Guest lazyphil Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Yes thats right but it still didn't change the veiws of locals. I'm sure signs were put up in B&B's--'No dogs and no blacks'--lets face it, locals hated the presence of US service men during WW2 (I have 1st hand accounts from old boys) helping us right the Germans who we still seem to revel in ill feelings via football and moronic Sun and Mirror headlines at times we play them at football --bring on the sexy ski pant wearing multi breeding council estate English wimin to keep up the good head of thugs and social security sponging plebs! (I grew up on a council estate and I know the score--we were one of the familys who didn't sponge and I'm no thug : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusty Posted October 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 lets face it, locals hated the presence of US service men during WW2 (I have 1st hand accounts from old boys) Thats because they had loads of money and could get things for our women that we could'nt get.It was the same old story back then "more money,more honey"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhumvit Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Enoch Powell was instrumental in inviting West Indians to the UK. They came with open hearts, trilby hats, shiny shoes and a future full of joy on the Empire Windrush. Ironically Powell would notoriously recant with his notorious "Rivers of Blood" speech a mere three and a half seconds later. It's easy to scaremonger and blame one section of society for more than its fair share of wrongdoings. Fact is that the media in the UK is primarily right wing. Tabloids generally appeal to the baser instincts of the masses. Currently in vogue in the redtops is Muslim bashing and Ian Duncan Smith bashing (who hell he?). Lone mums, dole scroungers and illegal immigrants have long been favourite targets. This latest story is another of the batch of "Mental Muslims kill Family Members" exclusives. Killing this kid was a tragedy and no mistake. But what are people pissed off about? Seems to me that the tabloids are more concerned about the fact that the killing took place in the UK by an illegal immigrant, not that a baby was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Thailand has a similar case, daily published in the Bangkok Post. http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/23Oct2003_news08.html Nong Apec dies, mum up for murder Baby Apec died yesterday after being on life support since Friday, when the newborn infant was found abandoned in a dumper bin in Bangkok just as the Apec summit kicked off. The 9-day-old boy died in the intensive care unit at the Children's Hospital about 3.30 pm, shortly after police took his mother there for a last visit. Pol Maj-Gen Pongsapat Pongcharoen said Nongnuch McKavinny, 23, would be charged with murder. Mrs Nongnuch insisted yesterday she did not intend to kill her son. She wanted him to be found and adopted. She had simply been afraid of being dumped by her British husband, who is abroad, as the baby was fathered by a lover she named as taxi-driver Sayan Champa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 "The point I'm trying to make is this guy won't even get deported for this" i'm sure i read last night he was due for deportation at the end of this week. but a wicked crime nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spirit_of_town_hall Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Currently in vogue in the redtops is Muslim bashing and Ian Duncan Smith bashing (who hell he?). Lone mums, dole scroungers and illegal immigrants have long been favourite targets. This latest story is another of the batch of "Mental Muslims kill Family Members" exclusives I read english language press from the middle east daily, english language papers are according to arab associates that I know manifestly watered down in terms of vitriol... You think our papers whip things up, when you read in a "quality" arab broad sheet trumpeting bus bombs in Israel and ranting about death to the UK and US and allies etc it makes you think... STH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thai3 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Easy to seperate the illegal from the legal, 95% lying illegal buggers and 5% genuine, who even so could have claimed asylum in umpteen other countries passed through before they got here. Not my opinion but of a friend who worked processing the claims of these scumbags for 9 years. She was also an illegal from uganda. Not only was she the secretary to a govt minister in Kampala, but her brother worked for Ugandan govt.Yet the home office swallowed her story of 'persecution'. She thinks we are crazy, and I have to agree. In this weeks papers the story of 63 illegals arrested working on a farm in the summer, result only one sent back to china. Latest figures I saw were that each 'asylum seeker' costs the UK taxpayer around eighteen thousand pounds each by the time their claims are sorted out -come one come all you'd be daft not to-peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Its called migration--read my bit about the Vikings, Normans, Saxons, Romans, West Indians, Pakistanis etc etc--some legal alot not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thai3 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I think times have changed a little since being invaded by the romans, vikings and saxons. At least they did not claim free housing, social security, education, health care and countless millions in legal costs. The people you mention of our own time were of course legal immigrants with every right to come here. What bothers people are not legal asylum seekers but the majority with no legal claim to come here who go through every legal loophole to stay, then when every appeal is rejected still mange to stay here. -peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 <<At least they did not claim free housing, social security, education, health care and countless millions in legal costs>> Rest assured had these amenities been in place they would have had their share by force--as well as the raping and pillaging. Did your forefathers ask the native North Americans permission to slaughter millions of Bison?the life blood of their existence for some tribes. No, because it was progress and progress can be painful. <<The people you mention of our own time were of course legal immigrants with every right to come here>> Why?--because the government invited them--did they have a referendum? <<I think times have changed a little since being invaded by the romans, vikings and saxons>> Maybe--but in centuries to come when new waves of immigrants arrive we'll be saying the same things about Albanians--i.e. times have changed since then and these people (the new immigrants) cant be trusted blah blah?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.