Jeremy

Love Gun - KISS

Rock 'n' Roll Machine - The Donnas

I think Keef is right, our government does have a reputation of being more lenient than others. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8129812.stm "Britain has a good government" he said, "Britain will help me to get a better life."

Sharpton is a nasty piece of work.

I'd never condone his behaviour in the later years, and I think the whole ceremony yesterday was in poor taste. But... his kids looked absolutely distraught. It made me feel a bit guilty for suggesting he wasn't a fit parent.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also asked why it is, invariably, only Single > Males trying to "flee persecution" when if the > Countries they are fleeing from are so ghastly > that they are prepared to leave their Women and > children behind. Seems like an oxymoron... single males don't have wives and children! But anway, you know as well as I do that it's not *only* single males. There are many families who have sought asylum in the UK. Regarding economic migrants... what's so wrong with a young man wanting to go abroad to earn some money? I think this may be the point which we fundamentally disagree on...

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The indigenous Australians are the Aboriginals. > > Would you say thats a "nasty" term if applied to > them Jeremy and why do you feel its a nasty term > anyway? Sorry, didn't mean to imply that "indigenous" was a nasty term - I don't think it is. But I don't think it's constructive in the context of the current debate, that's all. Being white has no bearing on immigration status, let alone their right to housing. It's just totally irrelevant. Anyway, let's get off this topic... with hindsight I shouldn't have brought attention to it.

Please, please remember that "indigenous" is not an indication of immigration status or nationality. It's totally irrelevant and gives this thread a very, very nasty undertone.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not taking issue at all. I?m just trying to > open the conversation up. OK.. apologies for being over sensitive! > I mean what are the chances of this moving out of > one dimension or of us hearing anything we haven?t > a million times before? Pretty slim, I'd say.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which countries would those be? The ones that > should be taking people in, the ones that the > people are coming from, the ones who are > responsible for the predicaments that the > countries people are "fleeing" from are in or > those who are providnig them with aid? Brendan, I get the impression that you're taking issue with what I've said... and I'm not really sure why. I am referring to any wealthy nation in western Europe. I believe that stable and wealthy countries have a moral obligation to accomodate asylum seekers and refugees. I also believe that countries should welcome anyone who is willing to work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to society.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I expect because they believe they'll get a better life here, and the British government will do more to accomodate them. I should emphasise... this is not a criticism of our own immigration policies, more of an assumption/deduction that other countries aren't doing their bit.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy are you sure Britain is the only > destination? Or even the main one... I'm on a > mobile so can't get hold of the research but any > time I have looked at European league tables > Britain is mid-ranking in terms of numbers coming > in It's an interesting point - I don't have the stats either. But it is a well known fact that there are large numbers of refugees around the Calais area, all trying to get across. Many pay to be smuggled across in trucks, and stowaways were common in the early days of the channel tunnel. Sangatte is gone, but many immigrants remain in makeshift camps - particularly the notorious "jungle". So why all the effort to get into an island nation, when they could surely reach almost anywhere else in Europe more easily? I expect because they believe they'll get a better life here, and the British government will do more to accomodate them.

I really dislike the argument that "I've paid my taxes, I deserve a council house". That's not how it works... the tax you've paid isn't your money. It's not a piggy-bank you pay into and withdraw from when you need it. Public funds are there for the benefit of the society, and surely a family have a greater need than a single man in his 20s. Personally I like the fact that our country is willing and able to provide asylum to refugees. However... you do have to question why so many refugees strive to get into the UK - many of whom will travel the whole width of Europe to get here. It seems as if other wealthy countries are not pulling their weight.

Sampras had the grand slam record before him. I don't recall seeing the fancy dress then.

Agreed, it's not a long walk from london bridge. I'd always choose the train over the bus, at least you know when it's going to arrive and how long it's going to take.

I Wish - Stevie Wonder

I am familiar with the cantons of Switzerland. Still don't understand the joke though!

I don't understand the "Swiss as a Cantonese Takeaway" bit. You know, I've actually been to Switzerland. I have, it's true. How many people did I see with luggage or clothes bearing a gold monogram of their initials? None. Not even one (obviously "Rog" was overseas, playing in a tournament at the time). Let's just accept the fact that while he may be awesome at tennis, he is certainly not humble.

I am actually quite shocked that some people think it's OK for 5 year old kids to ride bikes on the road in London. Regardless of location, children have to be old enough to understand the dangers and have developed the necessary awareness, before taking to the roads. It just seems pointless to me to say "wouldn't it be great if we were like other countries"... presumably referring to some Scandinavian cities with more modern infrastructure and better planning, or to rural locations. London will never be like that, it is a jumble of 100+ year old winding streets, it is too late to retro-fit cycle lanes. The concentration of population will not decline any time soon. And you are never going to tempt people away from cars without banning them outright. When it comes to the safety of children, surely it's better to accept the situation for what it is, rather than musing about life in other countries.

I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

Please describe the special seat.

Well done to the OP for reporting the moron. Not sure I like the sound of these "Blue Badgers" much though! (if my name was *Bob* I would knock up an image of a blue badger, but unfortunately some of us have jobs...)

http://www.surfermag.com/features/onlineexclusives/dodgeball1_stiller300.jpg

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lenk and louisiana (and normally 2 such pleasant posters) I know who lenk and louisiana are, but who are these "pleasant posters" you're talking about?!! I should probably add that that was a joke.

I think any parent who would let a 5 year old kid cycle on the road must be mad. Wait until they're a bit older, have received some formal training, know the rules of the road, and are sufficiently responsible and aware. Someone said it's illegal for them to cycle on the pavement - technically that's true, but the police will turn a blind eye.