Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

The chief executive of HIV/Aids charity Terrence Higgins Trust accused Mr Farage of stooping to a "new level of ignorance" and Labour MP David Lammy said he was "trying to revive the very worst bigotry" of the 1980s.

In an interview with Newsweek Europe, Mr Farage set out the changes he would like to see, including a block on convicted killers being allowed into the UK, referring to the prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.

Convicted killer Arnis Zalkalns, from Latvia, was found hanged in Boston Manor Park, west London, on October 4, near where Alice was last seen on August 28 as she walked back to her family home in Hanwell.

"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage said.

Mr Farage said Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.

The Daily Mail reported that, asked by Newsweek whether "quality" meant people without a murder conviction, he answered: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."

He went on to say: "I have never said that we should not take refugees. We have a proud record of accepting refugees, and that must be continued."

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Based on your point to the poster Ben, you made out it is irresponsible for people to believe in a cure.
How is it irresponsible, unless you yourself believe it would be impossible to cure?

I said there is no cure at the moment, and it's irresponsible to suggest that there is.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said there is no cure at the moment, and it's irresponsible to suggest that there is.

Sorry but you said this:

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDs can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

The word "can" stipulates that you believe it would be impossible to cure, as a cure could be found tomorrow for all you know, unless you actually believe it is impossible to cure.
Your first point was thus a contradiction, when you stated to me later after asking so many times, you do not know if it can be cured. If you do not know, then it would be impossible for the poster Ben to be irresponsible, if they believed it could be cured, because you have no idea yourself if it can.
Not being horrible and sorry if picking on you, but your point made no sense when you look further into it.
I guess your view was on people today thinking there is cures out at the moment, which is irresponsible to claim there is, when none have been proven, but you used the word can, you should have used "is".
That would have made your view point valid.

victorisnotamused wrote:you are all missing the point here.....

these people that come here infected and infested with all manner of nasties cost the health service millions, if not billions...  The problem  ...and its a big one.... is that whilst I may cost the NHS something now and again...I have paid for it via my taxes and NI..these "visitors" havnt, nor are they ever likely to contibute either to the NHS OR in a positive way to society...

Just love how veya and Ben want it to carry on (and no doubt increase...yeah lets pay the health bill for the entire festering 3rd world) no doubt out of a desire to see the NHS fail.

what I DONT understand is why there are twats here that want to see the same....

what part of there is only so much money do you fail to grasp???

we are getting sick of being "de santa clause to de evr'y race" as the song said.......

victorisnotamused wrote:you are all missing the point here.....

these people that come here infected and infested with all manner of nasties cost the health service millions, if not billions...  The problem  ...and its a big one.... is that whilst I may cost the NHS something now and again...I have paid for it via my taxes and NI..these "visitors" havnt, nor are they ever likely to contibute either to the NHS OR in a positive way to society...

Just love how veya and Ben want it to carry on (and no doubt increase...yeah lets pay the health bill for the entire festering 3rd world) no doubt out of a desire to see the NHS fail.

what I DONT understand is why there are twats here that want to see the same....

what part of there is only so much money do you fail to grasp???

we are getting sick of being "de santa clause to de evr'y race" as the song said.......

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sorry but you said this:

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDs can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

The word "can" stipulates that you believe it would be impossible to cure, as a cure could be found tomorrow for all you know, unless you actually believe it is impossible to cure.
Your first point was thus a contradiction, when you stated to me later after asking so many times, you do not know if it can be cured. If you do not know, then it would be impossible for the poster Ben to be irresponsible, if they believed it could be cured, because you have no idea yourself if it can.
Not being horrible and sorry if picking on you, but your point made no sense when you look further into it.
I guess your view was on people today thinking there is cures out at the moment, which is irresponsible to claim there is, when none have been proven, but you used the word can, you should have used "is".
That would have made your view point valid.

What I said is correct - it cannot be cured. It can be treated but not cured. It's possible that a cure might be found in the future, but there is nothing on the horizon as yet.

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:you are all missing the point here.....

these people that come here infected and infested with all manner of nasties cost the health service millions, if not billions...  The problem  ...and its a big one.... is that whilst I may cost the NHS something now and again...I have paid for it via my taxes and NI..these "visitors" havnt, nor are they ever likely to contibute either to the NHS OR in a positive way to society...

Just love how veya and Ben want it to carry on (and no doubt increase...yeah lets pay the health bill for the entire festering 3rd world) no doubt out of a desire to see the NHS fail.

what I DONT understand is why there are twats here that want to see the same....

what part of there is only so much money do you fail to grasp???

we are getting sick of being "de santa clause to de evr'y race" as the song said.......

So your argument is based upon a level view point, on what is take and given by some more than others.
That really does not make a hell of a lot of sense, sorry.
You have contributed, where some people have not, so in your view point, they have contributed nothing, they should have less rights than you, even if they are born here?
no those born here have a right....

So your view is our climate allows for less conditions to fall prey to being ill and it is again their fault for being born elsewhere and with less access to better accommodation and education than you.
yeah its kinda tough shit aint it...being born "over there" instead of "over here" why dont the stoop fighting themselves and get on with building theior own nations eh? Why the fuck should iI have to watch my own NHS...which I paid for (along with others of course) fall apart due to the financial cost of serving some sick delusional liberalist progressives orgasm.

If they want acess...they pay...if they cant ...tough....perhaps the "morally superior US of A can take them and treat them for free....ohhh...but i forgot...even with an economy much much larger than ours THEY cant even get free medical aid for their OWN people .....

perhaps the AUSSIES then.... they are clearly willing to....or the comrades of the EUSSR......


perhaps better still, we could force a register of political allegiance...so that all the idiot progressives can be taxed to make up the short fall......


Sorry that is morally wrong to say, how does birth + a bed + a building + some land = inequality for people?
So clearly birth right in your view endorses discrimination, based upon your above perception?

sphinx wrote:I really do not get why people struggle with the concepts.

The UK has finite resources.
The UK government is in charge of both increasing those resources and distribution of those resources.

UKIP believe that at the moment the distribution is both unfair and unsustainable.  Skilled immigrants from Africa and Asia are frequently denied entry.  Unskilled immigrants from Europe move freely.  Health, criminality, and ability are not considered.  Only race or rather country of origin is considered.  From certain countries (who tend to be Caucasian) immigrants can come in unlimited numbers. From other countries the rules are far stricter - even years of marriage and several children together may not be enough for entry to be granted.

UKIP want to change this so that everyone who wants to come to our country to live and/or work gets the same consideration regardless of their race or country of origin.  Those who are law abiding skilled and healthy score higher than those who are criminals unskilled or have health needs.  The amount of space available is calculated and acceptance goes from highest to lowest until all spaces are gone.

You know the sort of system the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc use.

As for the NHS - it cannot treat everyone.  So it has to decide who is and is not treated.  UKIP thinks priority should go to those who have paid in and then any spare be dished out to those who have not.

I myself cannot see what the problem is with these ideas.  Other countries seem to operate by them automatically.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:How about looking at the issue rationally?

Whether we like it or not medical care costs money - the way it is funded in the UK is a payment to government by workers then care free at point of need for for everything.

Sounds brilliant - should be brilliant but the brutal fact of the matter is this system is starting to fail.  The demand for care at the point of need costs more than is being paid in.

Every person who enters this country with HIV can access free health care (whether legally or not which is a different issue) but lets take cases where they come to live and work - they are legally entitled to free health care which in pretty much every case is going to cost far more than they pay. (It costs £18,000 a year to treat each person - you would have to be earning over £650,000 a year to pay that much in NI)

In other words we simply cannot afford it.

For those of you like Ben who live in other countries with different health systems please consider if you are prepared to pay the whole cost for someone you have never met never will meet to have medical treatment.  Then consider if you are prepared to be told that in paying for this person to have treatment you have agreed you will be refused treatment for yourself.

If - and it is a big if at the moment, the UK sorts out its rules on who pays for what healthcare (UKIPs policy is to make private health insurance a legal requirement for all  tourists, visiting workers and immigrants for the first 5 years of their stay) then I have no problem with those with HIV coming here and I am sure Mr Farage would not either.  However at the moment I do not believe we can cope.

Sphinx.

I find that view selfish.
I also think you are ignoring the real problem, that of the cost of the what is charged on the NHS for example with drug companies or how we live in an elitist society, where we fail the people with a view to be selfish with wealth.

What you are saying is only wealthy immigrants can come to the UK, ones who will only be in what is termed as the middle class bracket and upwards. So basically where many people in the world have such conditions, you actually find it is found within the majority of the poorer people of a nation., more so in Africa. Thus those who are in greatest need of the best health care, who already have none, face being the victims of a problem you want to create for them, that they are poor. That have little chance of an education that you had, because they were born into a less wealthy country, than yourself. Is that fair?  Some poor girl who has been raped by a male with HIV, who has some ludicrous belief that if he rapes the girl he will be cured as actually happens in South Africa, is being denied a chance of a better life for one, and being denied the better treatment they deserve.

Not only are they a rape victim but now a victim of poverty, one they are born into. Is it morally right to deny them the chance to come here and work? They can like everyone else contribute with taxes and NI, to have the better treatment they deserve, without unnecessary costs placed onto them. Though your perception is, just because they never had the luxury of a far better education and are poor they should be denied, which to me is completely wrong.


I am more than willing to pay more tax on health, as should others. The view to use the health service struggling, is basically looking at the wrong people to blame and deny. If you want to solve that problem, you look at why it costs so much and why many companies are more interested in profit. You should not use that as a means to deny people a chance to have a better quality of life here in this country.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What I said is correct - it cannot be cured. It can be treated but not cured. It's possible that a cure might be found in the future, but there is nothing on the horizon as yet.

You need to read back, you said when I asked if it was impossible to cure, you said you did not know, thus to say it is irresponsible that HIV or AIDs can be cured is thus incorrect.

sphinx wrote:People getting it is only minimally related to people coming here with it.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So your argument is based upon a level view point, on what is take and given by some more than others.
That really does not make a hell of a lot of sense, sorry.
You have contributed, where some people have not, so in your view point, they have contributed nothing, they should have less rights than you, even if they are born here?
no those born here have a right....

So your view is our climate allows for less conditions to fall prey to being ill and it is again their fault for being born elsewhere and with less access to better accommodation and education than you.
yeah its kinda tough shit aint it...being born "over there" instead of "over here"  why dont the stoop fighting themselves and get on with building theior own nations eh? Why the fuck should iI have to watch my own NHS...which I paid for (along with others of course) fall apart due to the financial cost of serving some sick delusional liberalist progressives orgasm.

If they want acess...they pay...if they cant ...tough....perhaps the "morally superior US of A can take them and treat them for free....ohhh...but i forgot...even with an economy much much larger than ours THEY cant even get free medical aid for their OWN people .....

perhaps the AUSSIES then.... they are clearly willing to....or the comrades of the EUSSR......


perhaps better still, we could force a register of political allegiance...so that all the idiot progressives can be taxed to make up the short fall......


Sorry that is morally wrong to say, how does birth + a bed + a building + some land = inequality for people?
So clearly birth right in your view endorses discrimination, based upon your above perception?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You need to read back, you said when I asked if it was impossible to cure, you said you did not know, thus to say it is irresponsible that HIV or AIDs can be cured is thus incorrect.

Go away and stop trolling me.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sphinx.

I find that view selfish.
I also think you are ignoring the real problem, that of the cost of the what is charged on the NHS for example with drug companies or how we live in an elitist society, where we fail the people with a view to be selfish with wealth.

What you are saying is only wealthy immigrants can come to the UK, ones who will only be in what is termed as the middle class bracket and upwards. So basically where many people in the world have such conditions, you actually find it is found within the majority of the poorer people of a nation., more so in Africa. Thus those who are in greatest need of the best health care, who already have none, face being the victims of a problem you want to create for them, that they are poor. That have little chance of an education that you had, because they were born into a less wealthy country, than yourself. Is that fair?  Some poor girl who has been raped by a male with HIV, who has some ludicrous belief that if he rapes the girl he will be cured as actually happens in South Africa, is being denied a chance of a better life for one, and being denied the better treatment they deserve.

Not only are they a rape victim but now a victim of poverty, one they are born into. Is it morally right to deny them the chance to come here and work? They can like everyone else contribute with taxes and NI, to have the better treatment they deserve, without unnecessary costs placed onto them. Though your perception is, just because they never had the luxury of a far better education and are poor they should be denied, which to me is completely wrong.


I am more than willing to pay more tax on health, as should others. The view to use the health service struggling, is basically looking at the wrong people to blame and deny. If you want to solve that problem, you look at why it costs so much and why many companies are more interested in profit. You should not use that as a means to deny people a chance to have a better quality of life here in this country.

My primary concern and the UK govts primary responsibility is to the British people.


Why should we be allowing people to come here when they will then just cost the British tax payer £15-20k a year in treatments and drugs on the NHS...???



Plus the obvious risk they are in infecting other UK citizens...???



No!!!

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:I really do not get why people struggle with the concepts.

The UK has finite resources.
The UK government is in charge of both increasing those resources and distribution of those resources.

UKIP believe that at the moment the distribution is both unfair and unsustainable.  Skilled immigrants from Africa and Asia are frequently denied entry.  Unskilled immigrants from Europe move freely.  Health, criminality, and ability are not considered.  Only race or rather country of origin is considered.  From certain countries (who tend to be Caucasian) immigrants can come in unlimited numbers. From other countries the rules are far stricter - even years of marriage and several children together may not be enough for entry to be granted.

UKIP want to change this so that everyone who wants to come to our country to live and/or work gets the same consideration regardless of their race or country of origin.  Those who are law abiding skilled and healthy score higher than those who are criminals unskilled or have health needs.  The amount of space available is calculated and acceptance goes from highest to lowest until all spaces are gone.

You know the sort of system the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc use.

As for the NHS - it cannot treat everyone.  So it has to decide who is and is not treated.  UKIP thinks priority should go to those who have paid in and then any spare be dished out to those who have not.

I myself cannot see what the problem is with these ideas.  Other countries seem to operate by them automatically.

First point is deflecting the issue again, where if something is unfair, does not mean that can be used again as evidence to again further increase disparity.


Your second point is a complete contradiction, you say everyone who comes here gets the same consideration regardless of race, yet then state, they must be skilled and healthy, thus is not giving the same consideration as you are placing again people born here of higher status than those who are not and also based around their health and capabilities.
It shows the problem with the views established by UKIP, they are very much a contradiction on their first main point, equality, when they are actually endorsing inequality based on where you were born, education, finances, health and capabilities.


Third point, again are you claiming the NHS with the facilities could not treat everyone? I very much doubt it. You are again arguing over the present status quo, using the excuse because it is not viable at present, we should ignore the root problems, but make again small fixes that achieve nothing. All should be treated equally, there needs be no other view point on this, unless you yourself believe in inequality.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

First point is deflecting the issue again, where if something is unfair, does not mean that can be used again as evidence to again further increase disparity.


Your second point is a complete contradiction, you say everyone who comes here gets the same consideration regardless of race, yet then state, they must be skilled and healthy, thus is not giving the same consideration as you are placing again people born here of higher status than those who are not and also based around their health and capabilities.
It shows the problem with the views established by UKIP, they are very much a contradiction on their first main point, equality, when they are actually endorsing inequality based on where you were born, education, finances, health and capabilities.


Third point, again are you claiming the NHS with the facilities could not treat everyone? I very much doubt it. You are again arguing over the present status quo, using the excuse because it is not viable at present, we should ignore the root problems, but make again small fixes that achieve nothing. All should be treated equally, there needs be no other view point on this, unless you yourself believe in inequality.

OK try it your way.

The EU decides consideration purely on country of origin which people have no choice over.

UK want to decide it on things like skills and criminals records which people do have a choice over - and some health conditions over which they also have a degree of control.

I think the first is prejudiced and discriminatory.  I am opposed to prejudice and discrimination.

And yes I am claiming the NHS with facilities could not treat everyone.  If you put every single pound made in this country into the NHS (so nobody would have money for food, home, etc) that would still not be enough money to treat every health problem of every person in the world.

You may assert what should happen all you like - that is not going to make it so.

Brasidas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:




My primary concern and the UK govts primary responsibility is to the British people.


Why should we be allowing people to come here when they will then just cost the British tax payer £15-20k a year in treatments and drugs on the NHS...???



Plus the obvious risk they are in infecting other UK citizens...???



No!!!

Why should we not allow people to come here, can you think of for one a Christian argument which states otherwise?
Can you think of a moral argument to deny people the same rights as you?
You take the risk of infecting anyone the moment you ever sneeze, should we ban all people from sneezing, criminalize people who do not wash their hands after going to the toilet?

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Go away and stop trolling me.

Sorry.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Why should we not allow people to come here, can you think of for one a Christian argument which states otherwise?
Can you think of a moral argument to deny people the same rights as you?
You take the risk of infecting anyone the moment you ever sneeze, should we ban all people from sneezing, criminalize people who do not wash their hands after going to the toilet?

One moral argument....:???


Yes!



It's not fair to expect the hard pressed British tax payer to give away their hard earned money to pay for treatment of foreigners, while seeing their own treatments/drugs being restricted!!!



There is no moral (or other) argument to say they should.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Why should we not allow people to come here, can you think of for one a Christian argument which states otherwise?
Can you think of a moral argument to deny people the same rights as you?
You take the risk of infecting anyone the moment you ever sneeze, should we ban all people from sneezing, criminalize people who do not wash their hands after going to the toilet?

One moral argument....:???


Yes!



It's not fair to expect the hard pressed British tax payer to give away their hard earned money to pay for treatment of foreigners, while seeing their own treatments/drugs being restricted!!!



There is no moral (or other) argument to say they should.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



One moral argument....:???


Yes!



It's not fair to expect the hard pressed British tax payer to give away their hard earned money to pay for treatment of foreigners, while seeing their own treatments/drugs being restricted!!!



There is no moral (or other) argument to say they should.

Yes. I think the NHS was set up to treat British people, not the entire world.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is a obvioaj health service, not an international one for the free treatment of every other foreigner on the planet.



We should have screening for drug resistant TB, HIV/AIDS, and of course ebola.


We should not allow anyone to travel here with serious/deadly/dangerous transmissable diseases!


This is a matter of common sense and national security.

Tommy Monk wrote:Anyone seen Didge lately......???

nicko wrote:ut we cannot take all and sundry, who ever they are and what state of health they are in,we do not have the money and gp's and hospital space ect to take any more. by the way, the seas are not rising, it's our island that's sinking!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Go away and stop trolling me.

Sorry.

Apology accepted.

Tommy Monk wrote:Hello Didge!!!

victorisnotamused wrote:so what you are saying is that either...I pay 4,5,10, times what I am already into the NHS and lower MY living standards....or forgo treatment I may need, in order for some foreigner thats contributed sod all to it to have treatment for a disease thats likely the result of the disgusting conditions he allows himself to live in???

right ho......think I'll stick to voting for UKIP......

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Apology accepted.

Behave Raggs! Someone answering a post isn't "trolling".
I'm surprised at you actually; thought you could hold your own.

Tommy Monk wrote:Fuck off Didge, we can't house the world on our tiny island.



I appreciate the fact that so many want to live here with us And be like us etc, but it is just not an option to allow so many to do so.


Why don't people just improve their own places and be like us where they already are?




But this thread is about importing disease which should not be allowed.

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:so what you are saying is that either...I pay 4,5,10, times what I am already into the NHS and lower MY living standards....or forgo treatment I may need, in order for some foreigner thats contributed sod all to it to have treatment for a disease thats likely the result of the disgusting conditions he allows himself to live in???

right ho......think I'll stick to voting for UKIP......

Sorry but you are trying to find reasons not to allow for equality, based now off income.
If you earn more into a system based around how much you earn, which collectively helps everyone, you thus think it is wrong to contribute and that all facilities are private based and thus on a system of who can afford or you take the view point it matters little of what material wealth you have, but of helping others based on moral views.
So you want to vote for inequality?
Do not get me wrong all the parties are inequality, but what is the moral high ground here, your own needs, or the collective view of the world?
Your view is based upon what you want, and how does that help? When your world can only function with others playing their part. Your current situation would not exist without you being able to have the benefits created from the combined contribution of a millions of people, who did this to allow everyone a chance in life. What you suggest goes against this very principle.

Brasidas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Fuck off Didge, we can't house the world on our tiny island.



I appreciate the fact that so many want to live here with us And be like us etc, but it is just not an option to allow so many to do so.


Why don't people just improve their own places and be like us where they already are?




But this thread is about importing disease which should not be allowed.

Anger and hatred achieve nothing, you are basing an argument based upon privilege, of which you did not create. Thus you go off what others have done, basing a view you are entitled to over others, just because you were born here. That has no moral stand point.
So why do you deserve an advantage over others, because you were born here and not India, when your family alone never made the country what it is today?
If others of wealth,they took your view point, you would not even be educated. Do you not see that?

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sorry but you are trying to find reasons not to allow for equality, based now off income.
If you earn more into a system based around how much you earn, which collectively helps everyone, you thus think it is wrong to contribute and that all facilities are private based and thus on a system of who can afford or you take the view point it matters little of what material wealth you have, but of helping others based on moral views.
So you want to vote for inequality?
Do not get me wrong all the parties are inequality, but what is the moral high ground here, your own needs, or the collective view of the world?
Your view is based upon what you want, and how does that help? When your world can only function with others playing their part. Your current situation would not exist without you being able to have the benefits created from the combined contribution of a millions of people, who did this to allow everyone a chance in life. What you suggest goes against this very principle.

rubbish, by that logic i should sleep rough and eat garbage, just so every one else can eat meat and live in a house


what I have i worked and paid for... same with the NHS...I have paid for that, contributed to it.....they have not nor ever will....
the NHS is free at point of need for BRITISH citizens.....it was NEVER intended to be any other way.....
I wouldnt mind sharing...IF they shared the costs...but they dont...take take take.....
well f**k em

they aint my tribe, they aint my people and they aint anything to do with me (and I certainly dont want their diseases).

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Anger and hatred achieve nothing, you are basing an argument based upon privilege, of which you did not create. Thus you go off what others have done, basing a view you are entitled to over others, just because you were born here. That has no moral stand point.
So why do you deserve an advantage over others, because you were born here and not India, when your family alone never made the country what it is today?
If others of wealth,they took your view point, you would not even be educated. Do you not see that?

cobblers...who benefits from "education"?? the generation that pays for the education of its children, who will become tye doctors, lawyers nurses etc etc of their older years....

my father paid, along with others the shared costs of MY education....why would you expect him to pay for the education of say an african who will never benefit him (or me) in any way????

we are NOT responsible for the waifs and strays of the world...if YOU want to be then fine...give up your income and go live in a cave somewher existing on what charity someone may throw you...

me I'll stick to my warm home and soft bed, and do eetrything I can to protect that which is by rights mine (mine because, unlike mr whoever from wherever, I paid into the system)

tell me didge...if I have a RTA...can i claim off YOUR insurance please (of course this means YOU will have extra costs and it will affect YOUR no claims but hey ho...)...then I wont need to contribute to the system at all.....

exactly the same argument....

victorisnotamused wrote:false argument alert
                              "The reality is humans have always shared, whether it be their kills, to eat and survive. Humans survived because they learnt to coexist and to hep each other"

THATS THE POINT....they have shared NOTHING, they have contributed nothing to the NHS nor will they ever....

victorisnotamused wrote:NO ONE...who hasnt worked here and paid UK income tax and NI for at least 5 years should have free access to the NHS.....doing otherwise  is not "sharing" its taking the piss

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

cobblers...who benefits from "education"?? the generation that pays for the education of its children, who will become tye doctors, lawyers nurses etc etc of their older years....

my father paid, along with others the shared costs of MY education....why would you expect him to pay for the education of say an african who will never benefit him (or me) in any way????

we are NOT responsible for the waifs and strays of the world...if YOU want to be then fine...give up your income and go live in a cave somewher existing on what charity someone may throw you...

me I'll stick to my warm home and soft bed, and do eetrything I can to protect that which is by rights mine (mine because, unlike mr whoever from wherever, I paid into the system)

tell me didge...if I have a RTA...can i claim off YOUR insurance please (of course this means YOU will have extra costs and it will affect YOUR no claims but hey ho...)...then I wont need to contribute to the system at all.....

exactly the same argument....

You are the waifs and strays of the world where society has changed from a ruling rich elite who used then same arguments you try to use now. You se the view to take off others, to then view as was before your child should be advantaged over others because of status and where they are born. That has no logic, but taking advantage of other.
So how did you lean to be educated?
Because a nation of people made it possible, your family did not make that happen.

Tommy Monk wrote:I am of the same genetics as my ancestors.


I am born into the surroundings that my ancestors created for me and I will continue to improve for my descendants.


Others are born into the surroundings of their ancestors creation....  it is ts to them to improve things if they want..... or carry on as they are.....

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You are the waifs and strays of the world where society has changed from a ruling rich elite who used then same arguments you try to use now. You se the view to take off others, to then view as was before your child should be advantaged over others because of status and where they are born. That has no logic, but taking advantage of other.
So how did you lean to be educated?
Because a nation of people made it possible, your family did not make that happen.

Idiot, even if that were true...which it isnt, its a gross distortion of reality, the "nation" benefitted from my being educated, in as much at least as I worked and aid taxes, did my part of providing GDP etc....


these incomming disease ridden foreigners have done nothing, nor are they likely to...

what part of the equation are you blind to????

who do yoiu expect to pay for their treatment eh?  

who do you expect to be deprived of treatment because a health trust has run out of cash due to treating these health benefit criminals?