Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
04 Dec 19
09:22
Joined:
Date Joined:
28 Aug 07
Would those unable to work through illness be looked after properly by the welfare state?
If somebody loses their job and has no savings would they be able to get social security payments until they find employment again?
Would my excellent Asian GP still be my Gp?
Would there still be trade unions?
Would the hard working immigrant family who have been here twenty years be allowed to stay?
Would the NHS still exist?
If somebody loses their job and has no savings would they be able to get social security payments until they find employment again?
Would my excellent Asian GP still be my Gp?
Would there still be trade unions?
Would the hard working immigrant family who have been here twenty years be allowed to stay?
Would the NHS still exist?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 68
|
By:
Never mind Tommy Robinson becoming PM, he's not even an MP, the danger is Jeremy Corbyn being put in charge of running the country. He'd bankrupt us in no time.
The thought of another spiteful, free spending, taxing, borrowing set of Labour theorists grinding the country into the ground again really does install fear in people. |
|
By:
Id have Robinson over Corbyn anytime.i'm sure he would keep us a lot safer, they'd be less people in the country, i.e. immigrants who have always been on benefits would work or go and released prisoners from abroad would be deported, dangerous people would be locked up forever, if they were he's policies, he'd have millions to spend on other things,
Whereas the dangerous Corbyn, would oppose all of that, and we would go skint AGAIN under yet another labour govt. I hope that answers your question |
|
By:
crippen,i take it you mean bankrupt us quicker
|
|
By:
GAZO,
I mean after a spell under Labour with their borrowing and free spending, we'd be facing another financial crisis and the spectre of the Tories having to be brought back to straighten out the economy with cuts and austerity. Which is the same old routine we have to endure following every Labour term in office. |
|
By:
we still have a deficit and nearly a £2 trillion pound debt and both party,s are saying the deficit will get bigger,so you mean who will bankrupt us quicker
|
|
By:
It does look as though nobody has anything positive to say about Mr Robinson.
|
|
By:
Pandora
The answer to all your questions is unequivocally YES. He is a centrist who opposes what is by any reasonable standard a genuinely far right ideology. |
|
By:
so you mean who will bankrupt us quicker
Labour will bankrupt the country as they've always done in the past. I don't remember the Tories ever leaving the country bankrupt after a term in office. |
|
By:
every gov't leaves a deficit ... the question is what have they done for the population whilst in power
the debt under the tories has increased beyond £1.8 trillion since 2010 ... and we have had austerity with diminishing returns ... awful |
|
By:
One global, totalitarian government.
Orwellian nightmare is already starting, that's why there's exponential debt and immigration that no electorate would vote for in a million years. All main partys are the same beneath the veneer, like what flavour kool-aid would you like? |
|
By:
You have a Chinese gp?
|
|
By:
No Muslim grooming gangs. Tick.
Every FGM case prosecuted. Tick Zero immigration from Islamic ountries. Tick. Feminists would vote for him, wouldn't they?? |
|
By:
I must admit I could never see the downside to Tommy Robinson.
All he's doing is exposing certain groups that commit offences against children or hate the UK. |
|
By:
An extremely and impossibility fantasy.
|
|
By:
love this one
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pakistan-newspaper-besieged-islamists-calling-130511090.html |
|
By:
Sorry 'moisok', could you give a synopsis of the above, plz? I do not do youtube or any other non-mainstream video unless it's the horses (for education). Sorry!
|
|
By:
if robinson was pm now feel sure it would be a nicer place to live rather than the karzi it has become.
|
|
By:
I'm not sure...he'd be too extreme for the course; just bring the dominant, arrogant and demanding community concerned down a peg or two. I think it's wrong and unnecessary to crack a nut with a sledge hammer. But, I do agree the standard of immigrants entering has lowered significantly since the early 70's eg minicab drivers and catering staff (thus karzi) - too homogenise and not diversified enough ie too similar.
|
|
By:
it was an article where islamists demonstrated against the linking of khan with pakistan over the london bridge/borough market attack
apparently the newspaper reporting this in pakistan is not popular for some of its frank reporting |
|
By:
Thanks. The truth hurts even for the arrogant, demanding and dominant obsess community - when the sh1t hits the fan....- it applies there too then. How ironic!.
Were they accused of being Islamophobic? |
|
By:
Dawn identified the attacker in several reports as Usman Khan, “a UK national of Pakistani origin”...
A number of senior figures in Imran Khan’s government took issue with Dawn’s reporting, with science and technology minister Chaudhry Fawad Hussain tweeting to accuse the newspaper of a “cheap attempt to link a British terrorist to Pakistan”. Shireen Mazari, Mr Khan’s human rights minister, shared the criticism and tweeted simply that “Dawn has its own agenda". Not sure what they are up to in Pakistan but they have every right to be p1ssed at this. He is a british terrorist. End of. Also not of Pakistani origin since he was born in the UK according to the article. ...of Pakistani descent would probably have been the right term. The poor lad only went to Pakistan for higher education, that's all. Also this is the same newspaper that claimed Pakistani military accepted that it was involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. They have history so the protests have probably nothing to do with what they published. Just a convenient time for the military to put more pressure on the newspaper. |
|
By:
detraveller 04 Dec 19 20:16
Not sure what they are up to in Pakistan but they have every right to be p1ssed at this. He is a british terrorist. ........................................... His terror was nowt to do with Britain, he was a Muslim terrorist. |
|
By:
let's just try and obfuscate it is what he is always about
|
|
By:
Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber was born in Manchester on New Year's Eve 1994 to Libyan parents. They fled Libya after becoming opponents of Colonel Gaddafi's regime.
|
|
By:
Saddo, ^^^^that fact must have been comforting to the victims.
 . What's it like on planet simple. |
|
By:
I don't know, you tell us.
|
|
By:
Well worth another look guys, 'most muslims' are peaceful.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_RAbOJcu0
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
is any one aware of the community's attitude to Prevent for instance
eye opening if you want to search or sharia law as another or violence to achieve objectives? I ain't going to last much longer on here |
|
By:
'we all' get you
 |
|
By:
Good suggestions mo.
 |
|
By:
did not MI5 recruit abedis dad to go to libya
|
|
By:
I think they did
|
|
By:
Did not Britain send 4 billion and america send 14 billion of arms sales to saudi Arabia which were used in Yemen killing thousands in the civil war there
|
|
By:
hey anx
I believe you are right, if you dont live on planet simple, then you CAN look at all the pieces that make up this fcked jigsaw |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Like i said, apart from his higher education in Pakistan, he was British. You can't really deny that.
|
|
By:
Being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse.
|
|
By:
yes it does
|