ForumGarden

Watching the news tonight, not that it is new News, the amount of people that are queueing in France, and are being fished from the Mediteranean in small boats en route to a better life.

In the UK we are lead to believe that everyone wants to come here, but there is a massive migration from third world or war torn countries into many European countries.

Can we realistically stop the flow, should we try ?

I believe we should help genuine asylum seekers and when I say genuine, I don't mean the one's who have passed through other safe countries to get here.

I feel desperately sorry for some of them believe It not. The one's who even risk their lives. We can only Imagine what their lives must be If they are willing to risk their lives to get here.

Oscar Farage;1455974 wrote: I believe we should help genuine asylum seekers and when I say genuine, I don't mean the one's who have passed through other safe countries to get here.

I feel desperately sorry for some of them believe It not. The one's who even risk their lives. We can only Imagine what their lives must be If they are willing to risk their lives to get here.


The news showed camps in Calais being dismantled due to an outbreak of an illness that escapes me right now.

They are safe, they then tell of their intension to get to England, others with affiliation to other European countries end up there.

I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders.

Bruv;1455989 wrote: The news showed camps in Calais being dismantled due to an outbreak of an illness that escapes me right now.

They are safe, they then tell of their intension to get to England, others with affiliation to other European countries end up there.

I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders. You mean ' Intention' surely ? Perhaps you went to the same school as the MP you just criticised ?

What Is It that worries you about the Illness's ?

I blame the French for knowing they are there without basic sanitation, food and water and leaving them to rot In the hope they'll super glue themselves to the axle of some continental freight and disappear Into Dover.

They accept no responsibility for their basic needs whatsoever unhtil Cholera or similar breaks out or the numbers get so high, they do a mass dispersal. Yet, where do they think they can go?

I don't pull you for the I's and 'per say' do I ?

The French used the disease as the reason for wrecking the camp.....not me.

Betty mentioned it was the MP's letter that was wrong.......not the posted notice.

The point I made but you managed to avoid ......caught up in the minutiae (don't use that one often enough)...was "I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders."

Bruv;1456000 wrote: I don't pull you for the I's and 'per say' do I ?

The French used the disease as the reason for wrecking the camp.....not me.

Betty mentioned it was the MP's letter that was wrong.......not the posted notice.

The point I made but you managed to avoid ......caught up in the minutiae (don't use that one often enough)...was "I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders."


Why ?

If they are genuine asylum seekers, why can't we take half and the French look after the other half?

Oscar Farage;1456003 wrote: Why ?

If they are genuine asylum seekers, why can't we take half and the French look after the other half?


What about the Italians and how many countries before these people got to Calais ?

In America they have a deluge of Mexicans, Australia has the same problems......there is a massive movement of people looking for a better life both within Europe and from outside trying to get in.

Bruv;1456005 wrote: What about the Italians and how many countries before these people got to Calais ?

In America they have a deluge of Mexicans, Australia has the same problems......there is a massive movement of people looking for a better life both within Europe and from outside trying to get in. There certainly needs to be more accountability but the problem Is sitting at Calais. I see your point though. We are supposed to be a European Union sharing. I honestly don't know what the answer Is. Perhaps, Instead of leaving them to rot at Calais, they could at least be vetted. Those In genuine war torn area's fleeing for their lives, given proper sanctuary and help. Others who have passed through other safe countries just to get to England, deport. But It needs to be a European combined operation.

What about this then as you're on the subject of Immigrants. What's the answer here?

Feelings are running high among people of all backgrounds - but what is striking is that some of the most outspoken are themselves immigrants or children of immigrants who came to Britain in earlier times.

Mohammed Rashid, a 67-year-old market trader and landlord who settled in Page Hall from Pakistan half a century ago, expressed views that are typical.

He said: ‘This is our area and we feel we are being pushed out by these new Roma people. There will be a riot here very soon. I fear that this place might blow up like an inferno. I want back the England I loved.’



Read more: David Blunkett warns of clashes between Roma and locals in Sheffield | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Bruv;1455973 wrote: ..... there is a massive migration from third world or war torn countries into many European countries. Can we realistically stop the flow, should we try ?


Damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we complain too loudly about the immigration problem we already have, we get a bash on the head. If we interfere "over there" so that the population won't need to flee, then we're told to keep our noses out of the affairs of other nations.

Oscar Farage;1456010 wrote: ..... Mohammed Rashid, a 67-year-old ..... from Pakistan ..... said: ‘This is our area and we feel we are being pushed out by these new Roma people ....... I want back the England I loved.’


I assume he's speaking about assimilation ... or the lack of it.

High Threshold;1456314 wrote: I assume he's speaking about assimilation ... or the lack of it. I think, should he have been quoted accurately, the words ' This Is our area' speaks volumes about Integration and assimilation.

Oscar Farage;1456320 wrote: I think, should he have been quoted accurately, the words ' This Is our area' speaks volumes about Integration and assimilation.


You're probably right, but I rather doubt he realizes it himself. "Our area" meaning "Indo-Pakistani" rather than "British"?

Oscar Farage;1456320 wrote: I think, should he have been quoted accurately, the words ' This Is our area' speaks volumes about Integration and assimilation.
I beg to differ, "Our area" in this instance appears to be spoken by a fully integrated migrant group, what town hasn't got a highly respected and assimilated corner shop/chemist/take away Asian or ten.



High Threshold;1456324 wrote: You're probably right, but I rather doubt he realizes it himself. "Our area" meaning "Indo-Pakistani" rather than "British"?


No, not "Indo-Pakistan" most definitely very British.



That is why I posed the question....."I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders." because older immigrants are questioning the major influx of new ones too.

Bruv;1456345 wrote: I beg to differ, "Our area" in this instance appears to be spoken by a fully integrated migrant group, what town hasn't got a highly respected and assimilated corner shop/chemist/take away Asian or ten.





No, not "Indo-Pakistan" most definitely very British.



That is why I posed the question....."I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders." because older immigrants are questioning the major influx of new ones too.


Hold on... If first wave Immigrants are questioning new Influx Immigrants from another country, that's racism Isn't It ?

And who created that?

Oscar Farage;1456348 wrote: Hold on... If first wave Immigrants are questioning new Influx Immigrants from another country, that's racism Isn't It ?

And who created that?


Make your mind up.......questioning immigration is now racism ?

It's all very well arguing over responsibilities etc. but I think you've omitted the most important point - we are an island nation. We are a SMALL island nation and with the best will in the world, and regardless of racism etc etc this little island of ours just has not got the room to take any more people from other countries !!!!!! Sense has to prevail for pities sake !!! Other countries in Europe are far greater in size than we are, and are far better able to accept more people consequently. There is now no room on our shores for more immigrants, and we have got to avoid the feelings of sympathy for these people. Yes they are desparately trying to escape the viscious environment of their home countries (although many are not actually fleeing a problem, they just want the free hand-outs when they get to the UK ). Unfortunately we cannot afford the massive problem of trying to sort the genuine and needy immigrants from the scrounging lazy ones, and we now have so many immigrants, both legal and illegal, that we have got to draw a line and we have to be ruthless. We have to close our borders, otherwise this will cause us to go bankrupt and become a third world country !

It's no wonder there are now hundreds of Brits. moving abroad to get away from what they are afraid will soon happen to our country. Our country just is not big enough to cope with any more immigrants !!!!



By the way, Oscar, what the heck is this business of adding different names after 'Oscar' ? I didn't know that anybody could keep changing their site name like that !

Bruv;1456350 wrote: Make your mind up.......questioning immigration is now racism ? My god that's a turn around.

let's get back to your original question of changing borders etc.

This wave from Africa I believe Is a humanitarian crisis and something needs to be done. But what ? You can not just ask any country with a population of just 64 million to be a dumping ground and that goes for any EU country. It's not about being racist. It's about small countries that are trillions In debt being asked to take more and more burden on the Health system, social housing, benefit and education. The cost will always come down to the tax payer. That Is just not fair among many other reasons.

My answer would be to cut all over sea's aid. The EU to unilaterally fund safe havens In Countries at risk where migrants are putting their lives at risk. Vet every single migrant and welcome genuine asylum seekers fleeing oppressive regimes or who's lives are In danger. Deport those who have passed through other safe countries to get to us. Deport every single Immigrant In our prisons who have been convicted of a serious crime. With the savings and savings In oversea's aid, the EU could do that comfortably without burden on the tax payers. It's all very well until you ask who exactly pays for It.

Then you have the national debt. We have seen welfare reform, cuts In the private sector, cuts In public and Industry, loss of jobs, etc etc because according to Dave, we must be fiscally sound. Fine... but then who and what exactly pays for more Immigration.? When people who have lost their homes and their jobs through cuts then see money lavished on more Immigration, that's how racism starts.

G#Gill;1456352 wrote:



By the way, Oscar, what the heck is this business of adding different names after 'Oscar' ? I didn't know that anybody could keep changing their site name like that !
It's all Bruv's fault....

G#Gill;1456352 wrote: By the way, Oscar, what the heck is this business of adding different names after 'Oscar' ? I didn't know that anybody could keep changing their site name like that !


I think she might be illegal, trying to shake off the authorities.

Oscar Farage;1456353 wrote: My god that's a turn around.


No blaspheming please.....we are a Christian country after all.

I don't think it is......unless you know better.

Bruv;1456356 wrote: No blaspheming please.....we are a Christian country after all.

I don't think it is......unless you know better. Come on, your thread... what do we do about It ?

Oscar Farage;1456354 wrote: It's all Bruv's fault....


That's no answer. Have the rules been changed ? It used to be very difficult to get a name change. You had to have a very good reason to need the name change. Perhaps we should all do that and add extra bits to our original name. Perhaps I could be G#Gill Noteworthy ! :yh_rotfl :p (keeping it musical of course :wah: )

G#Gill;1456360 wrote: That's no answer. Have the rules been changed ? It used to be very difficult to get a name change. You had to have a very good reason to need the name change. Perhaps we should all do that and add extra bits to our original name. Perhaps I could be G#Gill Noteworthy ! :yh_rotfl :p (keeping it musical of course :wah: ) I'm considering ' Oscar Maud Farage Threshold' next.

Oscar Farage;1456357 wrote: Come on, your thread... what do we do about It ?


Seriously ?

I don't know.

I do know that there is a large movement world wide to more affluent countries. One point of view is that if anybody is willing and able to get off their butt and travel half way around the world for a better life, they must be worth taking in. I don't believe they are making the trip on the chance of handouts.

The other point of view, my country for my people, which causes me some problems because I am here by a pure chance of birth, so why should I bar anybody else with more gumption than me.

Bruv;1456362 wrote: Seriously ?

I don't know.

I do know that there is a large movement world wide to more affluent countries. One point of view is that if anybody is willing and able to get off their butt and travel half way around the world for a better life, they must be worth taking in. I don't believe they are making the trip on the chance of handouts.

The other point of view, my country for my people, which causes me some problems because I am here by a pure chance of birth, so why should I bar anybody else with more gumption than me.


I agree.

Cutting overseas's aid will save billions. Some of It ends up In the wrong hands or mis-spent anyway.

But It's like doing a basic profit and loss account.

One side you have Income ie revenue from the population who work and pay tax.

Other side you have expenditure,

When the expenditure outweighs the Income, you can not just keep going back to the working population expecting them to pay more.

Then you see a situation as we have before welfare reform, where It was more financially beneficial to claim welfare than to work on the minimum wage.

There does come a point where enough Is enough and drastic measures must be taken. Deport criminal Immigrants, stop oversea's aid and Invest that money Into the genuine who really need help.

Oscar Farage;1456363 wrote: I agree.

Cutting overseas's aid will save billions. Some of It ends up In the wrong hands or mis-spent anyway.

But It's like doing a basic profit and loss account.

One side you have Income ie revenue from the population who work and pay tax.

Other side you have expenditure,

When the expenditure outweighs the Income, you can not just keep going back to the working population expecting them to pay more.

Then you see a situation as we have before welfare reform, where It was more financially beneficial to claim welfare than to work on the minimum wage.

There does come a point where enough Is enough and drastic measures must be taken. Deport criminal Immigrants, stop oversea's aid and Invest that money Into the genuine who really need help.


I wish you wouldn't say "I agree" and then run off a lot of stuff I don't agree with......as if we are all in total agreement.

Aid from a country as vastly wealthy as ours is a moral obligation, considering the obesity and food waste obscenity here.

It is not all about a basic profit or loss account, aid is normally tied to the country supplying it, we earn from some aid, it an investment in more ways than one.

The benefit system is far too complicated, tax payers subsidise employers who pay low wages by topping up short week working hours.

I firmly believe it is a scam on behalf of big business giving them flexible working hours......at a cost to the tax payer.

Oscar Farage;1456361 wrote: I'm considering ' Oscar Maud Farage Threshold' next.


Why?

G#Gill;1456370 wrote: Why?
Because I can Gilly willy willy :p

Bruv;1456369 wrote: I wish you wouldn't say "I agree" and then run off a lot of stuff I don't agree with......as if we are all in total agreement.

Aid from a country as vastly wealthy as ours is a moral obligation, considering the obesity and food waste obscenity here.

It is not all about a basic profit or loss account, aid is normally tied to the country supplying it, we earn from some aid, it an investment in more ways than one.

.


I agree,

Pay attention to the parts of your posts I highlight. Note that as I use a new line when writing my post.

So you think we benefit from oversea's aid?

The truth is very different. Less than a 10th of Britain's £12bn aid budget goes into humanitarian or emergency aid - the life-saving stuff you see in brochures - and the Department for International Development (DfID) has problems spending that. Most British aid is actually development aid of dubious effectiveness, too much of which goes to inefficient and wasteful multilateral organizations or gets paid directly into the treasuries of the corrupt or incompetent governments.

For lobbyists, aid is all about intentions rather than effect, to be visibly doing something regardless of whether it really helps.

Billions that could be paying for medical operations, nurses, police and other forms of public welfare in the UK are essentially tossed into a void by the one government agency that has not had to become more efficient or make budget cuts.

Continue reading the main story

Jonathan Foreman

Senior research fellow at think tank Civitas - The Institute for the Study of Civil Society

Author of Aiding and Abetting: Foreign Aid failures and the 0.7% Deception

This shows contempt not just for British taxpayers - who are among the world's most generous donors to private charity - but also for the purported beneficiaries of British aid.

Britain should of course respond to humanitarian crises in the world, like the waves of Syrians refugees, or natural disasters like the Asian Tsunami. But that response should not just be a matter of boosting the overall aid budget or of handing more money to institutions that we know are likely to steal it, waste it or give it to the wrong people.

BBC News - Viewpoints: Should foreign aid be spent at home?

Bruv;1456345 wrote: ... "Our area" in this instance appears to be spoken by a fully integrated migrant group ......


Well, there's the heart of the matter. What did he mean? Did he mean Britain or did he mean the Indo-Pakistani enclave? It's a toss up really. He could have meant either of the two.



Bruv;1456345 wrote:

No, not "Indo-Pakistan" most definitely very British.


Really?



Bruv;1456345 wrote: That is why I posed the question....."I think we might have to change our ideas of nationality and borders." because older immigrants are questioning the major influx of new ones too.


Where's the "most definite" part in that? I don't see it. "Older immigrants questioning the major influx of new ones" give no indication either way.

Bruv;1456350 wrote: Make your mind up.......questioning immigration is now racism ?


If you only knew how intersteing that question is to me and the development of the SD party here in Sweden. SD is being labelled racist and even Nazi because they want to revamp our immigration policies. And for all of the bad press SD is getting (brandishing superlatives and layers upon layers of accusations) it really boils down to their view on immigration ..... and nothing more.

Oscar Farage;1456361 wrote: I'm considering ' Oscar Maud Farage Threshold' next.


Yes, and I want 'High Lee Unlikely'.

High Threshold;1456378 wrote: Yes, and I want 'High Lee Unlikely'. I think you should.

Oscar Namechange;1456381 wrote: I think you should.


High Lee Unlikely.

From the same BBC article........

"A quick look at the numbers shows that for every £10 we spend as a country we spend 16p on international aid.

When you add it up we spend less in a year on aid than we do on fizzy drinks.........................................Aid is a tiny investment, but to millions of people it makes a massive difference."

"Well-targeted and transparent international development can create jobs, increase tax collection and support a sustainable public sector. It is about ending aid dependency - in the end, that is the only sustainable route out of poverty."

"Last year saw the biggest ever fall in child deaths from preventable illnesses such as pneumonia and diarrhoea, largely driven by aid investments in vaccines and health. Since 1990 we've cut the number of children dying unnecessary deaths almost in half, from 12 million a year to 6.9 million."

And then there is UKIP's slant....

"It is outrageous that at a time of national austerity, in order to salve his own flabby conscience, Mr Cameron not only wishes to go to war but wishes to pick the pocket of our taxpayers to fund international aid projects."

I honestly believe the purpose of parties like BNP and UKIP and Sweden's SD party is to make the established parties react to public opinion changes.

Non racist people can still be concerned about a large influx of people of different cultures and their affect on a country. The trouble is that racists are the first in the queue whipping up reaction to nasty foriegners, their reasons are racist although they might deny it, most people's concerns are not necessarily racially based.

Mohammed Rashid, a 67-year-old market trader and landlord comments can be manipulated by either side of the racist argument, but as a 25 year established resident, whatever he is saying is worth listening to.

I don't believe he is speaking as an Asian in an asian area because of the " I want back the England I loved." part

I doubt there are many people who'd stop all aid to the third world, if they had the power to do it. What we need (and we're not getting it) is assurances that our money is going to those who need it - not to some heartless warlord who's nicked it and put it up for hard cash sale on the black market. It's OK quoting statistics on how our aid has reduced death by this and that, but if we find out that what we actually sent could have increased those figures by "tons" (had most of it not been skimmed) then I'm not keen on my taxes being sent over there at all.

I am not keen on my earnings being skimmed by income tax and vat either, but that's the way it works.

We get no assurances from government that our money goes where it's supposed to, and that is entirely under their control.

Aid should be monitored and targetted, and where there are suspicious dealings it should be stopped, but just because some gets 'lost' the rest that gets through does so much good the price might be worth it.

Bruv;1456395 wrote: ... Aid should be monitored and targetted .... but just because some gets 'lost' the rest that gets through does so much good the price might be worth it.


You say "might". Perhaps, yes. But I have a very naging feeling that we are paying both ends of the problem.

Just a feeling, but for "X" number of deeds done there are "X+?" undeeds that we finance indirectly and those combat the good we accomplish. Am I making any sense? If one EU is spent on medicine, two EU find their way into the pocket of some corrupt wanker who blocks the availability of the very medicine we've put on the shelf and it reaches its "best before" date without ever being used. I have difficulties accepting that sort of situation.

I wonder how many enriched wankers per hundred childrens lives saved would be acceptable...................Im willing to pay the price.

Of course we need to be vigilant about any monies spent overseas or at home, in the house or money entrusted to the elected government, I suspect there as many at home enriching themselves.......at a lower level perhaps individually....... but at greater cost from the national purse, than the aid snatchers abroad.

Bruv;1456400 wrote: I wonder how many enriched wankers per hundred childrens lives saved would be acceptable...................Im willing to pay the price.


You're determined to embarrass me, aren't you.





Bruv;1456400 wrote: I suspect there as many at home enriching themselves.......at a lower level perhaps individually....... but at greater cost from the national purse, than the aid snatchers abroad.


Call it a gut feeling but I tend to disagree with your projected PERCENTAGES.

High Threshold;1456403 wrote: Call it a gut feeling but I tend to disagree with your projected PERCENTAGES.


Work it out yourself, how many towns have Councilors or Mayors or welfare claimants each taking a few pounds or euros more than they are allowed ?

Doesn't take long for the hundreds to add up to millions.

Bruv;1456406 wrote: Work it out yourself, how many towns have Councilors or Mayors or welfare claimants each taking a few pounds or euros more than they are allowed ?

Doesn't take long for the hundreds to add up to millions.


Are you asking ME how many towns have councilors or Mayors or welfare claimants are taking a few pounds more than they are allowed? Or is that a rhetorical question, just to see if I come clean and come up with the same figure as you? Hardly a controlled, mathematical study that will hold up to the slightest scrutiny. I think I'll trust my gut feeling and say the weight is still on the indigenous thieves who are starving their own countrymen by skimming far more than "a few pounds or euros".

Oscar Namechange;1456381 wrote: I think you should.


I see that YOU did. Not me.

Bruv;1456391 wrote: I honestly believe the purpose of parties like BNP and UKIP and Sweden's SD party is to make the established parties react to public opinion changes.

Non racist people can still be concerned about a large influx of people of different cultures and their affect on a country. The trouble is that racists are the first in the queue whipping up reaction to nasty foriegners, their reasons are racist although they might deny it, most people's concerns are not necessarily racially based.




Have you listened to yourself?

So go on then Bruv, you tell me what the difference Is between a non racist concerned about the effect on their country and a racist voter of the BNP and UKIP ?

You tell me, at what point that concerned non racist becomes a racist.

So define racism. Are you referring to racism when negative discrimination can predetermine a feeling of superiority over other races or positive racism ? The latter a term used by the subversive racist to label others racist whilst having the same Ideology?

From the million members of the BNP, what percentage do you believe are positive racists and subversive racists? How many of those members do you think are ' non-racists concerned about the effect of Immigration on their country' and just have no faith In mainstream parties to curb Immigration?

With Middle England turning to the alleged racist UKIP In their droves two weeks ago, at what point do you think they all woke up one morning and decided to be racist? Or were they all subversive racists In the first Instances who protested ' who me ? Racist? Oh no no no. I'm just concerned about the effect mass Immigration Is having on my country'.

OK .......I throw a house party, my neighbours are invited, the noise of the music and clinking of glasses wafting across town on the still summer nights air has brought in some unfamiliar faces.

At what stage am I unsocial when I send a few gate crashers away?

When some of those sent away are from the next town, am I being 'racially biased' toward out of towners?

The racists are those that jump up and down joyfully when my guests complain about the over crowded house and point out the out of towners as if it all down to them.

Bruv;1456422 wrote: OK .......I throw a house party, my neighbours are invited, the noise of the music and clinking of glasses wafting across town on the still summer nights air has brought in some unfamiliar faces.

At what stage am I unsocial when I send a few gate crashers away?

When some of those sent away are from the next town, am I being 'racially biased' toward out of towners?

The racists are those that jump up and down joyfully when my guests complain about the over crowded house and point out the out of towners as if it all down to them. That's not a reasonable analogy given racism weather positive or subversive Is about the feeling of superiority over another race. What race are your guests?

Throwing gatecrashers out on their ear Is not really In the same league as loathing for another human being based on his colour, creed or country of origin.

We are not talking about the confines of someone's house sharing some pop and cheesy wotsits are we? We're talking about a nation, a culture, millions of people.

Yet, let's say your analogy Is reasonable. If a proportion of your guests are jumping up and down In glee over the gatecrashers being sent packing, then by your same reasoning, only a small proportion of the BNP or UKIP can be real racists.

First......repeat after me.

Whether the weather be hot, or whether the weather be cold, we will weather the weather whatever the weather, whether we like it or not.

Right on to the real stuff.

Back to that party.

Before the place got full my immediate neighbour was harrassing me about my friends from work, asking me where they came from, I explained that I had invited them and they seemed to accept that........even sharing a dance.

Later on when the pubs chucked out and the place became fuller, the neighbour reminded me my workmate was dancing too lively and was taking up space that late arriving freindly neighbours might want to use for their own dance moves.

When my workmate started a conga with more late arrivals, snaking around the whole house and garden, the neighbour was seen trying to recruit other neighbours, some agreed that the house was now too full to enjoy themselves way they did earlier, the newcomers had changed things, some pointed at the newcomers as the problem.

The neighbour's argument about outsiders, out of towners, gained support amongst some of my own family who felt uncomfortable with strangers 'invading' their home.

No doubt the outsiders presence had altered the party, but some people thought the fact they were outsiders was the reason for the change.

My neighbour appeared to feel vindicated he gained support for his aversion to outsiders from some of the group, but they were not afraid of or anti outsiders, they were agreeing the place was fuller than it was before.

Bruv;1456463 wrote: First......repeat after me.

Whether the weather be hot, or whether the weather be cold, we will weather the weather whatever the weather, whether we like it or not.

Right on to the real stuff.

Back to that party.

Before the place got full my immediate neighbour was harrassing me about my friends from work, asking me where they came from, I explained that I had invited them and they seemed to accept that........even sharing a dance.

Later on when the pubs chucked out and the place became fuller, the neighbour reminded me my workmate was dancing too lively and was taking up space that late arriving freindly neighbours might want to use for their own dance moves.

When my workmate started a conga with more late arrivals, snaking around the whole house and garden, the neighbour was seen trying to recruit other neighbours, some agreed that the house was now too full to enjoy themselves way they did earlier, the newcomers had changed things, some pointed at the newcomers as the problem.

The neighbour's argument about outsiders, out of towners, gained support amongst some of my own family who felt uncomfortable with strangers 'invading' their home.

No doubt the outsiders presence had altered the party, but some people thought the fact they were outsiders was the reason for the change.

My neighbour appeared to feel vindicated he gained support for his aversion to outsiders from some of the group, but they were not afraid of or anti outsiders, they were agreeing the place was fuller than it was before.


Then I'm never coming to your parties.

Ok then, you have been to work all week and with your wages, you have thrown a party laying on food and cheesy wotsits.

Your neighbours have contributed by bringing their own alcohol.

The gatecrashers arrive uninvited and eat all your food and drink all your neighbours alcohol leaving very little or none for yourself and the Invited.

You decide the uninvited are doing no harm and can stay.

The food and alcohol run out and because the uninvited arrived destitute, It's you and your neighbours who have to have a whip round and buy more.