Another reason to vote BNP

A good reason to not vote BNP is, after the BNP have repatriated the foreigners, we’ll have no NHS and our economy will collapse due to lack of unskilled labour.

im sorry hun i may have mislead you there but what i meant was this:

Breaking news: Home secretary loses court appeal against afghan hijacker ruling, due to their “human rights”. They are now allowed to work here in the UK http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1213440.ece

and the rest of it without having to post it upteen times (edited to add<)

@emmalush wrote:

@Ow£n Ka$h wrote:

A good reason to not vote BNP is, after the BNP have repatriated the foreigners, we’ll have no NHS and our economy will collapse due to lack of unskilled labour.

A. they do not have a policy to repatriate those who do not wish to leave.

B. We have millions unemployed, we will cope magnificently if we need so.

Besides, the third world need their doctors and nurses back, because theres people dieing there :(

THEY DONT(EDITED TO ADD ) ALL COME FROM THE THIRD WORLD!!!!!

@Magoo wrote:

@pikey wrote:

As I understand it, they were fleeing the Taliban. I wonder if we’d have had as much uproar and tried to deport folk who had hijacked a ‘plane to escape from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?

And the fact of the matter is now smartarse, that the Taliban no longer run Afghanistan, so what is stopping us deporting them back to the place where this regime no longer rules? Oh and refreshing to see you agree with hijacking. As I said, perhaps if all ‘oppressed’ citizens hijack a commercial plane, we can take them all on board in Her Majesties merry island of Great Britain. It’s good to see that hijacking isn’t seen as a deterrent in this country. Perhaps we can deport you while we’re at it?

:lol: Straight in with the misrepresentation and aggression. You argue like a mardy little girl.

What is stopping us from deporting these human beings is that the High Court does not, and no sensible person could, consider Afghanistan at this moment in time to be a safe destination, even without the Taliban in formal control. There is both a moral and legal bar, quite rightly in my view, on forcibly sending people against their will into danger.

This being so, bearing in mind your repeatedly advanced distaste for those who ‘sponge’ off the state and the general view (especially on these boards) that immigrants to this country who do so are unwelcome, I am puzzled as to why anyone would want to prevent them from working to support themselves. Would we be happier paying taxes to support them?

At no point did I say in my post I agree with hijacking. I am further curious as to why you felt the need to enclose the word oppressed within apostrophes. Did you mean to imply that Taliban administered Afghanistan was not an oppressive nation? That would be a stretch, I think.

Also, I think you may have had another Del-boy moment: It’s good to see that hijacking isn’t seen as a deterrent in this country. Hijacking as a deterrent to what? Package holidays? A deterrent is a threat made by one party to make a second party think twice about a particular course of action. For example, we could say that the death penalty in the United States is a deterrent to those who might consider murder. Perhaps you meant to say that It’s good to see that hijacking isn’t deterred in (by) this country.

And no. Although it would be good if you would fuck off somewhere else. After all, you don’t seem to like our glorious nation very much and your absence would certainly improve the nation’s average IQ. :D

@emma

answer all that is put too you. not just the bits you like or can conveniently igonre…. you’d be a nO1 politition

THAT IS WHAT THEY DO ALL THE TIME HUN!!!!