Oh what are we a like my sweet little hoffmeister? A real pair of new starters!

Isn’t it wondrous and just so delicious?

Now you first sweetpea…

How pathetic you are.

We have much to look forward to, but for now sweatpea, you hang up first, I just cant bear too…

Now you hang up first…

Bye now.

Don’t worry, don’t be so anxious, I am here to stay and I will defend you from everyone on this site; no will be able to mess with my little hoffmeister without answering to me to first.

XXXXX

Don’t know where, don’t know when…

XXXXX

XXXXX

But we may ending up meeting in the middle my little hoffy, wouldn’t that be wondrous?

XXXX

I’m spoken for, you’ll have to find another I’m afraid.

Are you excited too my little Hoffmeister? Can I call you that? Could that be our little thing?

I feel like our whole relationship has just blossomed into something beautiful.

Come now sweetpea, don’t be afraid.

XXXXX

Let’s only speak of our wondrous future together.

XXXX

And the alleged exposing is a figment of your imagination.

Brilliant stuff, your own words hang you.

What was meant to be posted was:

@ Lee Griffin

**“You take a man’s word over that of evidence, it says it all.”**

Its not one mans word, it is the minister in charge; it is also an entire committee devoted to the problem and facts like these:

124 of the 256 ‘colleges’ the government deigned to inspect between 2005 and 2008 being found to be bogus? The government admitting that “there could have been more than 2,000 bogus colleges”…

.. on top of all the other evidence I posted.

What evidence counters this?

**“ Wow, that was in full? I said avoided because your answer is cheap and off tangent without addressing the point of my question..”**

Another lie.

You said actually said: “CF you have purposefully avoided this question” when you now admit that I did indeed answer it.

**“I’ll just have to assume you accept that people who have arrived illegally could very well be productive, an economic benefit to the country, but you’d rather they were shipped off out anyway because of some lines drawn in the sand? Well, given your other statement on the subject…”**

Well you don’t have to assume anything mate, I answered it in full and here it is again:

“But if it is really that important to you then the answer is that if they came on a student visa and haven’t stuck to its terms they are illegal immigrants and should be treated as such irregardless of what they may be doing.”

**“The case seems strong that you have the most simplistic view of student immigrants. Legal = good and productive, illegal = bad and drain on economy.”**

Are you for real? Illegal is illegal. How can it possibly benefit us?

**“We have all this evidence which suggests not, you have a guy saying there’s a problem and your complete misinterpretation of statistics.”**

What evidence do you against, opposing the evidence for, in the contention that the student visa system has been massively abused?

**“Poor baby, I’ll bring the kleenex.”**

I can safely assume you’ll be needing the Kleenex for other things Lee.

There is no free exchange of ideas and thoughts, just endless insults, strawmen and weasel words.

I put up valid points based upon reality, where the real people live, and you guys just come up with surreal inventions, outright lies and convoluted nonsense.

**“You were suggesting that most asylum seekers crossed several borders to reach “soft touch” UK.”**

Again you put “speech marks” on something I didn’t say; you did.

**“I was pointing out a major flaw in your argument – I am sure most asylum seekers arrive by air.”**

Based upon what exactly?

And genuine asylum seekers are required to claim asylum at the point of entry. Not use visas to enter and then claim, or overstay and then claim, or enter illegally and then claim.

And the figures of the author of this post clearly states that only 1 in 3 claims at point of entry.

**“Not really insulting is it?”**

Again with the lies.

What you actually said was:

“There’s this magical new invention (I understand why you may not have heard of it, it’s only been around for 80 years or so) called an aeroplane.”

“There’s also another magical invention (again, I understand that it’s only been around for a few thousand years, so fully appreciate why you may have neglected to think about it) called a boat.”

And you now claim that these childish attempts at scorn were not meant to be insulting?

**“I could be insulting if you like, you big twat.”**

Yeah and I could call you a stupid cunt, but that’s not really a debate is it? That’s not what we are here for, is it? Or is it?

**“You just hate it when people point out the flaws in your logic and your (deliberate) misinterpretation of facts to suit your prejudices.”

You haven’t done any such thing! And you now talk as if you know me.

All you have done is totally ignore what I have actually said, invent your own version and attack that. Weird.

**“Obviously there are other major flaws in your argument,
such as we receive our “fair share” of applicants relative to the rest of the EU and 85% of EU asylum seekers apply in other EU countries.”**

Again with the “speech marks” attributing quotes to me that I haven’t made and arguing against your own lies.

I haven’t claimed any such thing. I have clearly stated:

“[the] convention they use to claim asylum also tells them to claim it in the first safe country… when people use one part of a law and convention to claim asylum but break another part of the law and convention by not claiming it in the first safe country these people are not genuine asylum seekers…people that do not claim asylum in the first safe country are not our legal responsibility…If and when Western Europe erupts in civil war and oppressive regimes, then the UK will have to honour its international obligations and take in genuine asylum seekers just in the same way as these other countries else where are now honouring their international obligations.”

**“It’s possible. Our globalised world requires lots of commercial ships to take goods from one part of the world to another.”**

Even if it were even remotely true, and you now move away from everyone arriving via an airplane; but commercial ships dock multiple times around the world on a long haul voyage and at least one on those routes cited would be a safe country; also at the very least, one person in the crew would have to be involved making it the very people smuggling operation I referred to.

**“Though maybe I’m being silly as you say and asylum seekers arriving in this way is a logical impossibility?”**

It’s also a logical possibility that they have used air balloons to arrive, and maybe even rode the backs of dolphins; but its not reality is it? Or do you have evidence that that it is a major route in?

You take a man’s word over that of evidence, it says it all.

“The question has already been answered in full.”

Wow, that was in full? I said avoided because your answer is cheap and off tangent without addressing the point of my question. I’ll just have to assume you accept that people who have arrived illegally could very well be productive, an economic benefit to the country, but you’d rather they were shipped off out anyway because of some lines drawn in the sand? Well, given your other statement on the subject…

“If they are genuine, I am talking about the significant numbers that are not.”

The case seems strong that you have the most simplistic view of student immigrants. Legal = good and productive, illegal = bad and drain on economy.

“And you really believe that the student visa system hasn’t been massively abused?!!”

We have all this evidence which suggests not, you have a guy saying there’s a problem and your complete misinterpretation of statistics.

“Typical malicious fluff from an idiot who cannot debate so seeks to discredit instead.”

Poor baby, I’ll bring the kleenex.