Calais migrant trouble

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 31 of 85 < 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >

elgrande bedford 30 Jul 15 2.44pm
Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 1.47pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector. Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans. More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country. Yep and I get stuck behind most of them in my lorry always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 30 Jul 15 2.44pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 1.47pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am

Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm

The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months.

This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais.

You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes.

In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that.

It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries.

In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden".

In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return.

Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm)

LOL, you do make one laugh.

Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?

Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am)

Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high.

In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance).

All funded by net contributors to the EU like us.

Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth.

But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'.

It has a booming IT sector.

Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans.

More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country.

Yep and I get stuck behind most of them in my lorry

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 30 Jul 15 3.01pm
Quote elgrande at 30 Jul 2015 2.44pm Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 1.47pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector. Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans. More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country. Yep and I get stuck behind most of them in my lorry I bet the Dutch have more per person though. They can't get enough of them they can't. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 30 Jul 15 3.01pm

Quote elgrande at 30 Jul 2015 2.44pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 1.47pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am

Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm

The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months.

This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais.

You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes.

Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm)

LOL, you do make one laugh.

Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am)

All funded by net contributors to the EU like us.

It has a booming IT sector.

Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans.

More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country.

Yep and I get stuck behind most of them in my lorry

I bet the Dutch have more per person though. They can't get enough of them they can't.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 30 Jul 15 7.22pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 9.50am Quote legaleagle at 30 Jul 2015 9.04am Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) I am glad "the fool" has made "the idiot" laugh The majority in Calais,as I stated,are not asylum seekers.However, no doubt to your mind all are one and the same being Johnny non-European foreigner. Welfare benefits are "better" in France and Germany than in the UK.But again don't let that stand in the way of your tunnel-visioned prejudices.In any event,economic migrants (not asylum seekers) are attracted to the UK as a place to make something of themselves,ie perceived economic oportunities to work, not to claim benefits.Coupled with the global use of English and people wishing to go somewhere where a language they have some knowledge of is spoken. Turning to the minority of those in Calais seeking asylum and taking your "logic" that they head towards the UK solely becausde the benefits-claiming potential is best,in terms of reality as opposed to prejudice,its worth looking at the most recent statistics for 2014 for people seeking asylum within Europe....France over 64,000,Germany over 203,000,Sweden over 80,000,Italy over 65,000,Hungary over 42,000, and the UK behind all of those at over 31,000. Where in my post above am I "supporting" illegal entry? But,again, don't let your tunnel visioned prejudices stand in the way of that... Incidentally,your examples of Romania and Bulgaria are silly anyway,given their geographical location,so most unlikely to be a logical "first safe country" a person seeking asylum would come to. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jul 2015 9.14am) At least you accept that the majority are not in fact asylum seekers at all (although you go on to describe them as "seeking asylum". As they are not asylum seekers, would you agree that we have no responsibility whatsoever to have them here then? How many are you going to put up in your spare rooms at Legaleagle Towers by the way? The balanced basis for suggesting I have been contradictory in referring to "the minority of those in Calais seeking asylum" following referring to the majority of those in Calais not being asylum seekers,is not (as with many of your expressed views)readily apparent. Legaleagle only wishes his abode could be described as "legaleagle towers".His rooms are presently all occupied but no doubt he will continue to give of his time for free to assist asylum seekers where appropriate. And you?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

30 Jul 15 7.22pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 9.50am

Quote legaleagle at 30 Jul 2015 9.04am

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am

Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm

You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes.

Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm)

LOL, you do make one laugh.

Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am)

I am glad "the fool" has made "the idiot" laugh

The majority in Calais,as I stated,are not asylum seekers.However, no doubt to your mind all are one and the same being Johnny non-European foreigner.

Welfare benefits are "better" in France and Germany than in the UK.But again don't let that stand in the way of your tunnel-visioned prejudices.In any event,economic migrants (not asylum seekers) are attracted to the UK as a place to make something of themselves,ie perceived economic oportunities to work, not to claim benefits.Coupled with the global use of English and people wishing to go somewhere where a language they have some knowledge of is spoken.

Turning to the minority of those in Calais seeking asylum and taking your "logic" that they head towards the UK solely becausde the benefits-claiming potential is best,in terms of reality as opposed to prejudice,its worth looking at the most recent statistics for 2014 for people seeking asylum within Europe....France over 64,000,Germany over 203,000,Sweden over 80,000,Italy over 65,000,Hungary over 42,000, and the UK behind all of those at over 31,000.

Where in my post above am I "supporting" illegal entry? But,again, don't let your tunnel visioned prejudices stand in the way of that...

Incidentally,your examples of Romania and Bulgaria are silly anyway,given their geographical location,so most unlikely to be a logical "first safe country" a person seeking asylum would come to.

Edited by legaleagle (30 Jul 2015 9.14am)

At least you accept that the majority are not in fact asylum seekers at all (although you go on to describe them as "seeking asylum". As they are not asylum seekers, would you agree that we have no responsibility whatsoever to have them here then? How many are you going to put up in your spare rooms at Legaleagle Towers by the way?

The balanced basis for suggesting I have been contradictory in referring to "the minority of those in Calais seeking asylum" following referring to the majority of those in Calais not being asylum seekers,is not (as with many of your expressed views)readily apparent.

Legaleagle only wishes his abode could be described as "legaleagle towers".His rooms are presently all occupied but no doubt he will continue to give of his time for free to assist asylum seekers where appropriate.

And you?

Alert a moderator to this post

corkery Cork City 30 Jul 15 7.38pm
If you're running from a war, you'll go to the first place of safety, not through dozens of countries. As UK citizen, ye have to ask yerselfs, why won't they stop at France? Why is the UK so appealing? We'll never die
Alert a moderator to this post

corkery

Cork City 30 Jul 15 7.38pm

If you're running from a war, you'll go to the first place of safety, not through dozens of countries. As UK citizen, ye have to ask yerselfs, why won't they stop at France? Why is the UK so appealing?

We'll never die

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 30 Jul 15 7.41pm
Quote corkery at 30 Jul 2015 7.38pm If you're running from a war, you'll go to the first place of safety, not through dozens of countries. As UK citizen, ye have to ask yerselfs, why won't they stop at France? Why is the UK so appealing? We have better food.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

30 Jul 15 7.41pm

Quote corkery at 30 Jul 2015 7.38pm

We have better food.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 30 Jul 15 7.54pm
After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 30 Jul 15 7.54pm

After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 30 Jul 15 8.08pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. And there was me thinking it proved that the left were as looney tunes as ever, which just goes to show it's a matter of opinion, and as you're of a left wing nature you're bound to think that, as I'm bound to think the other way.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 30 Jul 15 8.08pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm

And there was me thinking it proved that the left were as looney tunes as ever, which just goes to show it's a matter of opinion, and as you're of a left wing nature you're bound to think that, as I'm bound to think the other way.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 8.09pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. When I saw that you had posted, I was hoping you had managed to come up with your elusive immigration policy. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 30 Jul 15 8.09pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm

When I saw that you had posted, I was hoping you had managed to come up with your elusive immigration policy.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 30 Jul 15 8.29pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 8.09pm Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. When I saw that you had posted, I was hoping you had managed to come up with your elusive immigration policy. I'll show you mine if you will show me your's. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 30 Jul 15 8.29pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 8.09pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm

When I saw that you had posted, I was hoping you had managed to come up with your elusive immigration policy.

I'll show you mine if you will show me your's.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 30 Jul 15 8.34pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 8.08pm Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. And there was me thinking it proved that the left were as looney tunes as ever, which just goes to show it's a matter of opinion, and as you're of a left wing nature you're bound to think that, as I'm bound to think the other way. No. It was the result of evidence-based research by those that study the psychology of peeps not "opinion". Some of those involved may have been of a right-wing bent themselves, who knows? Anyways, not a criticism just a shared piece of knowledge. I like it that you lot are crazies Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 30 Jul 15 8.34pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 8.08pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm

No. It was the result of evidence-based research by those that study the psychology of peeps not "opinion". Some of those involved may have been of a right-wing bent themselves, who knows?

Anyways, not a criticism just a shared piece of knowledge. I like it that you lot are crazies

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 30 Jul 15 9.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 8.34pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 8.08pm Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. And there was me thinking it proved that the left were as looney tunes as ever, which just goes to show it's a matter of opinion, and as you're of a left wing nature you're bound to think that, as I'm bound to think the other way. No. It was the result of evidence-based research by those that study the psychology of peeps not "opinion". Some of those involved may have been of a right-wing bent themselves, who knows? Anyways, not a criticism just a shared piece of knowledge. I like it that you lot are crazies I think that it showed that those on the right had a lower IQ. "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 30 Jul 15 9.04pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 8.34pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 8.08pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm

No. It was the result of evidence-based research by those that study the psychology of peeps not "opinion". Some of those involved may have been of a right-wing bent themselves, who knows?

Anyways, not a criticism just a shared piece of knowledge. I like it that you lot are crazies

I think that it showed that those on the right had a lower IQ.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 30 Jul 15 9.16pm
Quote pefwin at 30 Jul 2015 9.04pm Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 8.34pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 8.08pm Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm After reading through this thread one thing is for sure - that psychology research paper which concluded that those on the more right wing side of things are more looney tunes than the rest of the population is very,very, totally and utterly bang out of spot on. And there was me thinking it proved that the left were as looney tunes as ever, which just goes to show it's a matter of opinion, and as you're of a left wing nature you're bound to think that, as I'm bound to think the other way. No. It was the result of evidence-based research by those that study the psychology of peeps not "opinion". Some of those involved may have been of a right-wing bent themselves, who knows? Anyways, not a criticism just a shared piece of knowledge. I like it that you lot are crazies I think that it showed that those on the right had a lower IQ. Oh really, they are just stupid seeing what is in front of their noses. As Orwell said: "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 30 Jul 15 9.16pm

Quote pefwin at 30 Jul 2015 9.04pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 8.34pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 8.08pm

Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jul 2015 7.54pm

No. It was the result of evidence-based research by those that study the psychology of peeps not "opinion". Some of those involved may have been of a right-wing bent themselves, who knows?

Anyways, not a criticism just a shared piece of knowledge. I like it that you lot are crazies

I think that it showed that those on the right had a lower IQ.

Oh really, they are just stupid seeing what is in front of their noses. As Orwell said: "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 31 of 85 < 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Calais migrant trouble

Site Map

Sponsors