A quote from here:-
"The Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."
I'm moving to Alaska.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
SlurpySarah
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Female, 50
UK
Forum
Quote by __random_orbit__
Then they have kids and then before too long the population has reached 80 million. You cannot possibly sustain such numbers, without dire consequences for Britain.
:spanner - works:
my feeling, though not appreciated by some, is that Population Control,not simply Immigration Control is a posible answer.
It surely is not the point that They (whomever They may be) breed at an exponential rate... They are the same as all of us surely? Don't we all breed... a lot of us anyway.
Use of language says a lot about our attitude.
lp
I would hazard a guess that "they" are those from a culture or religion who expressly forbid any form of birth control, be it by natural or physiological methods.
Back to the subject of QT, I thought Griffin did very well, considering all the well-rehearsed and scripted verbal attacks on him. The audience seemed to be the typical mix of tv audiences (similar to Oprah's) ie students, the unemployed and the retired. Most people who work for a living don't have the time or energy to attend these things and the workers are under-represented. I believe that this group is where you'll find the majority of BNP supporters. Remember the young, bald black guy with glasses in the front row? An actor.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
You make him sound like Darth Vader! He's not - he's an intelligent, erudite politician who has every legal right to have his voice heard. Hopefully, the mindless morons who label him a "racist thug" will actually listen to him, rather than continue to bleat about what little they know about him and his party's policies.
Go Nicky, you're so fine you blow my mind, Hey Nicky!
Today is a great day for democracy and freedom of speech.
I cant let this go unchallenged. Im not a mindless moron and I am happy to label anybody who supports the BNP a racist thug. I will quote the BNP manifesto
"... we call for ...... and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question."
They decline to say whether I will be quartered and sent back to my 4 ethnic countries of origin. In any event that is a statement that could only be made or supported by a mindless racist thug.
I still believe in free speech tho.
I dont think immigration will cause riots, intolerence will carry far more weight.
If I support the BNP - am I then a thug? How do you qualify that, or is the whole phrase just something you've copied from somewhere for dramatic effect? I've also highlighted a word above that you seem to have glossed over - did you miss that important part?
As for you being comprised of 4 ethnic origins - lucky you, you'll have the choice of 5 countries to live in.
Woo hoo for you!!! :happy:
Quote by Lost
Between a rock and a hard place here fabio. On one hand my head say yes of course he should be allowed to have his say and people will see how dangerous he is.
On the other hand my heart wants him to have a smack in the mouth and be gagged forever so that people won't have the chance to be swayed by his dark charisma.
I guess on weight I think he should be allowed. I could refer back to cases such as Gerry Adams and him being gagged for so long but in the end allowed to be heard was that a good thing when he advocated violence and death in the 70's?
Yeah let him speak say I.
You make him sound like Darth Vader! He's not - he's an intelligent, erudite politician who has every legal right to have his voice heard. Hopefully, the mindless morons who label him a "racist thug" will actually listen to him, rather than continue to bleat about what little they know about him and his party's policies.
Go Nicky, you're so fine you blow my mind, Hey Nicky!
Today is a great day for democracy and freedom of speech.
I thought that this subject from another thread would be a good topic for debate - even if it's not a "current" affair, it is in this forum!
There are many ifs and buts to this, but my own view is that had America not entered the war, Britain would not have had the resources to liberate the rest of Europe. Now, whether the Germans would have continued to fight against Britain is debateable - the German leaders had not expressed a desire to attack Britain initially, they only did so after Britain was forced by treaty to declare war on them. But, if they had chosen to, they would then have had all the resources available to them from the conquered nations to eventually destroy Britain, probably in the form of a naval blockade leading to starvation. BFPO would also have had tremendous difficulties in returning to the UK as a defensive force, and an army cut off from it's supplies soon dies, especially in the deserts of Africa.
The Russian's continued involvement is also debatable. They fought very bravely and many died, but theirs was a mainly defensive war. If Hitler had withdrawn from Russia and diverted troops to an Eastern defensive line within Germany, the Russians would probably not have continued with a costly invasion.
To answer my own question:- Would Britain have lost the war if America hadn't joined? Imo, eventually - with no other factors, ifs or buts involved, yes.
There are many ifs and buts to this, but my own view is that had America not entered the war, Britain would not have had the resources to liberate the rest of Europe. Now, whether the Germans would have continued to fight against Britain is debateable - the German leaders had not expressed a desire to attack Britain initially, they only did so after Britain was forced by treaty to declare war on them. But, if they had chosen to, they would then have had all the resources available to them from the conquered nations to eventually destroy Britain, probably in the form of a naval blockade leading to starvation. BFPO would also have had tremendous difficulties in returning to the UK as a defensive force, and an army cut off from it's supplies soon dies, especially in the deserts of Africa.
The Russian's continued involvement is also debatable. They fought very bravely and many died, but theirs was a mainly defensive war. If Hitler had withdrawn from Russia and diverted troops to an Eastern defensive line within Germany, the Russians would probably not have continued with a costly invasion.
To answer my own question:- Would Britain have lost the war if America hadn't joined? Imo, eventually - with no other factors, ifs or buts involved, yes.
Quote by Jewlnmart
My brother employs over 300 people, and has had the same written test that all prospective employees have to take. It involves basic elements of maths, physics, English language and grammar and has remained unchanged for 15 years. In 1982, the average score was 81%. Last year the average score was 37%. Make of that what you will.
Brighter people don't want to work for your brother?
Highly amusing, I'm sure. I forgot to mention that the minimum qualification to even get to the interview and assessment stage is 3 a-levels including 2 science-based. IMO, exams are no harder today than they were 20 years ago, but only in comparison to the average intelligence of today's youth. What is much easier these days is the access to information. 20 years ago, in order to gain extra knowledge or understanding of a subject we had to visit a library or museum etc. These days all the kids have to do is point a porky finger at the PC's "on" button and off they go. Also, spell-checking and grammar are done for them (for those that actually bother) via the click of a mouse.
My brother employs over 300 people, and has had the same written test that all prospective employees have to take. It involves basic elements of maths, physics, English language and grammar and has remained unchanged for 15 years. In 1982, the average score was 81%. Last year the average score was 37%. Make of that what you will.
My brother employs over 300 people, and has had the same written test that all prospective employees have to take. It involves basic elements of maths, physics, English language and grammar and has remained unchanged for 15 years. In 1982, the average score was 81%. Last year the average score was 37%. Make of that what you will.
Autism, Asbergers, ADD, ADHD, Learning Disorders, Conduct Disorder, Eating Disorders, Schizophrenia. These problems are all very real - they must be, because so many counsellors make so much money for diagnosing and treating them. Parents also find it much easier to accept the child's otherwise unexplainable mental deficiency when the problem is given a medical name.
I'm sorry, but this post is a typical example of the unenlightened and ignorant thinking that surrounds cannabis and prevents it being licensed as a much-needed drug for many patient groups.
Canada has a higher World Health Organisation rating than UK, and they have ratified the use of cannabis for many medical conditions, where the chemical alternative is unacceptable due to it's side effects. Many empirical tests were done, most of which the UK appointed medical trials agreed with.
Sorry to pick apart your post, but it needs to be done. Sources are taken from here:-
Cannabis is organically grown and is a completely natural product with proven health and medicinal benefits. It can be used to alleviate many severe symptoms, where the alternatives are harsh chemicals with some horrendous side-effects. Here's a little something for you - go to wherever you keep your home medications and look at the side-effects and contra-indications of paracetamol or ibuprofen. Frightening, isn't it?
Canada has a higher World Health Organisation rating than UK, and they have ratified the use of cannabis for many medical conditions, where the chemical alternative is unacceptable due to it's side effects. Many empirical tests were done, most of which the UK appointed medical trials agreed with.
Sorry to pick apart your post, but it needs to be done. Sources are taken from here:-
Quote by fem_4_taboo
wouldnt saying drugs should be available for anyone to buy be promoting the use of?
just because alcohol is not illegal in certain circumstances does not mean that we should legalise all other narcotics.
cannabis is NOT a narcotic
canibis has sometimes been considered to be the harmless drug of choice.
nothing is completely harmless if you ingest or inhale it
the effects of this drug however are far reaching and damaging to our society.
that's a very dramatic, but completely wrong statement. where did you get your "facts"?
the money to feed the addiction,
people will spend money on whatever they enjoy, be it alcohol, fags, Elton John concerts etc. addiction rates are considerably less than fags, booze or even coffee!
the children who go without when money is spent on the drug.
same answer as above
the drop out of youths from activities, getting out of bed, lack of motivation, loss of education, jobs.
again, absolutely no proof of this statement - nothing more than hearsay. There are 2 main types of cannabis - indica and sativa, one will make you feel lethargic, one will make you feel more energetic.
the road traffic accidents while stoned.
Cannabis alone,particularly in low doses,has little effect on the skills involved in car driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk;
the mental ill health depression and psychosis.
Heavy use of cannabis can result in dependence requiring treatment; however, dependence caused by cannabis is less severe and less frequent than dependence on other psychotropic substances,including alcohol and tobacco.
the rise in state benefits
no proof of this at all
the rise on nhs resources for associated treatments
what associated treatments? where are you getting your info from?
i could go on but i wont.
just because there are legal drugs that are causing the same crap as above does not mean we should add to the the list.
xx fem xx
Cannabis is organically grown and is a completely natural product with proven health and medicinal benefits. It can be used to alleviate many severe symptoms, where the alternatives are harsh chemicals with some horrendous side-effects. Here's a little something for you - go to wherever you keep your home medications and look at the side-effects and contra-indications of paracetamol or ibuprofen. Frightening, isn't it?
The sad thing is about cannabis, is that it's a very effective treatment for many illnesses - Parkinsons, muscular dystrophy, Crohn's, IBS, multiple slerosis etc etc. It's demonisation was all due to a man called William Hearst in the early 20's USA. Hemp was a cheaper and more viable alternative to paper made from wood pulp. Hearst just happened to own all the paper mills at the time.
Many countries allow or tolerate cannabis, like Holland, Spain, some US states, Canada etc and these countries have produced no evidence that their policies are detrimental to their society. Unfortunately, many people in the UK are far too up their own arses to expand their thinking - probably too pissed on the most destructive drug of all - alcohol. Alco-junkies are creating more and more problems, whilst thinking they're "ok, because it's legal". They're the ones that tax-payers stump up for. Triple the tax on booze, I say!
Many countries allow or tolerate cannabis, like Holland, Spain, some US states, Canada etc and these countries have produced no evidence that their policies are detrimental to their society. Unfortunately, many people in the UK are far too up their own arses to expand their thinking - probably too pissed on the most destructive drug of all - alcohol. Alco-junkies are creating more and more problems, whilst thinking they're "ok, because it's legal". They're the ones that tax-payers stump up for. Triple the tax on booze, I say!
Quote by Sexysmilingeyes
A really tough decision to make and I'd not like to be the one to have to but I think a fair decision.
I feel for his mother, no mother should have to bury there own. She will no doubt feel guilty, he might have died an adult but the beinging of the end for him was drinking so much and so very young.
I feel for his mother too - I feel angry that this appears to be yet another case of parental neglect. This "mother" (and father, if there is/was one around) were legally responsible for their child's wellbeing when he was 13 years old. They let him continue drinking until it killed him at age 22. She and the father should be brought up on manslaughter charges.
Quote by neilinleeds
So how about MOBO then? I can understand the NPBA feeling that black officers face different challenges, but how is a black-only music award helping equality? Music of black origins has been established, accepted and enjoyed by both black and white people for decades. Why is MOBO still allowed and no MOWO? Discrimination against white music, or just against white people which is perfectly acceptable?
A very good point indeed.
Just another example of why whites feel discriminated themselves at times.
What about stopping all this nonsense, and trying to create a bit of racial harmony and use things like this that includes ALL colours?
If they want to have awards for just black music then fine, but do not moan and groan if white musicians want to do the same. Which they never would because that would be racist....would'nt it?
How can racism only seem to affect one colour? Is having a black music awards not racist in it's very being?
Yeah, and what about that Black History Monththey push in schools? Surely if they can have Black History Month, we can have White History Month too, just to be fair and non-racist and balanced and what have you, and celebrate our cultural heritage too for a change? Yes? Except of course every month in schools in Britain / Europe / The West in general is White History Month already isn't it, because the history that gets taught is the history of the victors. A.K.A. white people.
N x x x ;)
I don't know about much about Black History month except that it's one of those horrendous American ideas. Why focus on the colour "Black" aspect, though - shouldn't it be Ethnic History month? I have some Anglo-Chinese friends who might feel left out!
So how about MOBO then? I can understand the NPBA feeling that black officers face different challenges, but how is a black-only music award helping equality? Music of black origins has been established, accepted and enjoyed by both black and white people for decades. Why is MOBO still allowed and no MOWO? Discrimination against white music, or just against white people which is perfectly acceptable?
Quote by benrums0n
Albert Einstein never claimed a benefit in his life ( although I spose he was a foreigner taking British jobs)
I believe he once said:
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'universe', a part limited in time and space.
He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest
- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few people near us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Actually, he only visited England for short periods -usually part of lecture tours.
As to the original post, there seem to be a lot of people on here who apparently believe that nobody is responsible for anything in this life. I would suspect that they are/have been benefits claimants and have done very well out of it - after all, they have the money for pc's to post on here! I had to work to pay for mine, and probably had to work to pay for theirs. I believe that a radical overhaul of the system is required. These parasites should not be allowed to claim unless they work for it, and prove that they need it. Amongst my suggestions would be that they would have to account for all purchases on a weekly basis, by providing receipts. That way we wouldn't be paying for their fags, booze, chav-attire etc. Also, random checks of their homes for unnaccounted-for luxury items. Witholding of passports.
But I suppose all those suggestions would eventually equate to people taking responsibilty for not abusing the system, and being fair to those genuinely in need. It'll never happen whilst humans live on this planet.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
Quote by medic_1
Whisky, hot water and a teaspoon of marmite stirred in - yum!!!
Must be like having Brussel Sprouts boiled in Gin === Yuk
Hmmm - an intriguing recipe, a sprout and gin smoothie - I might actually give that one a go!
Something I had in Japan that was similar - cabbage dissolved in Saki. That wasn't nice.
Quote by Dave__Notts
slurpysarah wrote No, the Romans (an Italian city state made from many other mercenary nations) invaded Britain and wrested it from the native Britons. They weren't here before that.
according to jewish texts, they wrested the land from the indiginous population,and with even greater bloodshed and attrocities than the romans
Hebrew texts from before 2000 BCEdescribing the conquest of The Land of Israel????!!!! Do you mean from the Talmud or from Exodus?? Please tell me where to find this hitherto unknown gem of historical knowledge that you seem so expert on.
Deuteronomy 20:10-17
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
Sounds kind of fluffy to me, the way they asked can they move in and live in peace.........or did I read it wrong
Dave_Notts
I'm fully aware of Deuteronomy - it's generally accepted that it was composed in the late 7th century BC. I specified prior to 2000 BCE to accentuate my point of longetivity.
Quote by annejohn
slurpysarah wrote No, the Romans (an Italian city state made from many other mercenary nations) invaded Britain and wrested it from the native Britons. They weren't here before that.
according to jewish texts, they wrested the land from the indiginous population,and with even greater bloodshed and attrocities than the romans
Hebrew texts from before 2000 BCE describing the conquest of The Land of Israel????!!!! Do you mean from the Talmud or from Exodus?? Please tell me where to find this hitherto unknown gem of historical knowledge that you seem so expert on.
Quote by annejohn
The Palestinians living in Gaza elected the Hamas party, which is a Palestinian terrorist organization (recognised as such by Canada, the European Union, Japan and the US), to be their leaders and representatives. Hamas has continued to bomb Israel, to send suicide bombers to Israel and to build illegal underground tunnels into Israel. A truce was negotiated between Hamas and Israel, but despite the truce Hamas continued to bomb Israel. Israel issued a warning to Hamas and notified Egypt, who share a border with Gaza, that if Hamas' bombing continues Israel will take action. Hamas ignored the warning and continued the bombing. Several days in advance of actually commencing retaliatory strikes, Israel sent a message to notify thousands of Hamas Palestinian people that Israel did intend to attack the Hamas military infrastructure, and for Hamas to ensure that civilians are removed from Hamas military zones. Hamas ignored the warning and still continued bombing Israel and allowed Palestinian civilians to continue living near Hamas military sites. Hamas held army recruit graduation ceremonies on two Hamas bases despite the explicit warnings from Israel to evacuate the military areas. Hamas did not evacuate the local civilian population and continued bombing Israel. The Israelis retaliated in self-defence. The causes for the outbreaks of violence have been said by previous posters, but it should be noted that Jewish Israel have never expressed any religious hatred towards Muslims whereas Hamas quite clearly states it’s policy of anti-Semitism. In Israel, Muslims make up approx. 17% of the population and they live in peace with their neighbours. Current population of Jews in Gaza - 0%. In a nutshell, Hamas say that Israel is their land, the Israelis say it’s theirs. Archaeological digs have found Hebrew texts and other historical evidence to show that Jews had occupied the general area of Israel since before 2000 BC. Islam was founded in the mid 7th Century AD. You do the maths and decide who has the right to live there. The Jews have been persecuted by many nations throughout their history - they won’t take any more Muslim shit.
the italians have as much right to england as the jews have to palestine,cos they were here 2000 years ago
No, the Romans (an Italian city state made from many other mercenary nations) invaded Britain and wrested it from the native Britons. They weren't here before that.
Quote by Spudorato
In Israel, Muslims make up approx. 17% of the population and they live in peace with their neighbours. Current population of Jews in Gaza - 0%. In a nutshell, Hamas say that Israel is their land, the Israelis say it’s theirs. Archaeological digs have found Hebrew texts and other historical evidence to show that Jews had occupied the general area of Israel since before 2000 BC. Islam was founded in the mid 7th Century AD
No offence.. but how can you really be so dumb??
0% jews in gaza? why would they live there if there is no power, no water, no food, no medicines, no freedom, no life??
Can you explain that to me?
And whats all this bullshit about hebrew texts.. does it mean that the native indian american should come back and bomb the usa and get their land back?
It's unbelievable how you guys read the sun or watch sky and think you understand what the situation is.
Sigh! Please read something other than the Beano or Big Butts Monthly - the Jews moved out en-masse in 2005 and before in smaller numbers. Also, as dumb means not being able to speak, I would also suggest you read a dictionary or at least look up the big words (3 letters or more in your case) before attempting to use them.
And finally, the Native Americans don't have to use bombs - much of their land has been returned to them or been compensated for.
