European Politics

That wouldn't help much, you know.
We're trained to deal with wires at a very early age so we can steal electricity (and wires). This comes right after we learn how to steal benefits. :p
 
Yeah, it's all the usual foreigner-hating thing again. All foreigners (other than Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and white South Africans) are trying to take over the country, steal all the benefits, have millions of children and take all the jobs. It's all a French and German conspiracy, too, apparently. :p
I love those news satire websites, though
 
Ariana said:
That wouldn't help much, you know.
We're trained to deal with wires at a very early age so we can steal electricity (and wires). This comes right after we learn how to steal benefits. :p
Click to expand...

Perhaps I shouldn't tell of this, but my alarm consists of a tripwire connected to a CD player primed with 'Somewhere in Time'. The theory is that any Bulgarian in the area will be captivated by H's magic and forever paralyzed... or at least until I can wake up and do something about it :P I think it'll be fairly effective.


To be honest, it is hard to say comments like that without it being racist, but it's still got a reasonable point. I'm not saying that life doesn't suck elsewhere and they shouldn't be allowed here etc, but there are reasons for immigration laws in ALL countries. I have looked at immigrating to a country before and tbh to go through legally is not an easy process, and whilst I could just hop on a plane or boat and not come back, pretty sure that I'd be tracked down and thrown out sharpish (although there are times I wish I'd taken that risk). So many people are entering the country in that manner though, it's not exactly being racist and no one is saying things like "England should only have English people!" but there are problems already for the country without adding to it. I'm not going to go into things too far because I know I won't be able to enter a proper debate due to lack of knowledge on the situation :P But I have seen/heard several things on news/tv/radio in recent years relating to immigration, providing housing benefits for them etc and yet in many cases they can't speak English and no willingness to learn it - in one case a polish woman had been living here for 7 years, with government paying for her housing, and couldn't even say a word of the language, with that being her reason for not having work the entire time.

Again - not against people from other nationalities etc etc being here, just that it's a fair comment to say that immigration is a problem. Not just here.
 
Crimson Idol said:
Perhaps I shouldn't tell of this, but my alarm consists of a tripwire connected to a CD player primed with 'Somewhere in Time'. The theory is that any Bulgarian in the area will be captivated by H's magic and forever paralyzed... or at least until I can wake up and do something about it :p I think it'll be fairly effective.
Click to expand...

*reads this and rushes to pack bags*

Frankly speaking, I would probably be reacting in a similar way if I was native to a country that many immigrants targeted. I absolutely agree that if you want to live in another country, you should do your best to adapt to it - learn the language, get familiar with the culture, get a job and above all - not bring there your four aunts and eleven cousins to take care of them. Social systems are not designed to work that way. So I agree that there should be limits and I really see why immigrants should not be provided with housing the minute they enter the country.

But the initial reaction of some politicians just begged for ridicule. This whole panicky scheme for negative publicity was absurd. The people they were trying to keep away couldn't understand what they were saying anyway. :)
 
Forostar said:
A few more comments by people who were less happy with her:

PETER TATCHELL, CIVIL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER

KEN LIVINGSTONE, FORMER LABOUR MAYOR OF LONDON, THATCHER FOE

PAUL KENNY, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GMB LABOUR UNION
Click to expand...
Right, Peter Tatchell I have a lot of time for mainly for his role in "Reform section 5". Good man, on the whole. Though if his involvement with PIE is not a rumour...
Ken Livingston is the biggest hypocritical person in politics today. I would take what he says with 500 buckets of salt. He is the main reason why I have become so despondent with politicians.
Any thing quoted from almost any union leader is not to be taken seriously either. As Bruce himself said "My grandad always thought Scargill was out for himself...". They all are.

Being someone the was around prior to, during and after Thatcher's Govt, I feel that I do need to make a few points. The 70's in the UK was no f'ing utopia let me tell you that. We were governed by successive weak and pathetic Govt's. Heath, Wilson, Callaghan - all failed abysmally to control unions that were holding the whole country to ransom. A week would not go by without another strike by people supposedly servicing basic needs to the people. We would have 1 or 2 days every week of no electricity for a big part of that day. Thatcher came in and took these people on. Her Govt oversaw a lot of these companies privatised - which is fine by me. The less the state controls these services, the better in my eyes.

The 70's was also a time of ridiculously high taxation. Top earners were paying 83% tax. 83%. Would you want to pay 83% tax? Think about that for a second and what money is taken from what you earn.

Yes, she also oversaw a lot of greed that come into play - but she was pro free-market and the potential consequence of that is greed. But it is also led to the working class man being confident enough to do his own thing. Which is why those people - even to this day - do speak favourably of her.

Falklands was a sore point. For both the UK and Argentina. I was never keen on it at the time.

To be honest, I'm pretty neutral towards her but they way the country was pre-Thatcher had to go. It really did.
 
I understand that what Thatcher did for the UK was similar to what happened in Germany in the 2000s, an economically run-down country with terribly antiquated structures being refit to survive in a modern market economy. I've heard some opinions stating that Thatcher delayed the decline of Britain by some decades. Fine, apparently what the UK is now is what Germany will be in twenty years. Either way, the strongest criticism I've heard about her - apart from the Falklands War, obviously - is that she put irreparable damage to British society. Something to the effect of sucking the humanity out of the system, leaving nothing but a fundamentalist liberal shell with the law of the jungle reigning inside. The question I have here is, do the British among us agree, and what exactly does that mean anyway?
 
Good question. Might I add: what is there exactly to be proud of in the UK right now? Look at the banking problems and the shit that happened in the City.
 
"Sucking the humanity out of the system..." Yep, I've heard that criticism as well - every man for themselves - and it was fair. Proponents of that have suggested that this means people were not so reliant on the state - though they don't use those words.

Forostar said:
Good question. Might I add: what is there exactly to be proud of in the UK right now? Look at the banking problems and the shit that happened in the City.
Click to expand...
Banking problems would not be an issue if they were allowed to fail. But we've been there before. ;)
 
Albie said:
axation. Top earners were paying 83% tax. 83%. Would you want to pay 83% tax? Think about that for a second and what money is taken from what you earn.
Click to expand...


83% or what France is trying now is just insane ... though I am sure the countries that took in the tax exiles were happy to get a reasonable about of their income and the UK ended up with 83% of nothing in many cases
 
During my weekend trip to London I had a brief conversation over breakfast with a Frenchman who had come with the train to participate in the anti-Thatcher demo at Trafalgar Square. And he was not the only one. And this is about a woman who has been out of politics for over 20 years ...
 
A few people have mentioned the Falklands, what should she have done. Let Argentina have it and tell the people there that if they did not like it to move?
 
Was it worth killing twice as many people as actually live there over?
 
That is more the fault of Argentina than the UK. I am not sure I would want to set the precedent that it is okay to invade territories with small populations versus possible losses.
 
Let's just say that there was no effort made to prevent bloodshed.
 
I'm not sure about that ... I remember watching this on TV, every night they had a map of where the British Fleet was and a decent idea of what kind of fire power they had ... Argentina knew they were coming and knew they were going to get decimated, but they kept their forces there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top