Sorry, OLM - It's Too Important

No, it just shows that they don't always have the time or energy. Tell you what - I'll post a pro article and you can go through it, telling us what you don't agree with. Yeah?

 

Especially given the immigration which has taking place towards these islands over the centuries.

 

Admit it. You have just made that up. Alternatively can you provide a link for your comment?

 

Try one. Or can I assume that you have plenty of time to come on here ranting and abusing people but you don't have the time to engage in any sensible conversation?

 

I'm not so sure. Time watch did tests on skeletons and also some of the programme team as a consequence of some research that showed that by far the majority of people in the UK could show a distinct and direct link to the very early inhabitants from before it was cut from mainland Europe and the impact of settlers from other shores was minimal in that respect.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)

Here's the key part: "the 1967 Referendum overturned an act named the "Flora and Fauna Act" in which the indigenous Australians were governed and managed under the same portfolio as Australian wildlife."

So **** Australia.

 

Polly13 Yvette Cooper called for us to take 10,000 genuine refugees, it looks like the government are drawing up considered plans to take 15,000 from refugee camps, which would be acceptable to most Brits if we have conditions and firm policies to crackdown on traffickers and bogus asylum seekers, how many do you think we should let in?

 

Yes, I saw that, but it wasn't the majority at all.

 

I don't know. I would need an awful lot of information, an awful lot of time and an awful lot of extra expertise at my hand.

I know one thing, though - this country is incredibly wealthy, which is why those with the wealth keep telling us who don't have it that it's not wealthy.

 

You perhaps saw a different programme, the one I saw categorically stated an overwhelming majority.

 

No need to apologise, Peter. It's easy to call bluff when you're losing an argument

 

I'll have to reacquaint myself then.

 

You seem confused. That was nothing to do with whether they were human or not. It was to do with which government department had responsibility for their homes. They lived in the countryside so it was the same department as dealt with the rest of the countryside. To say they were not classified as human is simply untrue.

 

No worries, it's a side issue anyway, and it looks like you've your hands full now.

 

Of course it was. Jesus, you're a proper apologist, aren't you?

 

All tha

That's the view of mark Colvin, a reporter

 

And whichever way you chose to interpret it, Australia is still not a nation I want to take such lessons from.

 

Don't even THINK about coming to Australia, we're FULL! (And your boat will be stopped)!