would reduce taxes and yes, it would mean many unemployed at first but it is the only solution.

We [the British public] are not xenophobic and why can you [the minority left] not grasp it? - all we want is some sort of control over immigration into this country like any other country in the world has. The more you ignore that, the more people will turn to parties such as the BNP which do have racist policies and by then you have fuelled the extremism too far to stop it. If I was racist then I would support the BNP and not UKIP, simple really. Then again, your own party also discriminates based on race so your in the same bag as the BNP.

Quote:

---

I've already addressed the majority of the points about the asylum seekers which choose to travel here, so again, I won't repeat myself because you don't agree and haven't listened. However, I will take umbrage with the point you made about these people not speaking english. Really, thats an appalling attitude considering our own citizens choose to move abroad to places in the EU such as Spain, France and even further afield and yet will not learn the language or customs of those countries. Somehow thats ok, because as long as we don't get the impact of it, it doesn't happen. I'm afraid it does, and particularly in Spain, there are certain areas where English people have taken over the and the spanish people won't live there. So really, before we start harping on about foreigners being in our country who don't speak our language etc, we need to think about where our citizens are and what impact they are having also. It's quite hypocritical.

---

That is the reason I am against the European Union. All sovereign states should have the right to decide who comes and goes in and out of their country and the European Union has removed this, not only from the United Kingdom but from the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and all other EU countries. The difference also being is that the British people who move to Spain are financially independant and contribute, not to mention the vast majority of them work. That is the key difference between Britain and Spain, and what draws the people we do not want here? - the welfare state.

So no, I am not being hypocritical and I would ask you to take that statement back.

Quote:

---

Attitudes like mine? I'm sorry but my opinions on this subject and on the subject of the awards systems in schools are hugely different. You haven't heard my thoughts on that matter, and you are unlikely to in this thread because it's not about that, but please stop casting assumptions on my beliefs. I've noticed that people tend to do that around here, and I am slightly irritated at being painted as something I aren't.

---

I'm afraid we can assume your opinions, not only because we can read with the eyes that we were born with but because they later turn out to be true. For example I called you in the past a left wing Labour supporter, you ranted on about 'do not assume that' but it later turns out that you do support Labour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The Conservative government (rightly or wrongly) did not take us into the European Union it took us into the European Economic Community which at the time Prime Minister Heath promised it would not become a political union, despite the fact when asked in later years 'did he know it would become a 'United States of Europe' he replied yes. Nobody has ever had a choice, those in their 50s were asked in the 1970s whether or not they wanted to be in an economic community and not a political, social and economic union.

As for taxation with this government, well where to start really; fuel duty, alcohol taxes, cigarette duty, council tax - the list goes on. Why do you think the Taxpayers Alliance is so critical of this government, could it possibly be the fact that this government raises tax after tax to fund their wasteful spending programmes?

---

But what I was saying was that it's not possible for the Labour Government just to stop paying
the EU as it won't be for the next party in power, whoever that is. The labour government has not
taxed anymore than the previous party in power who if you remember started off their reign by increasing VAT from 8% to 15%. If the conservatives couldn't find the money from thye early 1980 to 1997 then labour are going to find it hard to in the same time frame. You haven't acknowledged that they did bring in housing benefit to assist people in finding rental accomodation which if the Soldiers circumstances require it then he will be entitled to. There is not enough information about this case to really make a reasoned judgment one way or the other.

Undertaker, put thieves in prison permanently? No wonder you support UKIP. You and UKIP just think up of crap. Utter crap. Crap which will never be implemented. Half of your ideas are just dreams which will never happen as its not possible.
I think majority of the country probably disagrees with UKIP or they would be in power. Fact is, majority of the country realises they are a pile of crap with false promises, hence they are no where near to getting in power.
You love how people do quizzes and get UKIP as their top choice, but that's because UKIP is a dream party. Its not realistic. Do you not wonder why they are never going to be in power?

If I was to create a party now, I can come up with policies which every one in this country would love and when they do those quizzes, my party will be on top every time. Fact is, people realise its false promises. UKIP say what the hell they want as they never have to worry about implementing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

I thought this, "there are certain areas where English people have taken over the and the spanish people won't live there" meant no Spanish lived in certain areas where the British were.

---

Thinking that's what she meant is silly. A banned user Mint said there is an area in Manchester full off Indians and Pakistanis. It doesn't mean no white person lives there.

A person joins the army by choice. No one has forced them to. Before joining they know the risks. If they join just so they can quit and expect to get housing instantly is ridiculous.
A police officer and firemen put their lives at risk too. A Police Officer might be killed in a chase, in a fight etc. Those who work in prison can be killed in a prison riot. Should they automatically be placed above others? No. They chose to do it and know the risks.
A doctor saves lives daily, does that mean they should get free things? No.
I respect everyone who is in the army for any country, but they are there by choice in this country.

His wife was pregnant at the age of 15/16 :S and she already has 3 kids. Maybe it would have been better to wait before having kids.

As a young man who has his mind set on serving a few years himself, either in the army or at sea, i am expected to be a little biased towards free things for soldiers.

I do think there should be programs for people who have served a good few years. On the websites they talk of help with finding a new job after your time, studying a degree whilst in the forces, a good pension program and so on, i think they do make it sound a bit more straight forward and legit than it actually is. The government don't seem to care what happens to you after you leave, aslong as you are there for a while, fighting for your country and putting your lives on the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexOC

As a young man who has his mind set on serving a few years himself, either in the army or at sea, i am expected to be a little biased towards free things for soldiers.

I do think there should be programs for people who have served a good few years. On the websites they talk of help with finding a new job after your time, studying a degree whilst in the forces, a good pension program and so on, i think they do make it sound a bit more straight forward and legit than it actually is. The government don't seem to care what happens to you after you leave, aslong as you are there for a while, fighting for your country and putting your lives on the line.

---

But police and firefighters also put their lives at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

But police and firefighters also put their lives at risk.

---

Yes? Sorry not to seem arrogant, but i don't know what you a pointing out here?

I also think Police, Firefighters and other civil servants should also be held in high regard in such things as housing and education for their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexOC

Yes? Sorry not to seem arrogant, but i don't know what you a pointing out here?

I also think Police, Firefighters and other civil servants should also be held in high regard in such things as housing and education for their children.

---

I meant if soldiers get perks then police should too, then so should firefighters, then so should doctors. Then it just becomes unmanageable.

******* disgusting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

Undertaker, put thieves in prison permanently? No wonder you support UKIP. You and UKIP just think up of crap. Utter crap. Crap which will never be implemented. Half of your ideas are just dreams which will never happen as its not possible. I think majority of the country probably disagrees with UKIP or they would be in power. Fact is, majority of the country realises they are a pile of crap with false promises, hence they are no where near to getting in power. You love how people do quizzes and get UKIP as their top choice, but that's because UKIP is a dream party. Its not realistic. Do you not wonder why they are never going to be in power?

If I was to create a party now, I can come up with policies which every one in this country would love and when they do those quizzes, my party will be on top every time. Fact is, people realise its false promises. UKIP say what the hell they want as they never have to worry about implementing it.

---

I never said put them in prison permanently, the simple fact is that I want them in prison while they are a threat. I dont see putting criminals in prison as utter crap, I see that as a good policy and as do most people I suspect (you could do a poll if you dispute it). As for UKIP, UKIP is the only party talking seriously about budget cutbacks;- I know you dont follow it much hence why you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time, but this government and the Tories are arguing over a £6 billion cut - you are being conned.

The debt stands at over £1 TRILLION yet all the main parties are talking about is the sum of £6 billion, we pay more right now on debt interest than we spend on the education system/the armed forces. UKIP has followed the advice of the taxpayers alliance and found over £50 billion worth of cutbacks just in government waste along with identifying that most government departments need a cut of 1/3 to avert financial catatrophe in this country. So Saurav, i'd like a reponse to who the real joke is.

- Putting criminals behind bars (UKIP policy) - is that a joke?
- Cutting government waste and budgets to avert debt crisis (UKIP policy) - is that a joke?

As for UKIP, its trapped in the FPTP system and will struggle to get anywhere under this system however they do have broad support as they beat both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the last PR election this country has, coming second nationally and I am sure they beat Labour in half the English regions as well. I'd like to ask you Saurav, what policies of UKIPs are unrealistic and cannot be implemented?

As usual we are on the UKIP topic but if you are going to say something then you are going to have to back it up, so answer my questions in bold please. (and no, dont ignore them as you usually atttempt to do). I am getting bored of you constantly slamming UKIP but with no substance behind what you are saying - so maybe its time you tell me UKIP policies which are unrealistic and Labour policies which are realistic - now can you at least give that a go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I never said put them in prison permanently, the simple fact is that I want them in prison while they are a threat. I dont see putting criminals in prison as utter crap, I see that as a good policy and as do most people I suspect (you could do a poll if you dispute it). As for UKIP, UKIP is the only party talking seriously about budget cutbacks;- I know you dont follow it much hence why you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time, but this government and the Tories are arguing over a £6 billion cut - you are being conned.

The debt stands at over £1 TRILLION yet all the main parties are talking about is the sum of £6 billion, we pay more right now on debt interest than we spend on the education system/the armed forces. UKIP has followed the advice of the taxpayers alliance and found over £50 billion worth of cutbacks just in government waste along with identifying that most government departments need a cut of 1/3 to avert financial catatrophe in this country. So Saurav, i'd like a reponse to who the real joke is.

- Putting criminals behind bars (UKIP policy) - is that a joke?
- Cutting government waste and budgets to avert debt crisis (UKIP policy) - is that a joke?

As for UKIP, its trapped in the FPTP system and will struggle to get anywhere under this system however they do have broad support as they beat both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the last PR election this country has, coming second nationally and I am sure they beat Labour in half the English regions as well. I'd like to ask you Saurav, what policies of UKIPs are unrealistic and cannot be implemented?

As usual we are on the UKIP topic but if you are going to say something then you are going to have to back it up, so answer my questions in bold please. (and no, dont ignore them as you usually atttempt to do). I am getting bored of you constantly slamming UKIP but with no substance behind what you are saying - so maybe its time you tell me UKIP policies which are unrealistic and Labour policies which are realistic - now can you at least give that a go?

---

Well I think if their manifesto was costed then they would be taken a lot more seriously e.g. how much would it cost to build more prisons to keep all the criminals in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I never said put them in prison permanently, the simple fact is that I want them in prison while they are a threat. I dont see putting criminals in prison as utter crap, I see that as a good policy and as do most people I suspect (you could do a poll if you dispute it). As for UKIP, UKIP is the only party talking seriously about budget cutbacks;- I know you dont follow it much hence why you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time, but this government and the Tories are arguing over a £6 billion cut - you are being conned.

The debt stands at over £1 TRILLION yet all the main parties are talking about is the sum of £6 billion, we pay more right now on debt interest than we spend on the education system/the armed forces. UKIP has followed the advice of the taxpayers alliance and found over £50 billion worth of cutbacks just in government waste along with identifying that most government departments need a cut of 1/3 to avert financial catatrophe in this country. So Saurav, i'd like a reponse to who the real joke is.

- Putting criminals behind bars (UKIP policy) - is that a joke?
- Cutting government waste and budgets to avert debt crisis (UKIP policy) - is that a joke?

As for UKIP, its trapped in the FPTP system and will struggle to get anywhere under this system however they do have broad support as they beat both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the last PR election this country has, coming second nationally and I am sure they beat Labour in half the English regions as well. I'd like to ask you Saurav, what policies of UKIPs are unrealistic and cannot be implemented?

As usual we are on the UKIP topic but if you are going to say something then you are going to have to back it up, so answer my questions in bold please. (and no, dont ignore them as you usually atttempt to do). I am getting bored of you constantly slamming UKIP but with no substance behind what you are saying - so maybe its time you tell me UKIP policies which are unrealistic and Labour policies which are realistic - now can you at least give that a go?

---

If they cutting costs plan was so great and realistic, all the parties would have stolen half of their ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

Thinking that's what she meant is silly. A banned user Mint said there is an area in Manchester full off Indians and Pakistanis. It doesn't mean no white person lives there.

---

Um, no, your reply is silly. What she posted and what you posted are very different. I will now point out why and how I thought she meant that with good reason. Before I go into I'd just like to ask why you drag that up when it's not directly related to the topic at hand? Not got much to say so you're picking at small things?

OK, the quote again:

Quote:

---

there are certain areas where English people have taken over the and the spanish people won't live there

---

She is saying there are areas in Spain where the English have taken over - and the Spanish will not live there because of this. If there are no Spanish living there (because they won't - refusing to) then what I said is correct - I said just that. So what's the problem buddy?

What you said (the quote by "Mint") is totally different. That is saying Manchester is FULL of Pakistanis and Indians and it doesn't even mention white people at all. All that is saying is that there are many Pakistanis and Indians - there could be many white people too.

The person I quoted had subjects A and B - A being the English, B being the Spanish. It's saying subject B will not live in certain areas where subject A have 'taken over'. Your quote from Mint is saying that Manchester is full of subject A.

Your quote is NOT saying "Manchester is full of Pakistanis and Indians and white people won't live there" - the key word is WON'T - if they won't live there then it means they're not bloody there. My head is hurting at how ******ed this is for you not to understand. :S Seriously.

I really don't know why I bother posting here when people fail to see even the simple things like that and then back it up with a stupid quote that doesn't even mean the same thing.

If you are going to reply with a load of drivel that does not make sense then don't waste your time, however I will read and reply to one that realises you're the silly one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

Undertaker, put thieves in prison permanently? No wonder you support UKIP. You and UKIP just think up of crap. Utter crap. Crap which will never be implemented. Half of your ideas are just dreams which will never happen as its not possible.

---

Of course it couldn't be implemented till lots more prisons are built but many countries throughout the world permanently lock up persistent offenders, you should give people a chance first to change, but if they don't, lock them up.[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

I think majority of the country probably disagrees with UKIP or they would be in power. Fact is, majority of the country realises they are a pile of crap with false promises, hence they are no where near to getting in power.
You love how people do quizzes and get UKIP as their top choice, but that's because UKIP is a dream party. Its not realistic. Do you not wonder why they are never going to be in power?

If I was to create a party now, I can come up with policies which every one in this country would love and when they do those quizzes, my party will be on top every time. Fact is, people realise its false promises. UKIP say what the hell they want as they never have to worry about implementing it.

---

UKIP is a pressure group, while it would like to get into power it's much more interested on making an impact on mainstream politics and hoping the parties will adopt their policies, or form an agreement with the Conservatives. As you probably know, I am a Conservatives supporter but believe it or not, I agree with UKIP on the vast majority of things. I personally think it's a bit of a wasted vote atm too and I also see it as helping Labour by voting UKIP so that's why I continue to support the Conservatives for now (I also have confidence in David Cameron turning this country around), but you can agree with a party without voting for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

His wife was pregnant at the age of 15/16 :S and she already has 3 kids. Maybe it would have been better to wait before having kids.

---

Perhaps our Labour government should of done something about this considering we have the highest teen birth-rates in Europe. They've had 13 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

But police and firefighters also put their lives at risk.

---

Police & Firefighters get a better wage than most, I doubt any live in council houses. There is not the same element of risk, the number of police & firefighters dying each year is less than 10 if you add them together I imagine, there is far more deaths in the military unfortunately. I also consider representing your country during a war an incredibly honourable think to do and should be rewarded by the state accordingly, especially as they will have nothing to go back to usually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

If they cutting costs plan was so great and realistic, all the parties would have stolen half of their ideas.

---

Their ideas rely on things such as leaving the EU. If Labour is so great why does anyone vote Conservatives? Politics is all about trying to convince people your ideas are great, it is anything but black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

If they cutting costs plan was so great and realistic, all the parties would have stolen half of their ideas.

---

Let me put it this way, the national debt stands at over £1 trillion and the Labour Party, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are arguing over a £6 billion increase in NI - that is unrealistic my friend, and to spend more on debt interest as we do now than we do on our armed forces or education system is not only unrealistic, but damn right stupid and not one of the main parties is proposing the drastic cuts that we need. It will be hard, it will be very very tough but it needs to be done.

We have not got a choice, look at Greece or Britain back in the 1970s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

Um, no, your reply is silly. What she posted and what you posted are very different. I will now point out why and how I thought she meant that with good reason. Before I go into I'd just like to ask why you drag that up when it's not directly related to the topic at hand? Not got much to say so you're picking at small things?

OK, the quote again:

She is saying there are areas in Spain where the English have taken over - and the Spanish will not live there because of this. If there are no Spanish living there (because they won't - refusing to) then what I said is correct - I said just that. So what's the problem buddy?

What you said (the quote by "Mint") is totally different. That is saying Manchester is FULL of Pakistanis and Indians and it doesn't even mention white people at all. All that is saying is that there are many Pakistanis and Indians - there could be many white people too.

The person I quoted had subjects A and B - A being the English, B being the Spanish. It's saying subject B will not live in certain areas where subject A have 'taken over'. Your quote from Mint is saying that Manchester is full of subject A.

Your quote is NOT saying "Manchester is full of Pakistanis and Indians and white people won't live there" - the key word is WON'T - if they won't live there then it means they're not bloody there. My head is hurting at how ******ed this is for you not to understand. :S Seriously.

I really don't know why I bother posting here when people fail to see even the simple things like that and then back it up with a stupid quote that doesn't even mean the same thing.

If you are going to reply with a load of drivel that does not make sense then don't waste your time, however I will read and reply to one that realises you're the silly one.

---

Firstly, wow, you get so worked up its hilarious.

I guess you lack the ability to read sentences properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

What you said (the quote by "Mint") is totally different. That is saying Manchester is FULL of Pakistanis and Indians and it doesn't even mention white people at all. All that is saying is that there are many Pakistanis and Indians - there could be many white people too.

---

However I said,

Quote:

---

Thinking that's what she meant is silly. A banned user Mint said there is an area in Manchester full off Indians and Pakistanis. It doesn't mean no white person lives there.

---

I thought it's common sense what I meant. I guess some people lack them here.

*REMOVED*

Edited by iAdam (Forum Super Moderator); Please do not be rude to other forum members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

Firstly, wow, you get so worked up its hilarious.

I guess you lack the ability to read sentences properly.



However I said,



I thought it's common sense what I meant. I guess some people lack them here.

*REMOVED*

Edited by iAdam (Forum Super Moderator); Please do not be rude to other forum members.

---

OK, whether you said area or not does not matter.

Your quote is saying there are lots of Pakistanis and Indians in an area of Manchester and because of this it doesn't mean that there are no white people.

Tash's quote is saying that there are loads of British in an area of Spain and no Spanish people are there. If she had simply said "there are loads of British in an area of Spain" then sure, maybe there would be Spanish there too, but she said the Spanish won't live there which is saying there are only British and no Spanish there, which is wrong because it's not like that at all.

I understand what you are saying, but Tash clearly said that it's an area where there are loads of British and no Spanish, because they won't live there.

Unfortunately I didn't get to see the rude remark you posted, but I won't stoop down and return it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

OK, whether you said area or not does not matter.

Your quote is saying there are lots of Pakistanis and Indians in an area of Manchester and because of this it doesn't mean that there are no white people.

Tash's quote is saying that there are loads of British in an area of Spain and no Spanish people are there. If she had simply said "there are loads of British in an area of Spain" then sure, maybe there would be Spanish there too, but she said the Spanish won't live there which is saying there are only British and no Spanish there, which is wrong because it's not like that at all.

I understand what you are saying, but Tash clearly said that it's an area where there are loads of British and no Spanish, because they won't live there.

Unfortunately I didn't get to see the rude remark you posted, but I won't stoop down and return it. :)

---

It wasn't a rude comment. It was merely stating you look foolish.
And I thought its common sense my post pretty much meant "Asians live in that area so white people dont" as I was defending Tash's posts, otherwise my post would have no meaning. I apologise for not quoting the whole post, but I honestly didnt think I would need to as most people have enough common sense to guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

It wasn't a rude comment. It was merely stating you look foolish.
And I thought its common sense my post pretty much meant "Asians live in that area so white people dont" as I was defending Tash's posts, otherwise my post would have no meaning. I apologise for not quoting the whole post, but I honestly didnt think I would need to as most people have enough common sense to guess.

---

The moderator seemed to think it was rude. Anyway, it does not bother me... these are just messages on a forum. I give up explaining, I could spend hours writing replies and getting nowhere. At the end of the day there are not areas that are full of British and no Spanish.

Are you Saurav? You seemed alright in the PM's we exchanged...