he thinks the fact that he had his passport taken away for a week untill he had paid enough bribes (immigration fees in his eyes) and had to run gauntlets through townships because if you stopped they stripped the trailer when he went to morocco a friendly welcoming place
There is still time to readdress your “most ridiculous post of 2024 comment”.
That will be the kids from families who are born and bred here, the families who have worked and contributed to the system that pays for the health and education system you mention through their taxes. As opposed to the many migrants who rock up here for the freebies and the public services but will never contribute.
In this day and age of the woke LGBTQ movement it would not surprise me if he was … well maybe not the attractive part but certainly the first bit. 
1 Like
He just can not let it lie can he? 
Rather than realise, and admit, (if only to himself), that he has come across as a complete buffoon to everybody with this preposterous theory, he keeps digging and digging even further by trying to justify it, in an effort to succeed in some sort of damage limitation excercise to regain some credibility…
AND even provides a link thinking that we are going to see his pov.
…classic.
Best just to let him carry on
Hey !..maybe we should just deport our own kids for being such a burden on our economy, have a population replacement with all the …‘‘Irregular’’ refugees in their ‘‘hostels’’
At least then somebody would be finally deported at last, and we would have a much better class and calibre of young males…all doctors scientists and solicitors.
Double whammy…think of the benefit to the country.
You’re welcome.
You know, this stuff would actually be quite funny if we did not have idiots who believed all this type of stuff calling the shots…and people like Franglais regurgitating it all.
And where is that gem from?
Why do you say migrants will never contribute?
If you had followed the links above you would have seen evidence that migrants contribute relatively more than native born workers.
As @truckpro points out (in his own polite and understated style) that the studies are not perfect, of course they aren’t! . No economic studies are. But they do point in the same direction…if @truckpro spent a few minutes he would have noticed that.
But they are worthy of being looked at, and are more likely accurate than someone saying random crap with no back up.
Which report are you referring to? What is wrong with the methodology?
Or, just let me guess here, you can’t be even bothered to read them so just dismiss them out of hand. It is nice that the site here counts how many click on provided links, so we can see who comments or puts up smilies without even knowing what they are talking about.
Do you have better sources of info? If so let us see them.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a820725e5274a2e87dc0c4f/number-convicted-sexual-offenders-by-ethnicity-tables.xlsx
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/rapestatisticsbyethnicity
“Claim:Nearly 90% of those convicted of wider child abuse offences and on the sex offenders register are white men.”
“Our Verdict:There isn’t much publicly available information on this. The data we do have shows a large majority of those convicted of sexual offences (no matter the age of the victim) are white.”
Oh he’s here again with his official stats and his official surveys…bless.
Yeah but thing is mate the credibility of all this stuff you churn out, (or at least the perception thereof) depends entirely on whether or not the rest of us are as gullible as you to readily believe everything to the letter that is set out from said official sources.
Especially when in many cases those accounts do not correlate with what we actually experience and SEE in our own day to day lives, as we are not sat cocooned in some kind of lefty Nirvanic fantasy wonderland.
But keep putting the hours in in your research if it pleases, and gives you something to do.
Un be ■■■■ in lievable.
@maoster was saying some stats were not available at all. They are.
@robroy gets upset and annoyed if links and stats are given, and @maoster gets upset if they aren’t given.
Although to be fair, @robroy gets wound up by everything!
Unless your everyday life consists of seeing every town in the UK all of the time…then obvously they will see different things than you do.
So the figures are arrived at by experts that have no set strategy to attain those figures, a mish mash of different inputs, based on estimates, assumptions with very little factual input.
.
i have a solution that will please everyone as starmer and his cronies want the illegals they can be put up in their personal homes, chequers, dorneywood and chevening house just to mention a few. That will save the burden on the economy from lost tourism income wont cost the tax payer 8 million a week or what ever it was and wont upset the neighbours as there aren’t any
i find what franglaise is saying is quite racist because what he is actually saying is the reason that most people in jail are muslim or non british is because they get caught where as the white man that commits these attrosities more regularly doesnt so must therefore be smarter at getting away with it.
Nonsense.
The studies each have a “set strategy” or methodology. They are not all the same methodology however.
Different studies look at different things.
All surveys of complex situations make assumptions and it is rare for all experts to agree on one single ideal methodology. That does not mean that those surveys are worthless.
If we only used perfect studies we would not have any to use.
Standing on a street corner of my local town and looking at the skin colour of anyone walking by, and seeing if they had designer labels on their trainers is a method of assessing the wealth of migrants. We might call that the RR method?
Looking at tax, immigration, records of the entire UK population, as the ONS does is another method.
Neither are perfect, but I know which mode I prefer.
The studies are a mish mash of different inputs, attained from estimates, assumptions and with little factual content. Once again just in case you didn’t understand my last post.
Well yes, they are a collection of lots of different stats from lots of different sources.
In the real world that is all we have.
And IMHO that is better than standing on a street corner with baseba… oh, a ukulele in my hand.
What do think, in the real world, we have that is better?
Where is that from?
This headline caught my attention especially as it’s from the The Guardian a Labour supporting paper telling Starmer where he is going wrong and giving advantage to Farage and Reform, pretty much as most see it except Franglais and Co.
All Starmer’s failings play into the hands of Farage – the prime minister is the gift that keeps on giving
Did I ever mention that the UK prison population is made up of 18% of Muslims and the UK population is made up of 6% of Muslims? I used the word (allegedly) in my previous posts as the UK wide population is open to debate and religion figures taken from prisoners could be slightly skewed. Oh yes I remember now I did ask you and you maintained those figures seemed “fair”.
Studies made up of many different inputs, from different sources, based on assumptions, estimates and using different methods to achieve outcomes are very subjective.
I actually feel a bit sorry for you. The way you are so naïve to all the narratives and stuff you are fed and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. Everyone else seems to be able to grasp what’s going on and you seem to be the only one who cannot see it, or maybe you can but that would come with an element of admitting you maybe got this one wrong and you can’t be doing that now can you.
Franglais’s new favourite phrase - because the evidence of what everyone else see’s with their own eyes isn’t good enough apparently.
Yes, there is a choice to be made in what to include and in what to leave out, and in how figures are interpreted.
I do repeat though since that is all we have to use… I prefer those reports that explain their methodologies, give the sources of their data, and justify those choices. Far better than what one set of eyes sees.
But isn’t it you who is denying what has been seen and recorded by others?
You are discounting the evidence collected and correlated by studies of the whole country, with access to prisons, courts etc. You seem to prefer what you see in your own life only.