SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
I disagree, as I say, my friends family claim they came because they were practically fleeing a nation who didn't necessarily like them, a lot stayed yes, but arguably, that's like the whites in South Africa after the ANC got into power - they left voluntarily, but maybe not willingly.

The initial independence wave meant that you could trade your British passport for a Kenyan passport, but after that some Indians kept their British passport, but decided to stay in Kenya, after that there were some reprisals.

My point is, that they came to this country in the same respect that Somalians come to this country today - with relatively nothing and we welcomed them, and let them live in the UK and make a living for their selves, I find it highly hypocritical when an 'immigrant' says that we shouldn't allow asylum seekers.
Hmm welcomed them. I don't know what planet you are on but the abuse and racism that happened in the 50-80s before anti racism laws came in can hardly be called welcoming.

Watch the tv of the time like Alf Garnet and rising damp too I think.
 

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,847
Alf Garnet wasn't racist. He purposely made a mockery of racism and racists. So did rising damp.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,919
Hmm welcomed them. I don't know what planet you are on but the abuse and racism that happened in the 50-80s before anti racism laws came in can hardly be called welcoming.

Watch the tv of the time like Alf Garnet and rising damp too I think.

Welcomed them as much as Somalians are welcomed, I mean, we allow them in the country.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,513
No necessarily. They may have come with skilled jobs or just normal immigration. Not heard of many Indians or Kenyans seeking asylum.

I know several Ugandan Indians who's families came over in the 70s. There are lots of "coloureds" (as the South Africans called them) who came to the UK after working for the Empire in Africa who were forced out of African countries after decolonisation.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,919
I know several Ugandan Indians who's families came over in the 70s. There are lots of "coloureds" (as the South Africans called them) who came to the UK after working for the Empire in Africa who were forced out of African countries after decolonisation.

Indeed.

Their position in African countries was not as low as the Africans, but not as high as the Whites, so the Africans still saw them as superior, meaning they felt bitter towards them.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,738
Which is better; snack sized bite, or bite sized snack?

Bite sized snack. If you only take a snack sized bite out of a bigger thing and you love it then you're tempted to have more.

Either have a snack or have a meal :)
 

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,847
That's because you modern day hand wringer is too dumb to understand them.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Bite sized snack. If you only take a snack sized bite out of a bigger thing and you love it then you're tempted to have more.

Either have a snack or have a meal :)

I'm kind of in a similar opinion, though for other reasons. I find a bite sized snack to be better in convinience(carrying, storage, whatnot). Also seems they're cheaper these days as they're sold in bulk.
 

BloodOmen

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
18,139
1397256_820687421339991_7023121594292498305_o.jpg
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
I disagree, as I say, my friends family claim they came because they were practically fleeing a nation who didn't necessarily like them, a lot stayed yes, but arguably, that's like the whites in South Africa after the ANC got into power - they left voluntarily, but maybe not willingly.

The initial independence wave meant that you could trade your British passport for a Kenyan passport, but after that some Indians kept their British passport, but decided to stay in Kenya, after that there were some reprisals.

My point is, that they came to this country in the same respect that Somalians come to this country today - with relatively nothing and we welcomed them, and let them live in the UK and make a living for their selves, I find it highly hypocritical when an 'immigrant' says that we shouldn't allow asylum seekers.


My mate said....

Try first hand experience, both my parents and their extended families came to the UK from Kenya int he 60's and 70's.

You haven't a clue what you are on about.

My dad's parents stayed in Kenya because they had a very good life there and didn't feel under pressure to leave.

I am not saying some didn't leave because they felt their way of life was under threat, but comparing it to asylum is ridiculous. It was a side effect of the end of Empire.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,919
Disagree all you want, you are still talking shit Gwad.

I disagree, because I think you're wrong, I would attempt to engage you in a proper debate, but because it's personal to you, all you'll do is repeat the same thing and say I'm talking shit.

To use the crude American explanation of why people migrate, I think there was more 'push' factors in the reason why Indians left Africa than 'pull' factors.
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
You won't argue because you used a ridiculous analogy and are no back tracking.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,513
My mate said....

Try first hand experience, both my parents and their extended families came to the UK from Kenya int he 60's and 70's.

You haven't a clue what you are on about.

My dad's parents stayed in Kenya because they had a very good life there and didn't feel under pressure to leave.

I am not saying some didn't leave because they felt their way of life was under threat, but comparing it to asylum is ridiculous. It was a side effect of the end of Empire.

Wikipedia said:
Kenya achieved independence from Britain in 1963, and thereafter followed a period of volatility in African and Asian relations. Asians, along with Europeans, were given two years to acquire Kenyan citizenship which in turn would renounce their British passports. Out of approximately 180,000 Asians and 42,000 Europeans in Kenya at the time, fewer than 20,000 had submitted their applications by the deadline.[5]This in turn lead to growing animosity and distrust from Africans, and those who failed to take up Kenyan citizenship were deemed disloyal by their fellow countrymen.[6]

Those without Kenyan citizenship soon became subject to increasing discrimination by the ruling government. Asians in the civil service were sacked in favour of Africans, the Kenyan Immigration Act 1967 required them to acquire work permits, whilst a Trade Licensing Act passed in the same year limited the areas of the country in which non-Kenyans could engage in trade.[7]In the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with a dim future in Africa, many Asians choose to utilise their British passport and settle in the United Kingdom. There are now sizeable communities of Kenyan Asians in London andLeicester.

Kind of thing that would be legitimate grounds for asylum in 2014...
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,346
Damn polish and bulgarians coming here with their useful economic contributions!

http://m.bbc.com/news/business-29910497

Sadly the same report also points out that non-EU migrants cost us an absolute bloody fortune (£120 billion iirc). Not that I think migration is a bad thing (far from it in fact), but uncontrolled immigration? Not such a great idea, mainly as it gives frothing mouth breathing Nationalists (UKIP, SNP, BNP etc) a stick to beat everyone with.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,738
uncontrolled immigration?

Freedom of movement is part of the cost of not going to war.

Instead of invading each others countries and killing each other we're pissed off that they make better plumbers than us...
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,346
Freedom of movement is part of the cost of not going to war.

Instead of invading each others countries and killing each other we're pissed off that they make cheaper plumbers than us...

Fixed m8!!

Seriously though, half these problems are of our own doing, as it's given the feckless and lazy people in our society a good excuse to continue to be feckless and lazy. Those dirty immigrants are just taking the jobs that us Brits feel we are above, which is more of a reflection on us than them if you ask me.

I will admit I do want us out of the EU, but it has nothing to do with immigration whatsoever, it's more the unaccountable, unelected lot in Brussels pissing everyone's money up the wall making Europe uncompetitive I have issues with.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,513
Sadly the same report also points out that non-EU migrants cost us an absolute bloody fortune (£120 billion iirc). Not that I think migration is a bad thing (far from it in fact), but uncontrolled immigration? Not such a great idea, mainly as it gives frothing mouth breathing Nationalists (UKIP, SNP, BNP etc) a stick to beat everyone with.

Except, it doesn't because the 120bn excludes any tax or ni contributions that group made pre-1995.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom