- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
maybe Latvians are nice? or Pakistan men are handsome?IrishTom wrote:Pakistanis and Nigerians at the top. I, for one, am shocked!
II6 Latvians married Pakistanis in 2009. That seems bogey to me.
According to the CSO, circa 3,500 Latvian females who are resident in the Irish state are aged betwee 15-39 .Once again, the CSO states that only 2,000 Latvian citizens, resident in Ireland, are in a relationship with a non Irish non Latvian citizen Now, only circa 4,500 of all Latvian adults, male and female, are single. Lets say 2,500 of them are women. There are more Latvian males resident in the state than Latvian women. But its the weekend and I am feeling generous.
Are we to believe, that in one year alone, over 4% of single Latvian women resident in the state, fell in love and married Pakistani men? The chances of this are millions to one. Its impossible. Thats before one takes into account the language, cultural and social barriers. Latvians are not very religous, so I dont believe this to be a barrier.
*There are a total of 13,000 Latvians resident in Ireland.
You would had you read the reports on organisations that have been found to be advertising for Marriages of Convenience in those countries.sovtek wrote:I don't get the point of comparing what nationality marry which nationality other than to get MickTom in a tizzy.
Then I would understand a post about the adverts but not how many people from this country marry from another country. It's irrelevant. It's also dearly beloved to make some kind of judgement on whats a sham marriage from the nationality. It doesn't matter.scrudu wrote: You would had you read the reports on organisations that have been found to be advertising for Marriages of Convenience in those countries.
Quite obviously it's not irrelevant considering groups have already been prosecuted for organising Marriages of Convenience for nationals of the countries listed in the figures. The figures don't lie. While it would be disingenuous and plainly wrong to suggest that all marriages between certain mixes of nationality are ones of convenience, it would be equally ridiculous to ignore known facts about financial arrangments that have been transacted in the past between certain nationalities.sovtek wrote:Then I would understand a post about the adverts but not how many people from this country marry from another country. It's irrelevant. It's also dearly beloved to make some kind of judgement on whats a sham marriage from the nationality. It doesn't matter.scrudu wrote:You would had you read the reports on organisations that have been found to be advertising for Marriages of Convenience in those countries.
sovtek wrote:I don't get the point of comparing what nationality marry which nationality other than to get MickTom in a tizzy.
If you want to insult IrishTom, then I suggest you take it offline or send him a PM. Substituting "Mick" for Irish is extremely derogatory. Save it for someplace else?sovtek wrote:Just giving you a little taste of your own.
Personally I don't care what you think or don't think about IrishTom and either way it's completely irrelevant to this thread or point. Again, take it offline! I'm sick of threads descending into "IrishTom's an XXX" and namecalling.Obie wrote:One cannot dispute or deny the fact that Tom is a total disgrace to the vast majority of Irish people. He possesses attributes, which i was unable to find in the vast majority of the citizen of that host nation, when i lived there.
Therefore substituting the Irish from his name, should be interpreted as an honour to Irish decency and not as derogatory.
.....and at what stage does Tom or as it seems to be the case now, that your brief would include Tom taking responsibilities for his reckless posts and condescending remarks on this forum. In saying that I am assuming you have read many of his posts here. If you haven't I suggest you do.scrudu wrote:Personally I don't care what you think or don't think about IrishTom and either way it's completely irrelevant to this thread or point. Again, take it offline! I'm sick of threads descending into "IrishTom's an XXX" and namecalling.Obie wrote:One cannot dispute or deny the fact that Tom is a total disgrace to the vast majority of Irish people. He possesses attributes, which i was unable to find in the vast majority of the citizen of that host nation, when i lived there.
Therefore substituting the Irish from his name, should be interpreted as an honour to Irish decency and not as derogatory.
Regarding the part about "Mick": Sovtek is way out of line substituting Irish with "Mick" regardless of his or your feelings for IrishTom.
BTW, talking about being disingenuous, is the inherent contradiction in your quoted statement intentional? Well I suppose those who have a penchant for generalization will always recourse to doing so even if they try pretending to be rational.Quite obviously it's not irrelevant considering groups have already been prosecuted for organising Marriages of Convenience for nationals of the countries listed in the figures. The figures don't lie. While it would be disingenuous and plainly wrong to suggest that all marriages between certain mixes of nationality are ones of convenience, it would be equally ridiculous to ignore known facts about financial arrangments that have been transacted in the past between certain nationalities.
Where has this been done in this thread? There is only 1 post by IrishTom in this thread and it relates to figures and his speculation on them. Nowhere is anyone being "villified and racially taunted". If you're referring to other threads then take it up there, and don't just search for threads with IrishTom to continue an ongoing feud with him.obie wrote:I think what is more out of line is people being villified and racially taunted by a particular member, because of the colour of their skin or nationality.
The former has not happened in this thread, the latter has.obie wrote:Then again, it does appear, that is not as bad as ones name being substituted .
Yes I have read IrishTom's posts and I have no wish to comment on them at this or any point. On the other hand I see that you and others like Obie have hijacked multiple useful threads by engaging in pointless spats that run over pages. At what point are you going to disengage and adress points raised in threads instead of degenerating posts into meaningless arguments that go absolutely no where? It's exhausting for everyone on the boards.9jeirean wrote:.....and at what stage does Tom or as it seems to be the case now, that your brief would include Tom taking responsibilities for his reckless posts and condescending remarks on this forum. In saying that I am assuming you have read many of his posts here. If you haven't I suggest you do.
No idea what you are talking about here. This makes absolutely no sense.9jeirean wrote:BTW, talking about being disingenuous, is the inherent contradiction in your quoted statement intentional? Well I suppose those who have a penchant for generalization will always recourse to doing so even if they try pretending to be rational.
scrudu wrote:Yes I have read IrishTom's posts and I have no wish to comment on them at this or any point. On the other hand I see that you and others like Obie have hijacked multiple useful threads by engaging in pointless spats that run over pages. At what point are you going to disengage and adress points raised in threads instead of degenerating posts into meaningless arguments that go absolutely no where? It's exhausting for everyone on the boards.9jeirean wrote:.....and at what stage does Tom or as it seems to be the case now, that your brief would include Tom taking responsibilities for his reckless posts and condescending remarks on this forum. In saying that I am assuming you have read many of his posts here. If you haven't I suggest you do.
Case in point is that you still have not addressed any of the points above (marriages of convenience, statistics of those being married) or your insulting use of the term "mick" for an Irish person. Instead you focus on IrishTom who hadn't posted on this thread since 08/05, and now try to turn this into an argument with me. What's the point really? Do you get off on this?
No idea what you are talking about here. This makes absolutely no sense.9jeirean wrote:BTW, talking about being disingenuous, is the inherent contradiction in your quoted statement intentional? Well I suppose those who have a penchant for generalization will always recourse to doing so even if they try pretending to be rational.
Yes I have read IrishTom's posts and I have no wish to comment on them at this or any point.