• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

New BNP Hit Single

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by BrowneIssue View Post
    Trolling.

    Plonked in my ignore list. Bye, bye!
    Ignore lists are no fun!!

    You have to read everything to get the full flavour of CUK
    Best Forum Advisor 2014
    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

    Comment


      #52
      Yup. I tried one once, but just couldn't help peaking.
      Last edited by NotAllThere; 28 January 2008, 06:24.
      Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

      Comment


        #53
        I think Peter Jackson is a racist and have banned him from my further viewings of his films.

        The fact that dwarfs were portrayed with Scottish accents and Orcs with London 'Cockney' accents deeply offends me.

        Please do not link any mpegs of Lord Of The Rings or any other such racist tosh.

        Comment


          #54
          OMG I've just seen the video and it is utterly Xenonphobic rather than 'racist'.

          tbh any benefits that immigrants get are minimal and are not really enough to properly live on anyone here ever tried to live off dole money ? its impossible !

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by Denny View Post
            I was disgusted to here of one black African recently whose visa had run out but was still deported by being escorted to the airport, regardless, despite having terminal cancer. She was receiving NHS treatment but I don't think any provision had been made for her to receive free or affordable treatment in what was undeniably now 'her own country', which would have been the ideal solution all round. By being sent back, due to the rigid stance taken by the IND, she has been issued a certain premature death sentence because the cost of care in her own country far exceeds anything she can afford. I suppose you could argue about the merits of someone staying beyond her legitimate welcome here and still receiving NHS treatment, which is the only way she could have got the treatment she needed, and is not strictly entitled to anymore, but the decision still seemed to me to be very harsh for someone in her condition.
            Would you have the NHS fund treatment for every cancer sufferer from the third world & if so on what basis?
            How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

            Comment


              #56
              Originally posted by Troll View Post
              Would you have the NHS fund treatment for every cancer sufferer from the third world & if so on what basis?
              And right on cue, NickyG's biatch turns up.

              Comment


                #57
                Originally posted by Troll View Post
                Would you have the NHS fund treatment for every cancer sufferer from the third world & if so on what basis?
                Not if they weren't already here, of course not. But this woman was legitimately in the UK until her visa ran out and she wasn't well enough to return on time of her own accord or renew her visa because of her illness. Sometimes, I think human feeling should take priority over legal considerations, particularly when the problem is unlikely to be a recurring one involving many people.

                As I said, the best course of action would have been to ensure that she got the affordable treatment she needed in her own country.

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by Denny View Post
                  Not if they weren't already here, of course not. But this woman was legitimately in the UK until her visa ran out and she wasn't well enough to return on time of her own accord or renew her visa because of her illness. Sometimes, I think human feeling should take priority over legal considerations, particularly when the problem is unlikely to be a recurring one involving many people.
                  She first came to the UK as a visitor in 2003, but then changed her status to student and attempted to enrol on a banking course at a city college, her solicitor explained.
                  Ms Sumani's lack of English prevented her from pursuing the course and she went to find work which contravened her student visa.
                  In 2005 she returned to Ghana to attend a memorial service for her dead husband.
                  But when she came back to the UK her student visa was revoked and she was only given temporary admission which effectively meant she was given notice she would be removed, her solicitor said.
                  She did not keep in touch with immigration officials and was first taken ill in January 2006. Without the dialysis doctors fear she only has weeks to live.
                  Her solicitor said she accepted her removal was fair but said they had made representations on her behalf on compassionate grounds.
                  Originally posted by Denny View Post
                  As I said, the best course of action would have been to ensure that she got the affordable treatment she needed in her own country.
                  A spokesman for Ghana's high commission in London said the country had two fully-equipped hospitals in Accra and further north in Kumasi.
                  He did concede that access to treatment was costly but said that if Ms Sumani was a member of the Ghana national health insurance scheme she would still receive treatment.
                  Hmmm not sure there is a problem
                  How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

                  Comment


                    #59
                    Originally posted by Clippy View Post
                    And right on cue, NickyG's biatch turns up.
                    Silly boy
                    How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Originally posted by Troll View Post
                      Hmmm not sure there is a problem
                      I didn't read these reports you've posted, I was basing my answer on a news report that I heard and which pretty much said what I wrote originally.

                      Unfortunately, news reports, written or otherwise, aren't always a good basis to form an opinion on the facts as they can distort the truth.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X