₦airaland Forum

This is discussed already, and the general theme is that it is a joke. . . . . Isn't?

xxGARETHxx:
Every body uses religion as a catalyst to enhance what ever they are doing. . .such as politics (elections), war (Crusades), and even violence (example al Qaeda). . .Religion is kind of a joke now adays. . .every one uses it how they like.

Islam is a true religion, you plonker! Allahuakbar.

You have a point. But remember, the whole "theatre and drama" thing started on stage, and if memory serve me right, there are people doing the same things. BabaSala is a name we cannot ignore, heck I have a few of his play (trip to london, baba gateman) on mp3. Also, don't forget he made the movie "mosebolatan" which was badly pirated. Oh and before that, he had another popular movie, but can't remember the name.

My point is that he's been around possibly since the time of Ogunde too. Ishola Ogunshola was doing stage drama from way back too. He even made it into a family business by employing his numerous wives to play various parts.


I think the Nigerian public was crying out for entertainment then, and given the fact that Bollywood was cheaper to get on VHS back then, it was what everybody watched. Chinese movies started getting popular in the 80s after "Kung Fu fighting" was adopted as one of the most popular sports lol I think.

Religion and Politics are one of the greatest threats to mankind. I am of the opinion that the world will be a better place by far, without religion.

By the way, I wouldn't say he was the founder of nollywood. He was amongst the fore-fathers, but not exactly the founder.

I mean there have been actors and movies around the same time as his two most popular movies. Don't forget that these folks started on stage and doing "Theatre" as it is called back home, before shooting movies.

I think it is fair to credit others too - Oga Bello, Baba Sala, Aluwe, Ray Eyiwunmi and his group, Isho Pepper (Ishola Ogunshola) etc. Those are the people who in my opinion cleared the path to what is now nollywood.

He is one of the best during his time. Respect to him.

Gosh, it takes Becomerich to point out the obvious to Jakumo. I love it!


What I find hypocritical of Jakumo is one of his post where he criticises Kosovo for his use of big words - Even though we know it is all in good humour for most part of Kosovo's post. Yet this Jakumo guy is doing similar thing. Nice one Jakumo.



Just to paraphrase what others have mentioned in my own style. The use of "Big English" words where simple one will do, is just retarded. The use of complex bullshit to try and confuse people when debating is idioticcccc. So all you muppets who see the need to come across as "learned" are just fcuktards. Yeah sue me or take on me if any one of you dare.


@Becomerich

Not a fan of yours, but nice one for exposing these suckers, and explaining to them that communication is about people who may be reading/listening understand what one is saying.

I agree, however deep down in me I sometimes feel that a nation's identity/culture/ideologies etc may have to be protected. Looking on the history of Buka, I do not think it is unfair to say it is repressive to women, and probably cast women as second class citizen.

What does this have to do with a national identity/culture/ideologies I hear you ask? Well, UK stand against all forms of inequalities and a member of the nations that signed up to the double-edge sword Human Rights Act of 1998. One can argue that the ideologies behind wearing a burka is in violation [/i]of Article 3, 5, 10 and possibly Article 4. But then, the same HRA can be used for defending against such [i]violations.

I think what am trying to say before I lose my point is that the MP, may have a ground for trying to propose a Private member's bill.

Burka wearing is very alien to the UK way of life. Also, there is also the simple element of human nature. As humans, we are used to seeing people's face when we interact with them, so it is against human norms in this part of the world I guess.

As per the ban, I very much doubt it would get the desired support, as the mood of the UK public is not the same as those of Belgium or France.

Nice one guys for keeping this up. I think this thread goes to show the one-sided approach some posters around here take.

Let us just keep this one up there for all to see, and if possible let us make references to it when debating with those Ayatollah's of Nairaland.

@FLG

It is expected that at the end of the self ban, Nigerian football would have improved. Hopefully too, FIFA should have cleansed itself of interference, through negligence, of Nigerian football.

In over 40 years time, electricity cannot be maintained or improved, how they heck are we gonna make dramatic changes in two years when it comes to foot ball? I am not convinced.


EDIT
Instead of dealing with the issue, the Journalist appeared to be pointing fingers at FIFA, what a joke.

infobut:
@ Elrazur
Just so that you know it's impossible to get a positive probe on a sitting body,Believe me NFF officials will frustrate any probe.Besides Fifa is also losing out on this one too cos less Nigerians interest in football is bad business for FIfa.If you read in between the lines you will find where an audit as been ordered so i believe the presido is just putting them aside so that they can't frustrate the auditing.Fifa is just a useless body if you ask me and i think it's time government of the world protest over their  bullying mentality(That is what it is). Except you are trying to tell me there is a country whose government will want to interfere badly in it's national football association i don't see any reason why government shouldn't interfere. Be it melodramatic or not i think Goodluck is trying to invite the Fifa officials and when they come Monday this issue will be resolved amicably.He just did the invitation in such a way to pass a message i understand very well.

How can it be impossible, when such probe was never given a fair chance? Surely, the suspension of all the people involve most likely means it will be highly improbable to gather an audit as those who hold the needed information may be no where to be found as they are on suspension? No?

In fairness to Jonathan, he probably wanted the best, but he's gone about it the wrong way, and his actions may well prove to be counter productive.

How is FIFA bullying anyone, when all they did was remind Jonathan that there are rules, and as such member states are bound by these rules?

The English FA is bad too, but you do not see the Prime minster or the Queen throwing her toy out of the pram, simply because England performed woefully, even though they have one of the finest players in the world. Instead, the FA have ordered a systematic probe to highlight what the problems are and to come to a solution over time. Surely, Nigeria could possibly adopt this sort of approach instead of the Dictator-style Jonathan is employing at the moment? No?

Travelista:
No offense but politics and corruption are very much involved in this issue. When you have elected officials traveling to SA with family and staff on the government dime, it's an issue of corruption. When you have officials that make decisions based on how big a kickback they'll receive, you have corruption. FIFA does not run Nigeria, Jonathan does. If government money goes towards NFF and it's not running properly, he has the right to take action. FIFA's codes and regulations can NEVER supersede the well-being of a member nation; that doesn't happen and if Nigeria were to roll over and take it, then we're beyond redemption.

I'm still waiting to hear how a sporting organization trumps a nation's sovereignty.

The issue of corruption is endemic in Nigeria, we are forever corrupt, and no denying this. You see, if there have been mismanagement of fund like some have suggested, I would have expected that the normal protocols are followed? Like I said before, this will be.   .    .   .  say auditing their accounts, and then compiling a case against them. I mean, that will be the order to go, and not the way he has done it so far.

FIFA is an independent body, and in order to keep the game reputable, there are rules member states have to play by. As it stand, Nigeria is not playing by the rules am afraid.  Jonathan in my opinion, acted in a moment of madness or should I dare suggest he is getting power drunk.

A sporting organisation in this case is FIFA, and as it stand controls everything about the game. I'm sorry, but your point of sovereignty is a weak. FIFA is not asking Nigeria not to create a new state, nor it it telling Jonathan to do something that is affecting the nation's sovereignty as it stand. It is instead asking Nigeria to respect the rules of the organisation and not to interfere as stipulated in the rules Nigeria's FA signed up to.

You see, these things are two different things and as such please let us not thread that line of argument.


Can you please explain to me as to how this benefit Nigeria's footballing future? Bear in mind, we are losing funding, we wont be recognised in any fifa sports - and this is not just foot ball player, but it will probably affect referees who may be needed to blow for international tournament, training etc. I don't know about you, but this is a step backward. I mean, after all said and done, FIFA may not recognise the people Jonathan may appoint, then what? What an own goal.

Travelista:
People complain all the day long about Nigerian corruption and when you get someone that wants to put an end to it, complaints abound! FIFA's demands can never supersede that of a sovereign nation; how are people confused about this? Let Nigeria be banned for a while if it means the house will be put back in order. I don't get it: we JUST witnessed what an inefficient NFF can do and now we want to have that embarrassment all over again because we want to watch some matches? GTFOH. Dismantle the damn thing and come back fresher and stronger; you can't operate without putting the patient to sleep, so let the ban remain until further notice.

FIFA is made up of Footballing Association in each member states. These members have to abide by codes, rules, regulations and other code of conduct that they signed up to. Breaching any of these will bring out consequences. As it stand, FIFA is playing by the rules. On the other hand, Nigeria's Jonathan is merely interefering and crossing this lines. This have nothing to do with Politics or anything. This have nothing to do with corruption. If Jonathan uses his head rightly, he should have reaslise that there are procedures. That is, let him prove they are corrupt, and then work along side with FIFA to bring about order.

As it stand, Jonathan is going down the wrong path. Any association formed after his intervention will not be recognised, so we can kiss good bye to international events when it comes to football. Who is losing out? Which ever you look at it, it is the Nigerian that are losing out.

I am not sure the move by Jonathan is a well thought out one to be honest. It is nothing but an own-goal, and probably one we will regret in the near future.

Nigeria as a we know is are perpetually rubbish in having a long term plan, and actually sticking to it. Hence the quick withdrawal of the national side from all tournament appears to be a move that will most likely be counter-productive. Not only will funding be withdrawn, but any major tournament is out of the question. Surely, you do not cut your nose to spite your face?

A lot have been said about how Jonathan is only trying to frustrate the corrupt officials, but this is not the way to go? I mean, who sleeps with their mother in order to get to their father? Jonathan's move is a poorly thought out on in my opinion.

As it stand, FIFA have over all control of these aspect of what Jonathan is trying to weigh in on. If I was him, I would have had a date with FIFA's leader in order to iron out all these alleged corruption issues, or perhaps I am missing something here.

Let's not forget that we have an election coming up in 2012, there will be attention elsewhere and little focus on the NFA etc. I just really hope this is not an own goal, but no matter how I try to play it out in my head, it is just coming back as an own goal.

4 Play:
What a self-regarding ignoramus. I pointed out why they are wrong using my own arguments. I pasted articles to show you anyone can copy and paste and to show you the prevailing view among most economists on the subject of immigration.

Can you respond to my copy and paste using your own arguments?

How can it be wrong when all you did was reinterpret a data? I.e You appeared to redefine competition as accepting low wages and potential poor working conditions. How is that proving the original data wrong? Jeez. Interpreting a known factor so as to favour your view point, do not prove anything wrong or right. It is merely a view point. Oponu.

Look, not to go round and round again. You subscribe to the school of thoughts that Immigration is needed right? On the other hand, I believe that should it be regulated better than it is right now, and I welcome the move the current government is looking at. You see, it is not as hard like you are making it.

If anything, you seem unable to distinguish between wanting a tightly regulated control - caps et al - and not wanting immigrants. I think that is the misconception right there, and that is your problem with me. By all means, let immigrant come, but let us have a cap on those who can come here.  Seriously, nothing is about to change that view point of mine.

4 Play:
It's also a vehicle for any ignoramus like you who can't articulate a coherent argument to copy and paste material that they deem supportive.

Let's have a debate. Let's take the issue of the effect of immigration on working class wages. If you,instead, want to have a battle of copy and paste, I'm off work tomorrow, so I will give you a run for your money.

It is a bit rich that you used google for your debate to at least look for articles that supports your view point, but when I do the same you have the guts to talk. Dude you are awesome.

How about we stick to the debate at hand? Even better, how about you stick to your views and let me do the same? 

By the way, I will be busy tomorrow making sure another immigrant who is putting a strain on the NHS have their blood result analysed on time. As we are not allowed to refuse treatment to those who may be putting strain on NHS. What a muppet.

I posted two links and it killed all your points, you reacted by pasting views that supported yours. I suppose you want a chain-reaction type effect over this? I choose not to.

As it stand, the cap will most likely go-ahead anyway, so does it change anything you are proclaiming here in reality? Probably not. Dunno why I never viewed it that way all along.

Nice debate I will give you that. It takes nothing away from me.

As for Google and what not, using a search giant for sources is not exactly news in internet debate or is it?

4play, some other time.

You are not about to change my view.




Edit

You want me to admit your view point, under the ruse of I haven't thought it through and through? Don't make me laugh. Look, I do not go round corners when it ain't needed. You clearly are saying things from an economist point of view, it is not my strong point I admit. However, it is not to say I am accepting your argument is right and my view is about to change.

I can forge right ahead and copy from sources that are offering a counter argument that backs my view, but I am not sure I like that approach. Hey, you made your choices, and I respect that. My choices are not about to change for you or your view point.

Kobo

Yeah makes sense. Was thinking along battery for operation of the panels itself. Totally forgot about storage. Thanks.

In bed here, so keeping it simple.

So all in all you disagree with view point which shows that immigration is not as beneficial like you are claiming? Nice.



Dude, it is obvious, economics is not my strong point, but it do not make my understanding or view point wrong or irrelevant. I happen to share the views of those who knows better than you. And as it stand, I am standing by my view point and theirs that immigration is not as beneficial like you are claiming. Oh, I also welcome this whole immigration cap approach. Sue me.

Trying to link my view point with that of BNP just shows how really are full of poo. Honestly.

http://www.theologian.org.uk/audio/images/jaffa.jpg


Jafa cakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes


Official site

http://www.ilovejaffacakes.com/


I am sure they are not illegal.

FLG

Me I can't think right now. I am high on Jaffa cakes.

Not sure how the whole thing works fully though.

FLG

Toxicity to battery is irrelevant. That is like saying GM meat is bad for the population. Let the population eat first lol.


Kobo

5k dolapos? Omo that na big money for the average naijans.


EDIT

Solar panels use battery?

Maybe somewhere to store the electricity, but not sure it uses battery. Any expert in the house?

FLG

I know that Nigeria have very good Sunlight intensity. My proof? I get dark when I go Lagos after a week. So Solar panel will get enough sunlight, but am not sure it will get enough to power a fridge, tv and air condition lol. You will need very large solar panels to do this. This means money which many cannot afford in one go.

Kobo

You need a big panel generating plenty wattage to power your house

There is one used in spain, and it have the ability to track the sunlight, and clean itself. Not everyone can afford stuff like that. Yes, it is good for naija, but it is expensive to implement it as it stand to power your whole house for you daily electricity need.


Edit

I'm in bed and am half here and half in dream land lol. but Im sure I make sense above lol.

How is he mad?

If my cousin is fit, gosh I will screwdrive her jare. Kini big deal?

Fhemmmy:
This is a good point.
I am surprised that not almost all the homes in Nigeria re on this already.
I am shocked that even the govt of Nigeria is not encouraging people to invest in stuff like that, despite the fact that they have nothing to offer the people.
They could be free of NEPA or whatever they are called

The technology is not fully viable yet. It cost shit loads of money to have a solar panel powering your house solely. Then there is the issue of have to clean the panels as they attract dust and get smudge and dirt over them. This can reduce the amount of life intake etc.

Don't get me wrong, if you have the money, you have it fitted and maintained, but it beats the whole idea of cheap and free energy jare.

Kenny_G:
The same naija people are clamouring for "Local content" in their own country yet are slamming the UK for attempting to sort out their own issues, at the end of the day UK govt have to do what it feels right for its people and not bow to the whims of others

No you must be racist to talk about immigration. Or like some logic suggested here, it is wrong for you to talk about capped immigration simply because you are black in England. What a joke.

Muppets looking for cheap labour are getting upset, perhaps they should pay the ideal wage just like any other legitimate business?  Gosh.

4 Play:
Schmuck, let me lay out for you the logical conclusion of your idiocy:

1:Resources are limited

2:Immigration is a strain on resources

3:It follows from the above 2 points that your presence in the UK is a strain on resources as your presence is the outcome of immigration.

Tell me where I'm wrong in the above.

You are an Imbec!le.

At the time my parents were here, the strains are not felt. 60s 70s. And there was never a society ill-feeling towards immigrants, as a result of strain on the infrastructures and society itself.

I am not sure how your points apply to me. What more do you have.


Yes resources are limited. Only a thick-headed individual will argue other wise. Heck, the earth itself is limited in resources. What a muppet.

4 Play:
What kind of  vermin thinks asserting that something is a fact makes it one? A country's resources are effectively infinite as long as the economy keeps growing. How do you think the British Isles has managed to keep up with the explosion in population over 2 millennia?

Ideally, I was expecting you to disprove how and why resources are not limited. Using the most obvious example, there is a limit to how much houses can be built in any particular geographical location, which in turns affect number of people who can live there etc.  So I guess using your logic, there will be continuous emergence of new houses forever in a particular geographical area?   Even using your last argument of building skyscrapers, there is still a limit to which can be built, and as such goes back to the original point that resources are limited. Nice one.

What slowpoke thinks that it is in the interest of the Govt to curtail economic growth on the basis of some harebrained notion of limited resources? The parts in bold illustrate your strawman's argument. No one here has called for 'unchecked' or 'unregulated' immigration. If your comprehension is limited, I obviously can't help you.

Oh please, the Lords Economic Affairs Committee are asking for capped immigration, in order to help with economic growth and other economical reasons. Take time to read that, it practically poo all over you half baked theories. Oh, one of them so happen to be an Economist too. Shocker.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3656171.ece

It's not a shot at your parents but a statement of the obvious. If resources are limited and immigration is a strain on resources then your parents', presuming you were born here, migration to the UK is arguably parasitic on the UK's 'limited' resources.

Dude your arguments are weak. My Parents aren't here when the strains of immigration is obvious like it is right now. Any more? If anything, your attempt to make a cheap point, just goes to buttress my point that immigration needs to be checked. There is so much this nation can take.

What has your uninformed rants to offer on the sustainability of present immigration levels. So the views of the CBE, economists and the business community is irrelevant and your benighted views more salient?

Economic growth pays for the NHS. Any curtailment of immigration which undermines economic growth will undermine the NHS. Get that into your silly head.

It is weird, but here is someone saying otherwise here too.
http://jcwi./2010/05/19/cap-in-hand-a-limit-on-migration-serves-best-those-who-are-already-here/

I await your reply on the issues he raised there with figures to back it up.

No, the NHS receives budget and allocation, such allocation are not from you so called benefits that the immigrants add to the economy.

To even suggest that the NHS isn't under-strain in some areas as a result of Immigration is just idiotic. Practically, every NHS trust in SE London falls in these category. But yeah, I expect you to claim otherwise.

I'm of the view that the UK needs more outside labour because it helps economic growth. How do numpties like you think your public services is paid for without the economy growing? I'm obviously not in support of an 'open door' policy but I think the UK could do with more migrants.

You really are daft. Here is the reason why:

Immigration should be capped, according to a parliamentary report published today which concludes that record numbers of new immigrants have had “little or no impact” on economic well being.

Some groups, including the low-paid, young people seeking jobs and some ethnic minorities, may have suffered because of competition for work from immigrants willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions.

And other one why you are very daft:

It is evident that the immigration levels of the last decade have caused significant problems as well. Since 1997 the UK has seen the largest and most sustained rise in immigration in the UK’s history, a five-fold increase in the ten years to 2007.

Recently published figures have shown that 512,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the year to December 2008, little change on 527,000 in the year to December 2007. These figures show the pressure immigration places on public services such as housing, health and schools.

Grants of settlement also rose by 19 per cent from 124,855 in 2007 to 148,740 in 2008. This fact shows that the pressure on public resources, imposed by high immigration numbers in recent years, will be permanent.

All taken from the two links I provided.

There are many parts of the UK that lack migrants, why don't you move there. I'm sure you will find an abundance of 'resources'

.

You are clever.  

Migration makes UK industry wage competitive, supplies skilled labour and curtails the demographic time bomb. Of course, a benighted ignoramus like you can't comprehend the implication of this.

Stop saying the same thing over and over. I am guessing this is your definition of competition?  ".   .   .   .  the low-paid, young people seeking jobs and some ethnic minorities, may have suffered because of competition for work from immigrants willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions. "

No thanks. But I am sure the Local Builders and those with similar jobs will disagree with you.

UK immigration needs to be changed,  it needs more immigrants. I will take the views of economists and the business community more than your idiotic views.

No it do not. There is enough here already, let us employ the cap/controlled approach. Even the economist you are banging on, actually agree to this.


I will be awaiting your reply to those links.

Using some of the logic around here, it is all good to support lax/unchecked immigration simply because of the colour of one skin and where one may come from? Awesome. While ignoring the issues and problems that comes with it?

4 Play:
Your points are moronic. The talk about limited resources is unfounded as immigration aids economic growth which increases resources.

Resources are limited. Fact. Resources should be managed effectively. Fact.  Anyone saying other wise is a pleb. Since you appear to be talking the same poo from last time, allow me to remind you that as a nation, it is in the interest of all for immigration to be controlled, whether immigration aids economic growth or not. As it stand, UK's economy do not rely solely on immigration. No?

I mean, it is like saying Red light districts aids the local economy, but then they shouldn't be in check or regulated. What a joke.

If resources are limited, then the migration of your parents to the UK harms the UK as it is a strain on the 'limited resources'. Unless of course you want to use the convenient excuse that resources only became limited subsequently. You seem to forget that this argument, including the 'limited resources' meme, has been used for decades and was used by the likes of Enoch Powell.

Typical naija man mentality - If you can't argue the point, take a shot at parent. Gosh, you are so clever.

While resources are not infinite, the number of immigration needed to be capped or regulated. Fact. I work in the NHS, and to be honest, I will take what I see practically everyday over your views. It is true, influx of immigrants can be a strain on the limited  resources. NHS is one of the places this model fits in. But I expect you to tell me other wise as to how the NHS have infinite resources etc.

You make misleading claims by talking of uncontrolled immigration and open door policies as if anyone can just get up and relocate to the UK. It's a strawman's argument as no one is in favour of ''uncontrolled immigration''. UK businesses note that there is a severe skills shortage in the UK and that more migration is needed, not less. You, instead, insist on repeating the same ignorant dross about limited resources, a long discredited Malthusian idea when your black backside could as much be deemed as parasitic if you follow your absurd logic to its logical conclusion.

What claims? No, I am asking if you will prefer an open door policy, or a relaxed approach to immigration. So if you are not in favour of uncontrolled immigration, what is your problem when a policy to make UK immigration policy more effective?   Beats me.

As to every government policies sir, there will be opposing ideas, and your views are those of that opposing it. It do not add anything to what is already being said am afraid.

Please using your non-Malthusian ideas, explain to me as to how unchecked immigration benefits say Hosing, Health services etc?

Oh before you start posting the same clap trap, as it stand UK's immigration have been in shambles over years, thanks to the previous government and co, as it stand the perceived idea that the UK's immigration is effectively controlled under the previous government do not stand up to scrutiny.  So any attempt to make it work should be welcome. No?