801 Migrants cross English Channel in 1 day

[sadkingbilly]

I suspect though you were mainly a benefit because despite being a higher rate tax payer for decades I didn't get to >£38k until the 90s. The value has obviously changed because I could buy a premium car or house reasonably easily on my salary since the 80s.

If not you were going to be anyway. We don't need to ship people from some far flung land where FGM, 'Honour murders', Gang rapes, gang grooming or wandering around with a machete etc. are common then tell everyone it is progress.

Of course if there had been a labour shortage wages may have increased or productivity improved not offshoring and technical decline.

WELL SAID! - spoken like a true EDL/reform xenophobe! - Tommy'll buy you a drink.

[vetran]

Opinions may differ on that interpretation. Not all generalisations are valid, only some are.

WELL SAID! - spoken like a true EDL/reform xenophobe! - Tommy'll buy you a drink.

Sadly people are realising mass immigration is not a good idea.

[WTFH]

Sadly people are realising mass immigration is not a good idea.

Britain should have stopped the Saxons and Normans. Problem solved. It's been downhill since they came over.

[WTFH]

Got a link for that?

I suspect that anyone earning less than a certain wage, no matter where they were born, no matter what skin colour, what religion, what nationality, what gender, if they earn below a certain level then they could be seen as "taking out more than they are putting in".

[DoctorStrangelove]

Britain should have stopped the Saxons and Normans. Problem solved. It's been downhill since they came over.

You're Goddamn Right! Particularly the Norman bastards.

Then again the Beaker Folk weren't too keen on the Celts.

[NigelJK]

Globally speaking, it's been downhill since those filthy farmers killed off the hunter gatherers and said it was OK to create cities crammed with people, who do nothing to help.

[Snooky]

I suspect that anyone earning less than a certain wage, no matter where they were born, no matter what skin colour, what religion, what nationality, what gender, if they earn below a certain level then they could be seen as "taking out more than they are putting in".

That's kind of how our society works though, right? Those in a better place contributing to help out those in a worse position: progressive tax system, welfare safety net, NHS etc etc. Some people will always be a net drain to the country, even those of working age fulfilling necessary roles. Any of us could easily end up being a net burden to society at some point in the future.

[WTFH]

That's kind of how our society works though, right? Those in a better place contributing to help out those in a worse position: progressive tax system, welfare safety net, NHS etc etc. Some people will always be a net drain to the country, even those of working age fulfilling necessary roles. Any of us could easily end up being a net burden to society at some point in the future.

That's exactly how society should work.
But if you're a far right propaganda machine, you rule out the facts that many people are taking out more than they put in, and just choose a small percentage, so that all people who are grouped together under a tag can then be demonised.
GBeebies wouldn't surprise any of us if they suggested that people who weren't pure-bred English should be forced to wear a sign marking them out.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Attempting to get my head around "pure bred" and "English". .

[malvolio]

Attempting to get my head around "pure bred" and "English". .

Welcome to "Tell me you are racist without saying you are". Snooks is posing a crass argument anyway; how would you classify an Australian, for example?