I demand politrical asylum immediately.(Hypothetical)


B

Bill

Derek Hornby said:
How could I scare a sick deranged bastard such as yourself....
Gosh abusive again, what's new?
you will look really silly now if you ever did report me to ISP, as I can
point to the sort of abusive posts you send.

The one thing you do for the disabled is give them a bad name, if
I came acroos you in the street in need of help I would enjoy kicking you
in the fucking head....
Oh being abusive, and offensive now I see.
This will be my last post to these groups,
Good.

Derek
[/QUOTE]

Though Derek has his faults, I see no wrong in his postings, he is straight
to the point whether he makes friends or not. I think credit should be given
to him for doing this, it always seems to be the same idiots who knock him
for this. We all say things off the cuff but the guys on here must get
their magnifying glasses out to scrutinise his posts.

Bill
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Derek Hornby

Islander said:
You have now shown the whole group what a bigoted little boy you are, you
hurl personal abuse around making derogatory comments about specific
disabilities suffered by individuals.
YOu, can't even give true examples to backup your views.

All in your mind eh.

That you have no concept of, or
sympathy with, those who suffer from either mobility impairment, mental
health issues or dependency problems is obvious
Obvious to whom, not all that's for sure.
So why are you dishonest in what you say?
and the FACT that your derogatory and personal attacks against these people
which people,and funny you make no comment about Karen's posts?

Feel free to do the usual Hornby job of muddying waters and stamping your
feet and decrying "you
started it..
Well, I certainly did *not* start *your* silly childish argument, as a glance
back on the flow of posts, on this thread clearly shows.

Derek
 
S

smicker

But... you deliberately use someone's name that they deliberately do not
use in the NGs (even though it isn't a secret from people they trust).

But... you deliberately encourage a known alcoholic to start drinking
again (despite the fact they are trying to abstain) by telling them to
drink immediately after having screwed them about and put them in a
state to want to hit the bottle anyway.

Derek, you are despicable, a coward, and clearly mentally ill.
I used to think he was mentally ill Pat but I long ago recognised he
was just evil. Hiding behind his disability and making sure everybody
knows he is blind is his way of taking evil swipes at people knowing
that he will not get spanked. He better realise that there are folks
in this group who are mentally ill and who may be deluded enough to
think they would be doing the world a service should they harm him. I
can well imagine some one who is deluded doing something to him and
then telling us about it as if they had done us a great service.
Rather a chilling thought I suppose.
smicker
 
D

Derek Hornby

Eh? I pay to see zoo animals, I aint gonna ignore them thanks...
lol
Give Smicketr a stick, he may even get the wrong end.

Now why is he tring to stir up a flame war.
well who changed the suject line to my name.
Derek
 
D

Derek Hornby

But... you deliberately use someone's name that they deliberately do not
use in the NGs (even though it isn't a secret from people they trust).
Not sure what your pont is?
Kare doesn't post openly anyway, and perhaps this is so she can feel more
at ease, to abuse, with her bad language.

It's easier to get an ISP to close a poser's account than it would be with
a remailer.
But... you deliberately encourage a known alcoholic to start drinking
again (despite the fact they are trying to abstain) by telling them to
drink immediately after having screwed them about and put them in a
state to want to hit the bottle anyway.
If I took an overdose tonight, as result of the sort of posts I read,
are you responsible for that?
Derek, you are despicable, a coward, and clearly mentally ill.
If you truly thought that, you are more stupid than I thought.

If I was a coward, would I mpost openly?

If I was mentally ill, why are you using such an issue to try to either
hurt, or insult.

Disability, should never be used as a means to insult, and that seems to be
your aim.

As for the issue of being an alcoholic, only those concerned are responsible
for their own actions, and yes, I do know what I mean, having had my
brother in-law as alcoholic some years ago, he now runs his own business,
and now nver drinks, only orange, or tea.

Derek
 
S

smicker

Yes. It shows that in these fields, the asylum seekers who get less than
income support can get the same help as English people who are getting
income support.

So what?
The argument was that asylum seekers can not get the same as English
people when quite clearly they not only get the same but could get
more because English people have to wait in the queue behind all these
folks to get to see a social worker etc and are often just left
because there is nobody fighting for them.I don't care what asylum
seekers get as long as English folk get the same and they do not. That
is my gripe, not the immigrants getting too much but the locals not
getting enough.
smicker
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

smicker

smicker said:
This says nothing about getting only a fraction Richard
http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/170902.asp says amongst
other stuff

More than two years after the implementation of the 1999 Immigration
and Asylum Act, the study found vulnerable asylum seekers were being
denied essential help because of widespread confusion among social
services and other organisations about entitlements. Disabled people
granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain in Britain have
the same entitlements to benefits as other disabled people. And while
asylum seekers cannot claim disability-related benefits, they are
entitled to an assessment of their community care needs from local
authority social services - and to have those needs met.

Interviews with service providers showed they were rarely familiar
with the full range of disabled refugees’ and asylum seekers’
entitlements. Moreover, service providers had found it difficult to
work with each other and the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
Financial responsibility for meeting the needs of disabled refugees
and asylum seekers was a major cause of contention, leading to
strained relations. A 2001 court ruling, confirming that local
authorities are responsible for meeting the care needs of disabled
asylum seekers, appeared to have added to the confusion.
Oh, FFS, Smicker, read what you post before you claim it supports you,
will you!

Those granted status are on a par with native Britons. Those still
awaiting decision are not entitled to benefits except through NASS,
which as I have told you provides (about 40%) less than income support.

The second paragraph you have quoted is saying that non-Britons are
getting passed from pillar to post with everyone denying responsibility
for them.
They appear to get it under a different name according to what I
posted above.
Then try reading what you posted above.
If they are having a week of it no one will stay the distance.They
will be bored stiff by the continued reference to asylum seekers.
Oh dear, I really do need to descend to words of one syllable tonight,
don't I?

ONE. NIGHT. NEXT. WEEK.
And those folk get the same benefits and more but under a different
name.
No they do not. They get NASS support at about 60% of income support
levels. They have no entitlement to any other state benefits, but local
authorities still have residual minimal duties to prevent them from
complete destitution, homelessness etc.

[Snip]
Ha gotcha. Errr I think. Folks who are entitled to direct payments and
Independent Living Fund payments, if they are adult children living
with a or both parents cannot pay the parent to be their carer in
situations where carers are not available. Immigrants are allowed
discretion to pay the parents on the grounds that because of religious
and cultural differences they are isolated and cannot get suitable
carers. This discretion is not being used for Brits who are isolated
by location and therefore parents have to give up employment to look
after their child without any income other than the pittance provided.
This is where the discrimination comes in only it is against the Brit
and I didn't read that in any newspaper. ( smug but about to be shot
down by a lawyer of repute)
This is what you keep repeating without evidence in respect of ILF and
has nothing to do with what I was posting about which is carers
allowance. Now please stop repeating this same paragraph time and time
again, or I will be forced to kill you... sorry, killfile you.
I think you will find very few people who use newsgroups actually take
any notice of the BNP and are usually sensible enough to know
propaganda
Except you keep parroting it.
As is illegal immigration, but I see nobody stopping it.
That is what customs officers are supposed to be for, or police to stop
human traffickers.
If I was in
their shoes I would do exactly the same thing. Leave home in the slums
of nowhere and fight like hell to get to the land of handouts. I do
not blame the poor souls who make this attempt to improve their lot in
life. That is not the issue. The issue is that government treats them
better than some of us because everybody is dead scared of being
labeled racist or in fact facing legal proceedings because a false
claim has been made of discrimination.
There you go parroting BNP propaganda again. If you want to do it, fine,
but stop then denying that you are doing it. Or go and join them if your
views are that similar to their policies.
Does it matter who trades in human misery be they qualified or not. It
has been shown to happen on TV. Some obviously are qualified to have a
legal aid franchise.
Yes, which is one of the complaints I have about the Quality Mark.
I nearly missed your post Richard. Is your clock set correctly.


'And I hope that you, a lawyer of repute, will look closer at the way
the parents of disabled children are treated which is what concerns
me. Not the fact the some one has risked their life for an improved
one. I have done that myself often in the countries the immigrants
come from :)'

This paragraph seems to have been snipped but I think we have got to
the point where we agree to disagree as you obviously feel very
strongly about something you imagine I have said. I hold no flag for
racist but nor will I be cowed every time some one decides the only
way to win an argument is to shout racist or bnp.
smicker
 
I

Islander

Snipped for brevity

Disability, should never be used as a means to insult, and that seems to be
your aim.
Unbelievable comment from you when you consider your previous posts...
Typical,, but unbelievable!
As for the issue of being an alcoholic, only those concerned are responsible
for their own actions, and yes, I do know what I mean, having had my
brother in-law as alcoholic some years ago, he now runs his own business,
and now nver drinks, only orange, or tea.
I suppose popping round and slapping a bottle of scotch on the table and
telling HIM to calm down and have a drink would be acceptable Hornby
behaviour and would cause him absolutely no distress at all? (rhetorical)
Dave
 
D

Derek Hornby

Islander said:
Unbelievable comment from you when you consider your previous posts...
You mean yours!

I suppose popping round and slapping a bottle of scotch on the table and
telling HIM to calm down and have a drink would be acceptable Hornby
behaviour and would cause him absolutely no distress at all?
Correct, he would just refuse, and I've asked him.
He says it's just like going out for a meal. Says if offered
a drink, one needs to be firm and say:
"no thanks, I don't drink"


Derek
 
S

smicker

Got a letter today that I cannot learn how to scan into the group. It
is forwarded to me through my MP Christopher Mole but it is from
Suffolk County Council. BAsically it says basically " The legislation
is now changed, and allows for close relatives to be paid as carers
'where the responsible authority is satisfied that securing the
service from such a person is necessary to meet satisfactorily the
prescribed person's need for that service'" Statutory Instrument 2003
No 762.


I have also received a mail from the Rowan Organisation saying the
process is about to be tested under the human rights act.
smicker
 
A

anthonyberet

Bill said:
Now Peter/Pete that's not nice calling the main posters trolls. I
<reply) to anybody who wants to post. I have looked round for years
to find friend and my friends where just a post away. I'd love to be
able to see these friends <But> I might see one or two running up
the stairs when they've said they can't <oops> <forgive>
Gosh I really missed something didn't I?
I should get out of uk.gov.social-security more often ;-)
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

anthonyberet

Bill said:
Well put derek. he's started something here he can't prove. I don't
know where he wanted to go with this post.
Anthony needs to relise this now.
I realised it on Saturday mate ;-)
 
A

anthonyberet

smicker said:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:02:48 +0100, "anthonyberet"

snipped troll

It's taken a long time but at last you seem to be getting there LOL.
Its an interesting insight, thanks for that. All the anti-asylum stuff just
clouds the issue though...
 
A

anthonyberet

smicker said:
The argument was that asylum seekers can not get the same as English
people when quite clearly they not only get the same but could get
more because English people have to wait in the queue
The school-dinner queue? ;-)
The argument was nothing of the sort..
behind all these
folks to get to see a social worker etc and are often just left
because there is nobody fighting for them.I don't care what asylum
seekers get as long as English folk get the same and they do not. That
is my gripe, not the immigrants getting too much but the locals not
getting enough.
Can you be specific about what it is you think the asylum-seekers get that
British citizens don't?
Ask yourself, is this more or less than citizens get?
 
A

anthonyberet

smicker said:
How can it be irrelevant then? You have accepted it triggers access to
other funding.
No, you misunderstand.
You don't need recourse to public funds to get free school-meals.
You do need it to get Income Support, but Income Support triggers free
school-meals, not the other way around.
Free school-meals are not a benefit, and are legislated for under the
education system (afaik).
-Local education authorities have an obligation to educate everyone who is
habitually-resident and of school-age, whatever their national or
immigration status.
Surely you wouldn't have that any other way??
 
A

anthonyberet

bnd777 said:
Charity begins at home and right now theres so many UK jobs being
shipped to India that many UK workers are in dire need of charity
Sure as hell all these Illegal Asylum seekers are not entitled to our
hard earnt cash and taxes
Better send them to India then! ;-)
Put "usenet" in the subject-line if you want to mail me, otherwise it will
bounce.
anthonyberet
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

smicker

smicker wrote:



God, you are like a broken record!
Whats the point of talking you through the various issues if you just keep
banging on about the same, incorrect beliefs?
It is apparent that you, Richard and I are never going to see eye to
eye about this. You are repeating the same answers as fact and Richard
is also doing the same so it would be better if we agree to disagree
and leave it at that. However, I find it a bit rich that I should be
compared to the bnp just because they speak the same as I do
especially as I have never even read a bnp leaflet.
smicker
 
B

Bill

anthonyberet said:
I realised it on Saturday mate ;-)
Nothing was mean't when I wrote this, I'm trying to think back now to why I
wrote it and what my thinking was behind it.

Bill
 
A

anthonyberet

Derek said:
lol lol

I think he has already kill filed you. He tends to klllfile anyone
that he sees posting that he thinks may be agreeing with, or
supporting, a post from me.
It isn't uncommon. I never killfile anyone myself.
(I pay for my Usenet feed, and why should I block parts of the tapestry).
On the other hand, I don't know you, don't hang out in the same groups as
you, and I tend not to react to individual posters, but individual posts.
-So I should not be taken by anyone as either supporting or attacking
individual posters.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

smicker

Oh so he's wrong and you are right ?

BWAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Do leave off
Unfortunately the argument was apparently being turned to show that I
belong or believe in what the BNP support. As I was arguing against
something that wasn't true no matter how often repeated, i.e. that I
support the BNP, the discussion was becoming pointless. I was right
and still maintain that uk people have more difficulty getting all
their entitlement than asylum seekers do. However just saying that
according to Richard Miller and Anthony Beret is to support the BNP.
In other words censorship is preferable to both of them than a
discussion which in the case of Richard amazes me as he is a lawyer
who I thought would be totally against censorship. I still find that
part very disheartening that censorship should actually come from
uk.legal
smicker
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top