UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
vonuber said:
f
k me, more attacks against romanians? I thought you'd all moved onto accusing all asian people of being murderers of teenage girls. Good to see you are back on form in here.
If you are trying to portray yourself as a thicko, lying bigot, then I must congratulate you on a stunning success.k me, more attacks against romanians? I thought you'd all moved onto accusing all asian people of being murderers of teenage girls. Good to see you are back on form in here.Has anybody suggested that all Asian people of being murderers?
No, of course they haven't.
Is it wrong to point out that many thousands of young white girls have been abused by
stini, Muslim taxi drivers?Only if you don't give a s
te about the fate of young white girls, and you are willing to allow the abuse to continue.Now, why don't you use Google before spouting your ill informed nonsense. Romanian immigrants are four times as likely to end up in prison as other groups.
Romanians are responsible for 92 per cent of all crime at cashpoints in Britain, according to police.
ETA. Why is the word "Pakistani censored? If I were from Pakistan, then I would probably be offended.
Edited by don4l on Friday 6th March 20:42
Einion Yrth said:
don4l said:
Why is the word "Pakistani censored?
It's a bit like Scunthorpe; the swear filter is only slightly more intelligent than most of the moderators.Big Al is the most consistent of them all.
vonuber said:
fk me, more attacks against romanians? I thought you'd all moved onto accusing all asian people of being murderers of teenage girls. Good to see you are back on form in here.
Boring. You have the mentality of a Rotherham child services leader. Try countering some of the points made rather than moaning. k me, more attacks against romanians? I thought you'd all moved onto accusing all asian people of being murderers of teenage girls. Good to see you are back on form in here.Scuffers said:
point taken, however, do you not think it would be better if we could manage migrants from *any* country to weed out the ones we do not want?
Absolutely-but for me-at the moment I'm not sure the current laws are enforced effecively enough, and so I think new, more stringent laws would be a failure due to an inability to enforce them.I also think it's hard to know where to draw the line, for example would asylum seekers be allowed, and if so where do you draw the line between those seeking refuge from persecution and people who just think the UK would be better for them?
Scuffers said:
Right, so just because it's mildly more challenging, we should not try and do the right thing?
I think we need to get it right in enforcing our current laws, such as clamping down on illegal immigration and criminals trying to enter the country, before attempting to tighten up the laws on who is allowed into the country (such as introducing a points based system).I'm not sure whether I actually agree with a points based system or not but I think that if the country can't enforce the current laws properly then a points based system would be a disaster.
Interesting prediction here - and not just plucked out of the air:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/uki...
I know the traditional logic in FPTP is that second place is just first loser, but 2nd place in 70-100 seats would be quite an achievement. This would place UKIP as the main opposition party in a significant percentage of the UK and regionally in England strong against either the Cons or Labour in some key seats. Interesting times and hardly pipsqueak party material.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/uki...
I know the traditional logic in FPTP is that second place is just first loser, but 2nd place in 70-100 seats would be quite an achievement. This would place UKIP as the main opposition party in a significant percentage of the UK and regionally in England strong against either the Cons or Labour in some key seats. Interesting times and hardly pipsqueak party material.
brenflys777 said:
Interesting prediction here - and not just plucked out of the air:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/uki...
I know the traditional logic in FPTP is that second place is just first loser, but 2nd place in 70-100 seats would be quite an achievement. This would place UKIP as the main opposition party in a significant percentage of the UK and regionally in England strong against either the Cons or Labour in some key seats. Interesting times and hardly pipsqueak party material.
looks like they have pulled the page the link goes to ?http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/uki...
I know the traditional logic in FPTP is that second place is just first loser, but 2nd place in 70-100 seats would be quite an achievement. This would place UKIP as the main opposition party in a significant percentage of the UK and regionally in England strong against either the Cons or Labour in some key seats. Interesting times and hardly pipsqueak party material.
wc98 said:
brenflys777 said:
Interesting prediction here - and not just plucked out of the air:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/uki...
I know the traditional logic in FPTP is that second place is just first loser, but 2nd place in 70-100 seats would be quite an achievement. This would place UKIP as the main opposition party in a significant percentage of the UK and regionally in England strong against either the Cons or Labour in some key seats. Interesting times and hardly pipsqueak party material.
looks like they have pulled the page the link goes to ?http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/uki...
I know the traditional logic in FPTP is that second place is just first loser, but 2nd place in 70-100 seats would be quite an achievement. This would place UKIP as the main opposition party in a significant percentage of the UK and regionally in England strong against either the Cons or Labour in some key seats. Interesting times and hardly pipsqueak party material.
don4l said:
Is it wrong to point out that many thousands of young white girls have been abused by stini, Muslim taxi drivers?
Only if you don't give a ste about the fate of young white girls, and you are willing to allow the abuse to continue.
You keep referring to this. However you don't seem to care as much for the young girls who have been abused by Savile, Cyril Smith and all the other "celebrities".stini, Muslim taxi drivers?Only if you don't give a s
te about the fate of young white girls, and you are willing to allow the abuse to continue.Edited by don4l on Friday 6th March 20:42
For that matter you don't seem concerned about the girls abused by taxi drivers of other origins.
Why might that be?
And why are you only concerned for young white girls? Why did you type the word white in that first sentence?
There are nasty, evil people from all backgrounds, skin colours, hair colours and everything else. Concentrate on only one ethnic grouping and you are making exactly the same mistake as the Rotherham councillors, just in reverse.
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Saturday 7th March 22:44
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff