• 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!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "New Dr Who announced"

Collapse

  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post

    He's black, it's a BBC show, what do you expect?
    Bloody foreigners, coming here stealing our acting jobs.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    So a thread about a black actor ends up arguing about how we treat immigrants and refugees. Hmm.
    He's black, it's a BBC show, what do you expect?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    So a thread about a black actor ends up arguing about how we treat immigrants and refugees. Hmm.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    It's a false dichotomy. It's not one or the other. We can help the homeless, ex-service people already here AND bring in more people who need help. But the government chooses not to. (Not that you'd ever get all the homeless of the streets, well, not without some kind of rather totalitarian action like putting them in prison).

    Usually the people who say "we should help our own first" don't lift a finger to do that either. I had a long chat with a guy who was saying how unfair it is that people are taking Ukrainians into their homes, but didn't when the Syrians or Afghans came. Eventually it came out that he'd never take anyone into his home anyway - he was just against what he called "virtue signalling". Of course it isn't that, as virtue signalling is making a meaningless gesture that costs you nothing, in order to have other people think you're wonderful.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    We have 200K+ homeless about half are foreign born but many are ex services. Maybe we should do something about those before bringing in more?
    That’s the argument - we should do something about those people - not we should help them, or we will help them, but “do something about them”, aren’t they all benefits scrounges, taking our jobs, etc?

    Send them all home. Start with the Anglo-Saxons. And the Anglo-philes. Keep the British Isles for British people.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    In other news, Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey being cast in the 1960s, demonstrate that the woke culture has been here for many decades.
    oh they weren't gay were they? - shock horror!

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post

    Migrants want to go to places where they can communicate with the locals. Do you know what % of the world has English as their first or second language, compared to say, French or German?

    Do you think we should ship Ukrainians off to Rwanda because Boris & his chums are no longer getting funds direct from Russia?
    But of course the 90%+ females, old people & children Ukrainians are just the same as the 90%+ young men and 50%+ of children who were proved to be lying about being children from Calais. Let us compare apples and hand grenades!

    I don't care where economic migrants WANT to go, I do know I don't want them here illegally if you are willing to pay for illegals then get your money out.

    Just because economic migrants watched "die hard" etc. at home and learnt English doesn't mean we should let them into the UK illegally. We have 200K+ homeless about half are foreign born but many are ex services. Maybe we should do something about those before bringing in more?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    In other news, Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey being cast in the 1960s, demonstrate that the woke culture has been here for many decades.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    no by making sure they don't have a right to settle here based on their now criminal actions I know Macaroon is bad but surely not that bad they want to risk their lives to be ruled by Boris?

    This means that they won't pay to be trafficked on dangerous dinghies. If you want dead migrants go ahead and encourage the channel route.
    Migrants want to go to places where they can communicate with the locals. Do you know what % of the world has English as their first or second language, compared to say, French or German?

    Do you think we should ship Ukrainians off to Rwanda because Boris & his chums are no longer getting funds direct from Russia?

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    Yes, why not?
    Because not all of us believe Farage, the Wail, Stephen Yaxley Lennon, GBeebies, etc.

    If you want dead migrants, but don't want them to die within sight of the UK, ship them to a country known for massacring its own population.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post

    By sending them to Rwanda?
    no by making sure they don't have a right to settle here based on their now criminal actions I know Macaroon is bad but surely not that bad they want to risk their lives to be ruled by Boris?

    This means that they won't pay to be trafficked on dangerous dinghies. If you want dead migrants go ahead and encourage the channel route.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Yes, why not?

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    We don't want to dispose of refugees. We want to stop illegal economic migrants dying in the channel trying to leave a perfectly safe country.
    By sending them to Rwanda?

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post

    The FO aren't the ones keen to dispose of refugees.
    We don't want to dispose of refugees. We want to stop illegal economic migrants dying in the channel trying to leave a perfectly safe country.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    Shouldn't those be Foreign Office documents?
    The FO aren't the ones keen to dispose of refugees.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X