A UCL study? **** off!Originally Posted by Burney
The view is based on a rather old fashioned definition of the volume of working population required to support our retirees. You know, the old ****s that are coining it in now and voted to get rid of the foreigners that were supporting them.
Just out of interest, how is that net cost calculated? Does it include overseas students?
You can't have it both ways. That same UCL study was shamelessly spun by pro-immigration types like yourself to pretend that immigration offered a net economic benefit, by looking solely at high-value EU migrants and ignoring the dregs of the third world your chums mysteriously decided to admit. In fact, needless to say, those people cost us a fûcking fortune (not to mention the higher incidence of general crime, rape, acid attacks, refusal to integrate and terrorism they bring with them, of course.
Still... 'diversity' - Yay!
Oh, and by the way, you'll notice that most of southern Europe is awash with unemployed youngsters who could just as easily have been encouraged to migrate here if we needed workers. Instead, Labour decided it would be better to massively increase the numbers of non-European, non-Christian non-white people who have - inevitably - brought with them a host of other problems. Because what's 'diversity' without more brown people, eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...20bn-ucl-study
I'm pretty sure you should now wexpect a knock on your door at 3 a.m.
Still... 'diversity' - Yay!
Oh, and by the way, you'll notice that most of southern Europe is awash with unemployed youngsters who could just as easily have been encouraged to migrate here if we needed workers. Instead, Labour decided it would be better to massively increase the numbers of non-European, non-Christian non-white people who have - inevitably - brought with them a host of other problems. Because what's 'diversity' without more brown people, eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...20bn-ucl-study"Geheime Staatspolizei! Aufmachen!"
Told you, didn't I? It's all your fault for letting the Windies off the hook way back when and giving them a easy ride. The reason you don't hate them is purely because you were "not allowed" to hate them. Much better to pick on Aussies and be embarrassed by Saffers. Nothing to do with skin colour, naturally.
Still... 'diversity' - Yay!
Oh, and by the way, you'll notice that most of southern Europe is awash with unemployed youngsters who could just as easily have been encouraged to migrate here if we needed workers. Instead, Labour decided it would be better to massively increase the numbers of non-European, non-Christian non-white people who have - inevitably - brought with them a host of other problems. Because what's 'diversity' without more brown people, eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...20bn-ucl-study
Thin end of the wedge though, wunnit. If you had all stood up for what was right and proper back then, you wouldn't be complaining now. Clearly the islams have learned those lessons well.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Frankly even if it had been the Aussies that had batted like a pub team and lost by about three innings some of us probably wouldn't have been able to fully enjoy it. Especially as the cricket was supposed to help us take our minds off the football. And as I said, a poor Windies side (are they officially called that now?) isn't good for cricket.
I hadn't noticed the skin colour of the Pakistan team being a reason for them not be disliked.
The Pakistanis are possibly the most loathsome team in world cricket. The Sri Lankans always ran them a close second - and they were as black as your boot.
None of those ever had the media, the optics or the cultural significance though, did they. An important distinction for trendy urban types, and in a wider sense than just cricket.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Interestingly, our test team now has a prominent Pakistani-Muslim descended player in it, yet no black West Indians anymore. Something to do with the demise of Windies cricket perhaps, or more reflective of the march of Islam in the UK?
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
You can't have it both ways either though; who is to preserve and protect your way of life?
Still... 'diversity' - Yay!
Oh, and by the way, you'll notice that most of southern Europe is awash with unemployed youngsters who could just as easily have been encouraged to migrate here if we needed workers. Instead, Labour decided it would be better to massively increase the numbers of non-European, non-Christian non-white people who have - inevitably - brought with them a host of other problems. Because what's 'diversity' without more brown people, eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...20bn-ucl-study
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote