|
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by Bipat
(Post 9620184)
Not sure of your logic Steve, immigration was a continuous process, I mentioned 50s and 60s as many came when workers were needed after the war and the start up of the NHS. They still continued to come after that and still continued to work.
Illegal immigrants are a separate category and also how recent is recent? May be we could just refer to 'feckless ponces' as such and not immigrants in general and then there would be no misunderstanding. Just a thought. I don't know if you mean it to sound that way but anyone would think from your posts that we would not have a NHS without immigrants - we ought to bear in mind that even at the start there were plenty of home growns in the NHS. In fact I would have thought (although I haven't looked at any stats or figures) that the majority were home grown. I think the immigrants of yesteryear were a totally different breed than a significant numbers of the immigrants of today. The world is a different place now than then. The UK benefits system is also very diferent today than it was then. I think that the majority of comments on here with regard to immigrants are meaning the situation today, where the system is frequently abused, rather than the immigrants if years ago. That said there are definitely two distinct types of immigrant - those who come here to work, contribute etc etc, and those who come here because they think the streets are paved with gold. Dread - x |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by fatbrit
(Post 9620662)
I suppose it's only a small step from quoting the DM to circulating the output from the Utah bunker.
The piece was written by Robert A. Hall, a little known marine, Massachusetts state senator, not Bill Cosby. Dread - x |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by fatbrit
(Post 9621665)
No, I mean an article by Senator Sanders in the Huffington Post.
You might try it sometimes when you've, of course, checked out the celebs beach ware and fashion sense in the DM. There's a new UK edition: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ What an unpleasant series of responses ! Never known a sheep with a superiority complex before - how very novel ! Manners and civility cost nothing yet they are priceless commodities. I was actually quite enjoying your input until you turned so caustic and up yourself - I don't think I am that interested in anything you have to say now you have diminished yourself by resorting to putting other people down. By the way the correct spelling is "BEACHWEAR" - bye bye Dread - x |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by dreadsoc
(Post 9621778)
What an unpleasant series of responses ! Never known a sheep with a superiority complex before - how very novel !
Manners and civility cost nothing yet they are priceless commodities. I was actually quite enjoying your input until you turned so caustic and up yourself - I don't think I am that interested in anything you have to say now you have diminished yourself by resorting to putting other people down. By the way the correct spelling is "BEACHWEAR" - bye bye Dread - x FYI, that column on the right where you can see celebs on the beach and celeb crap like that is the reason why the Mail Online is one of the most visited news sites in Europe and has a strong US presence, too. It's the reason most visit the site. BTW, in your post #4051, different is spelled with 2 effs. I wasn't going to be so rude as to point it out before you rejected me. |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by fatbrit
(Post 9621800)
What can I say if you will no longer respect me? I'm devastated!
FYI, that column on the right where you can see celebs on the beach and celeb crap like that is the reason why the Mail Online is one of the most visited news sites in Europe and has a strong US presence, too. It's the reason most visit the site. BTW, in your post #4051, different is spelled with 2 effs. I wasn't going to be so rude as to point it out before you rejected me. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz !!!!! :wub::lol: |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by dreadsoc
(Post 9621747)
Whoever it was written by - it was sent to several members on here by a GOAN who actually agrees with the sentiments within the ode.
Dread - x |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by noni
(Post 9622493)
I had forgotten it was sent by a Goan, and a professional one at that.:thumbup:
But why does it matter who sent it to you? |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by fatbrit
(Post 9622963)
A greater seal of authenticity than the Pope's ring, I'm sure!
But why does it matter who sent it to you? |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
BARONESS FLATHER: Polygamy, welfare benefits and an insidious silence
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Y55JURTy |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...e-human-rights
HOW FOREIGN CROOKS ABUSE HUMAN RIGHTS http://www.navhindtimes.in/india-new...vice-next-year Mumbai-Goa cruise service from next year |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by noni
(Post 9624346)
BARONESS FLATHER: Polygamy, welfare benefits and an insidious silence
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Y55JURTy Flather speaks sense, BTW. |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by fatbrit
(Post 9624448)
Isn't it considered good etiquette on BE to post a short agreement, disagreement or point of interest about a story you link to? Otherwise, it's just an RSS feed!
Flather speaks sense, BTW. I believe I am correct in saying that Noni adds links that she feels may be of interest to members of the forum and that will provoke discussion. Incidently the name of this thread is ''Whats In Todays Newspapers'' not ''Whats In Todays Newspapers And Your Opinion Of Same'' |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by SteveKingswear
(Post 9624661)
With the greatest of respect may I ask when you were appointed the forums authority on good manners, etiquette and protocol and by whom?
I believe I am correct in saying that Noni adds links that she feels may be of interest to members of the forum and that will provoke discussion. Incidently the name of this thread is ''Whats In Todays Newspapers'' not ''Whats In Todays Newspapers And Your Opinion Of Same'' |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
Originally Posted by noni
(Post 9624346)
BARONESS FLATHER: Polygamy, welfare benefits and an insidious silence
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Y55JURTy Just one hopefully polite question without bouncing. Why? Noni if you are fed up with the "subject" of immigration (see thread, Holiday in Goa no.13) do most of your 'newspaper' posts concern the subject?? The rest of us only respond. The above link very much reminds me of Sir Keith Joseph's speech in 1974 "our human stock is threatened" http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101830 [fo 10] The problem of irresponsible parenthood doesn't seem to have changed much in 30+ years in spite of contraception. |
Re: In To-day's Newspapers
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:40 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.