FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Crossing the channel in a rubber boat.
Crossing the channel in a rubber boat.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry?" Why fly or get the ferry when you can cross in your own private mega yacht. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry?" Oh yes so funny when refugees drown isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry?" Because they don't have the necessary documents and are desperate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry? Because they don't have the necessary documents and are desperate " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not funny at all.Do all the people not have passport offices in the country they are coming from? Get a passport, get a plane!" Are you kidding?!?!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not funny at all.Do all the people not have passport offices in the country they are coming from? Get a passport, get a plane!" Are you for real?!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not funny at all.Do all the people not have passport offices in the country they are coming from? Get a passport, get a plane!" You go live their existence then see how funny your stupid comments are. It baffles me it really does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing?" This is the biggest problem that i can see, we as a country are one of the most populated in europe, we need the other countries to step up and not just wave them through, many are econimic migrants, so are unable to get legal entry to the country, but when here they claim they are scared for their life at home, some are telling the truth, but im sure alot arent, then when they settle and have become legal here they can then bring families in legaly, the whole system is a mess, i know i wouldnt try crossing tha channel in a dingy, but they obviously feel the risk worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! " You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry? Because they don't have the necessary documents and are desperate "Thanks for your answer. They have money to pay traffickers big money but back to the question why not use a passport from there country off birth? Am I wrong in saying if you are born in any country in the world they all have the right to get a passport? Ok maybe not North Korea. And yes the people are desperate I get that. And looks like the UK is the place off choice to so many. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! " Have you spent time in 'The Jungle'? I'm guessing from your attitude you normally voted 'leave' too? When we were part of the EU we had the option to send refugees back if they'd passed through 'safe' countries. That option is no longer available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. " Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!!" Oh..... You're that person  good to know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!!" You reap what you sow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? " If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start" Sadly compassion solved nothing when a boat load turn up on the shore. People are quick to say have some compassion, they’ve been through a lot. Ok, I can sympathise, but whose paying for their house? Their food? How much compassion do you really have? And with the amount trying to come over? Compassion runs real short when you have to start giving out of your pocket | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start" Sorely missing on this thread, I'm afraid. How can people be so ignorant AND compassionless? I'm logging off as this thread has really triggered me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!!" One person doesn’t make a nation, don’t tar all with the same brush ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start Sorely missing on this thread, I'm afraid. How can people be so ignorant AND compassionless? I'm logging off as this thread has really triggered me " So much compassion being slightly triggered is enough to abandon the conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!! You reap what you sow. "Oh I do like an intelligent response  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start Sorely missing on this thread, I'm afraid. How can people be so ignorant AND compassionless? I'm logging off as this thread has really triggered me So much compassion being slightly triggered is enough to abandon the conversation. "Me leaving the thread does not lessen my compassion, just saves me from dealing with the likes of you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start Sorely missing on this thread, I'm afraid. How can people be so ignorant AND compassionless? I'm logging off as this thread has really triggered me So much compassion being slightly triggered is enough to abandon the conversation.
Me leaving the thread does not lessen my compassion, just saves me from dealing with the likes of you"I thought part of having compassion is trying to change peoples thoughts and opinions so that we can reach a point these people can be helped. I guess compassion for you means something else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start Sadly compassion solved nothing when a boat load turn up on the shore. People are quick to say have some compassion, they’ve been through a lot. Ok, I can sympathise, but whose paying for their house? Their food? How much compassion do you really have? And with the amount trying to come over? Compassion runs real short when you have to start giving out of your pocket " I was more talking about the OPS attitude tbh. I agree these things need real plans and real solutions. I dont have the answers, I have ideas but they all have negative impacts on someone and it's a minefield. But being flippant about other humans lives is only going to make the problems worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the answer then? Just house and feed anyone that arrives on our shores in a dingy? If only there were easy answers l. But a little fucking compassion would be a decent start Sadly compassion solved nothing when a boat load turn up on the shore. People are quick to say have some compassion, they’ve been through a lot. Ok, I can sympathise, but whose paying for their house? Their food? How much compassion do you really have? And with the amount trying to come over? Compassion runs real short when you have to start giving out of your pocket I was more talking about the OPS attitude tbh. I agree these things need real plans and real solutions. I dont have the answers, I have ideas but they all have negative impacts on someone and it's a minefield. But being flippant about other humans lives is only going to make the problems worse." I agree, but until we have answers, what is the option outside of sending them back? Your absolutely right that it’s a minefield out there. It’s almost impossible to manage The country can only support so many people. The more we let in, the more that come. I dunno what the solution is, so I choose to not chastise either side. Because I don’t want to see people in trouble turned away. But I don’t know how we can support so many with housing and food | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing? This is the biggest problem that i can see, we as a country are one of the most populated in europe, we need the other countries to step up and not just wave them through, many are econimic migrants, so are unable to get legal entry to the country, but when here they claim they are scared for their life at home, some are telling the truth, but im sure alot arent, then when they settle and have become legal here they can then bring families in legaly, the whole system is a mess, i know i wouldnt try crossing tha channel in a dingy, but they obviously feel the risk worth it." We need other countries to step up? Current refugee numbers from UNHCR: Turkey 3.7 million Colombia 1.7 million Uganda 1.5 million Pakistan 1.4 million Germany 1.2 million UK: by the end of 2018 there were 126,720 refugees, 45,244 pending asylum cases and 125 stateless persons in the UK. That’s around one quarter of a percent (0.26%) of the UK’s total population. Are they coming for all the lovely lovely free money that's entirely worth putting your family into an inflatable dinghy and risking their lives? UK: You’ll be given: somewhere to live £39.63 per person per week on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries (£3/week extra for pregnant women) You will not be given: the payment card if you do not take the offer of somewhere to live any money Compare that to say Germany: According to Germany's Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, asylum-seekers receive €354 ($410) per month, which is approximately €70 less than what recipients of regular social security get, plus housing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes " Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes " Our tax pays to support those born in this country who can’t work (for various reasons) or choose not to, why is this different helping people that have nothing and to put it bluntly they are not likely to just sit at home but actually go to work and provide back into society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes " For someone who doesn't want to chastise either side you are well able to make extremist arguments. There are many many steps between not making jokes about other humans losing their lives and giving up your home to house refugees. But shur it's hard to make a point with a balanced view I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those souring on about why don’t the EU take them, we get the majority, incorrect the figures speak for themselves In 2020, the UK received applications for asylum for 37,550 people (including dependants). This is around three times less than the number of applications received each by Germany (124,380), France (103,370) and Spain (108,225). Around 43 per cent of people seeking asylum in the UK in 2020 were women and children. Overall, eight per cent were children who had arrived in the UK alone without a parent or guardian. " You beat me to it - I didn't have the most up to date numbers! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes For someone who doesn't want to chastise either side you are well able to make extremist arguments. There are many many steps between not making jokes about other humans losing their lives and giving up your home to house refugees. But shur it's hard to make a point with a balanced view I guess" I have a strong view that side because it’s always that side with no answers. It’s easy to stand their and state everyone else and say “have compassion” with no real answers. At least the “send them home” group settle the issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? " Will compassion feed or house anyone without a value? Will standing on the shores next to the dingy saying “you’ve had a rough time” and patting yourself in the back for being so compassionate fix anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes For someone who doesn't want to chastise either side you are well able to make extremist arguments. There are many many steps between not making jokes about other humans losing their lives and giving up your home to house refugees. But shur it's hard to make a point with a balanced view I guess I have a strong view that side because it’s always that side with no answers. It’s easy to stand their and state everyone else and say “have compassion” with no real answers. At least the “send them home” group settle the issue." Settle the issue ? They are human beings, most left because of fear of death, persecution in their country, economic reasons, famine, the list could go on. So send them back to what ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes For someone who doesn't want to chastise either side you are well able to make extremist arguments. There are many many steps between not making jokes about other humans losing their lives and giving up your home to house refugees. But shur it's hard to make a point with a balanced view I guess I have a strong view that side because it’s always that side with no answers. It’s easy to stand their and state everyone else and say “have compassion” with no real answers. At least the “send them home” group settle the issue." The OP didn't make an argument to send them home. I'd still disagree but at least it would just be an opinion I could see some reasoning behind it. Thats not what they did. You can compassionately argue for them to not be allowed access. Send them home also doesn't solve all the issues | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? Will compassion feed or house anyone without a value? Will standing on the shores next to the dingy saying “you’ve had a rough time” and patting yourself in the back for being so compassionate fix anything? " No it won't but you very quickly came up with a flippant amount of money and me, nonsensically, having to give over my house. What do you think we should do with these refugees (who, I might add, soon pay back the pittance that we pay to set them up in this country)? I've dealt with university professors, journalists, doctors, architects and teachers. Do you not think they have any value to add to the country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone here should watch some of Adam Curtis's documentaries and then they would appreciate that refugee crises generally have their roots in the arms trade and Western foreign policy." We bomb them back to the middle ages then get upset when they need somewhere to live, free from the persecution they suffer in their former homes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? Will compassion feed or house anyone without a value? Will standing on the shores next to the dingy saying “you’ve had a rough time” and patting yourself in the back for being so compassionate fix anything? No it won't but you very quickly came up with a flippant amount of money and me, nonsensically, having to give over my house. What do you think we should do with these refugees (who, I might add, soon pay back the pittance that we pay to set them up in this country)? I've dealt with university professors, journalists, doctors, architects and teachers. Do you not think they have any value to add to the country?" I’m saying I dunno what the answer is. And we’re talking illegal immigration here, not legal immigration. Considering there’s a 10,000 fine for employing one knowingly I dunno how much they add to society here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? Will compassion feed or house anyone without a value? Will standing on the shores next to the dingy saying “you’ve had a rough time” and patting yourself in the back for being so compassionate fix anything? " Just train up all the refugees to drive you're petrol trucks and problem solved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? Will compassion feed or house anyone without a value? Will standing on the shores next to the dingy saying “you’ve had a rough time” and patting yourself in the back for being so compassionate fix anything? No it won't but you very quickly came up with a flippant amount of money and me, nonsensically, having to give over my house. What do you think we should do with these refugees (who, I might add, soon pay back the pittance that we pay to set them up in this country)? I've dealt with university professors, journalists, doctors, architects and teachers. Do you not think they have any value to add to the country? I’m saying I dunno what the answer is. And we’re talking illegal immigration here, not legal immigration. Considering there’s a 10,000 fine for employing one knowingly I dunno how much they add to society here" If they are illegal they cost us nothing either. If you don’t register as an asylum seeker, refugee or immigrant you won’t get any help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes me wonder. Let’s say we had a compassion vote. Vote yes and you are considered compassionate. You’ll pay an extra 5% tax on all your earnings and your house could be used to house anyone that comes across illegally. All the money earned from your tax goes towards housing feeding and clothing them. You also get a compassionate badge You vote no and your exempt from all this. I wonder how many in here that are so quick to throw shade at others for not having compassion would vote yes Alternatively, just make sure large corporations pay their taxes and you wouldn't have to be so punitive on the rest of the population. You're literally putting a value on compassion? Do you know how many empty houses are in this country? Do you know the net worth that immigrants to this country provide? Will compassion feed or house anyone without a value? Will standing on the shores next to the dingy saying “you’ve had a rough time” and patting yourself in the back for being so compassionate fix anything? No it won't but you very quickly came up with a flippant amount of money and me, nonsensically, having to give over my house. What do you think we should do with these refugees (who, I might add, soon pay back the pittance that we pay to set them up in this country)? I've dealt with university professors, journalists, doctors, architects and teachers. Do you not think they have any value to add to the country? I’m saying I dunno what the answer is. And we’re talking illegal immigration here, not legal immigration. Considering there’s a 10,000 fine for employing one knowingly I dunno how much they add to society here" Do you even understand the process that you don't have any idea how to fix? When refugees arrive here on a boat, they are essentially illegal immigrants and have their passports taken (if indeed they had one in the first place or they didn't lose it in the English Channel along with the rest of their belongings). They are then placed on bail and if they breach that bail they once again become illegal immigrants and if found will no longer have to right to request residency and will more than likely be held in a detention centre and then deported. Now do you see how illegal immigrants aren't a financial burden. They have no rights to anything from the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry? Oh yes so funny when refugees drown isn’t it?" Exactly!  x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are economic migrants. You are meant to claim asylum in the first country you get to, not travel through dozens. " A) No they're not and B) No they're not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry? Because they don't have the necessary documents and are desperate "Escaping the war and pestilence in France I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are economic migrants. You are meant to claim asylum in the first country you get to, not travel through dozens. A) No they're not and B) No they're not." You are wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironic isn’t it? When a country sells weapons to despotic regimes or to fuel conflict and then complains when people flee those places and end up on their doorstep. All profit has a price, better get used to paying it. " It's a good point you make and not sure it's as simple as don't sell arms to a genocidal despot and refugees will no longer arrive..., wonder how many are pitching up to china or Russia or Israel or Croatia, Qatar, Saudi et al.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This has to be 1 of the worst threads here in a very long time "I agree. Genuinely upset by the flippancy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironic isn’t it? When a country sells weapons to despotic regimes or to fuel conflict and then complains when people flee those places and end up on their doorstep. All profit has a price, better get used to paying it. It's a good point you make and not sure it's as simple as don't sell arms to a genocidal despot and refugees will no longer arrive..., wonder how many are pitching up to china or Russia or Israel or Croatia, Qatar, Saudi et al.. " Have you looked at the data for how many refugees etc different countries take in? The Middle Eastern countries have taken a very sizeable amount of people from the likes of Syria, Iraq etc. Ditto Turkey. I see them every day in my line of work. Country of birth - Syria. Nationality - UAE or Saudi or Turkey etc. Some of the countries you mention are busily persecuting their own citizens, to the point where they may need to leave as asylum seekers etc. China. Russia - both terrible places to be gay, a political opponent or a whole bunch of other things that'll get you sent to a "re education" camp etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironic isn’t it? When a country sells weapons to despotic regimes or to fuel conflict and then complains when people flee those places and end up on their doorstep. All profit has a price, better get used to paying it. It's a good point you make and not sure it's as simple as don't sell arms to a genocidal despot and refugees will no longer arrive..., wonder how many are pitching up to china or Russia or Israel or Croatia, Qatar, Saudi et al.. Have you looked at the data for how many refugees etc different countries take in? The Middle Eastern countries have taken a very sizeable amount of people from the likes of Syria, Iraq etc. Ditto Turkey. I see them every day in my line of work. Country of birth - Syria. Nationality - UAE or Saudi or Turkey etc. Some of the countries you mention are busily persecuting their own citizens, to the point where they may need to leave as asylum seekers etc. China. Russia - both terrible places to be gay, a political opponent or a whole bunch of other things that'll get you sent to a "re education" camp etc. " It's like Yvette cooper saying she'd take in a migrant family. She didn't and the vast majority wouldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironic isn’t it? When a country sells weapons to despotic regimes or to fuel conflict and then complains when people flee those places and end up on their doorstep. All profit has a price, better get used to paying it. It's a good point you make and not sure it's as simple as don't sell arms to a genocidal despot and refugees will no longer arrive..., wonder how many are pitching up to china or Russia or Israel or Croatia, Qatar, Saudi et al.. Have you looked at the data for how many refugees etc different countries take in? The Middle Eastern countries have taken a very sizeable amount of people from the likes of Syria, Iraq etc. Ditto Turkey. I see them every day in my line of work. Country of birth - Syria. Nationality - UAE or Saudi or Turkey etc. Some of the countries you mention are busily persecuting their own citizens, to the point where they may need to leave as asylum seekers etc. China. Russia - both terrible places to be gay, a political opponent or a whole bunch of other things that'll get you sent to a "re education" camp etc. It's like Yvette cooper saying she'd take in a migrant family. She didn't and the vast majority wouldn't. " In what way is it like that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! " Doubt your trip was to a refugee camp though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing?" They probably already have family here... And you know the lack of shit is not their fault, right? People can be so disappointing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry? Because they don't have the necessary documents and are desperate " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing? This is the biggest problem that i can see, we as a country are one of the most populated in europe, we need the other countries to step up and not just wave them through, many are econimic migrants, so are unable to get legal entry to the country, but when here they claim they are scared for their life at home, some are telling the truth, but im sure alot arent, then when they settle and have become legal here they can then bring families in legaly, the whole system is a mess, i know i wouldnt try crossing tha channel in a dingy, but they obviously feel the risk worth it." Are you serious? Many other European countries take far more refugees and Asylum seekers than we do. Also Spain is the most densely populated country in Europe. We are the 7th. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why not just fly or get the ferry? Because they don't have the necessary documents and are desperate
Thanks for your answer.
They have money to pay traffickers big money but back to the question why not use a passport from there country off birth? Am I wrong in saying if you are born in any country in the world they all have the right to get a passport? Ok maybe not North Korea.
And yes the people are desperate I get that.
And looks like the UK is the place off choice to so many."My Canadian friend who I went to University with couldn't get a work visa for the UK even after getting a graduate job after completing a degree at a UK university so it's just not that easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!! You reap what you sow. "And what is that supposed to mean exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe if people had more compassion about boat loads of refugees in 1939-1945, my family would be a damn sight bigger than it is now. The Oswald Moseley brigade saw to it that hyperbole about the cost and where would they work and who would pay etc condemned millions of people to death in horrific circumstances. We work with international students. Many are wealthy and privileged (they have their own issues) but many are not. We have refugees and other similar young people studying with us - I dare any of you naysayers to look a young man in the eye, who witnessed his parents being hacked to death in his African country; compelled to serve as a child soldier and who has witnessed countless friends killed in war and unrest, and say that he should not be here studying. Studying to better himself so that he can eventually go back to his country, when it is safe, to rebuild it. He and many like him are here thanks to charitable organisations and philanthropy. Thank fuck there are some charitable and philanthropic individuals and organisations out there. I have colleagues who volunteer with refugee and asylum seeker charities in their spare time. The vast majority of the people they support have a skill, trade or qualifications that we are lacking at the moment in the UK. But they are not allowed to work to pay their way, they rely on a pittance of a handout (per previous posts) and their skills/qualifications lie dormant. The next time you whinge about no NHS dentists - there's a bunch of them living in crappy digs, unable to pick up an oral drill. When your A&E wait is 15 hours? There's loads of highly skilled emergency care doctors and a bunch of nurses standing in soup kitchens. Pissed off that you can't get a carpenter or plumber or electrician? Plenty of those freezing their tits off with no coins for the 'leccy meter too. Plenty willing to work in cafés, restaurants, labouring on building sites, picking fruit - all the things it would seem that UK nationals aren't so keen on, but they can't, they're not allowed! Delays in processing applications for asylum and granting all manner of paperwork means people wait years and years, all the time wanting to do something productive with themselves! Who in their right mind would put their small children and spouses in a dodgy dinghy, if they thought they were safe and able to support their families where they were?! Or are we suggesting everyone who makes the trip has a death wish and is the height of irresponsibility? As for "France is nice", perhaps try the bits where they've come from and see how long you last. It ain't Butlins "Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are economic migrants. You are meant to claim asylum in the first country you get to, not travel through dozens. A) No they're not and B) No they're not. You are wrong " No I'm not, as I explained earlier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threads like this are so depressing. I really do think some people are either wilfully ignoring facts or are incredibly thick. The same old arguments everytime and still they ignore the facts. "We must be the biggest mugs in Europe... the UK does so much more ... gives so much more ... the only country to stick to the rules". Where on earth do you get this crap from? It takes literally minutes to discover how ridiculous these ideas are. Thic, I'm actually a big admirer of you on these forums. I see you stand your ground when what you've said is repeatedly misrepresented and twisted but honestly, you've disappointed this time. I admire your ability to see both sides but to praise the "send them back" side for having a solution when no-one else does is frankly shocking. The "let them come and we will assess their need and, if genuine, offer asylum" camp also have a solution. It's the solution that is already being used. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it isn't an option. That aside simply offering a workable solution isn't of itself anything to justify an argument. There's plenty of people that would advocate firing on their boats and leaving them to drown. That's a solution - but one that carries barely less weight than the "send them back" argument. Many would simply be shot were they to be sent back. Why do we all have to see the world as them and us all the time? Mr" We usually are on opposite sides on any kind of discussion/debate on here but I actually totally agree with absolutely everything you have said here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!! You reap what you sow.
And what is that supposed to mean exactly? "It means because an asylum seeker who at the moment appears to have no known terrorist connections but has been sectioned for mental health issues failed to kill anyone but himself we are all suddenly at risk. Let's ignore the fact that 6 women and one man are killed every month in domestic assault cases alone. These immigrants are a real threat donchaknow 
Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me these people coming across in boats pose a security threat. They are destroying their papers and throwing their phones away. So we don't know who they are they could be Isis Fighters for all we know. Some people are conveniently overlooking the fact. That most these people come from cultures where Women are less than second class citizens. Even the labour MP Lisa Nandy who is pro immigration and a remainer was complaining just the other month about asylum seekers in a hotel harassing young school Girls. https://www.wigantoday.net/news/mp-calls-for-wigan-hotel-to-stop-housing-asylum-seekers-after-incident-involving-schoolgirl-3391661 " And yet my actual, first hand experience, hasn't witnessed any of this. They often have phones (but no chargers), they usually have papers or a passport unless it's been lost or was never issued because the regime they came from didn't want them to leave the country. I work with lots of young women. Only once have I seen any of them shown any disrespect because of their gender and he was an arsehole anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work with those refugees. Spend an hour or so listening to their stories, or imagine spending 6 months in their shoes and you wouldn't be so eager to 'send them back where they came from'. Where? France?? I've been to France quite a few times and it's very nice! You should go on the stage mate, hilarious. Yes but it's not funny! Living in London I'm continuously worried about security and when the next nutter is going to stab a load of innocent people or blow up a car. Obviously haven't seen the news this week and what happened in Liverpool!! You reap what you sow.
And what is that supposed to mean exactly?
It means because an asylum seeker who at the moment appears to have no known terrorist connections but has been sectioned for mental health issues failed to kill anyone but himself we are all suddenly at risk. Let's ignore the fact that 6 women and one man are killed every month in domestic assault cases alone. These immigrants are a real threat donchaknow
Mr"Think the real questions with Liverpool is to ask, why he was still out and about on the streets 7 years after being rejected to stay here. Has Priti got any answers yet? Shouldn't let one crackpot make ys loose sight of the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me these people coming across in boats pose a security threat. They are destroying their papers and throwing their phones away. So we don't know who they are they could be Isis Fighters for all we know. Some people are conveniently overlooking the fact. That most these people come from cultures where Women are less than second class citizens. Even the labour MP Lisa Nandy who is pro immigration and a remainer was complaining just the other month about asylum seekers in a hotel harassing young school Girls. https://www.wigantoday.net/news/mp-calls-for-wigan-hotel-to-stop-housing-asylum-seekers-after-incident-involving-schoolgirl-3391661 And yet my actual, first hand experience, hasn't witnessed any of this. They often have phones (but no chargers), they usually have papers or a passport unless it's been lost or was never issued because the regime they came from didn't want them to leave the country. I work with lots of young women. Only once have I seen any of them shown any disrespect because of their gender and he was an arsehole anyway." Similar. I work with people from the countries being stereotyped here and almost every single male I deal with is polite, deferential and keen to learn from me. In almost 8yrs, I've had a mere handful of rude or openly sexist students to deal with. In previous roles in mainly white British establishments, I was disrespected far more often, including have chairs thrown at me and comments made about my sex life. This is my personal experience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me these people coming across in boats pose a security threat. They are destroying their papers and throwing their phones away. So we don't know who they are they could be Isis Fighters for all we know. Some people are conveniently overlooking the fact. That most these people come from cultures where Women are less than second class citizens. Even the labour MP Lisa Nandy who is pro immigration and a remainer was complaining just the other month about asylum seekers in a hotel harassing young school Girls. https://www.wigantoday.net/news/mp-calls-for-wigan-hotel-to-stop-housing-asylum-seekers-after-incident-involving-schoolgirl-3391661 And yet my actual, first hand experience, hasn't witnessed any of this. They often have phones (but no chargers), they usually have papers or a passport unless it's been lost or was never issued because the regime they came from didn't want them to leave the country. I work with lots of young women. Only once have I seen any of them shown any disrespect because of their gender and he was an arsehole anyway." Yeah well for arguments sake if terrorists were trying to get into this country. I'd imagine that they would put a act on and play nice . Or even if they was a gangster, people smuggler or any other kind of criminal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me these people coming across in boats pose a security threat. They are destroying their papers and throwing their phones away. So we don't know who they are they could be Isis Fighters for all we know. Some people are conveniently overlooking the fact. That most these people come from cultures where Women are less than second class citizens. Even the labour MP Lisa Nandy who is pro immigration and a remainer was complaining just the other month about asylum seekers in a hotel harassing young school Girls. https://www.wigantoday.net/news/mp-calls-for-wigan-hotel-to-stop-housing-asylum-seekers-after-incident-involving-schoolgirl-3391661 And yet my actual, first hand experience, hasn't witnessed any of this. They often have phones (but no chargers), they usually have papers or a passport unless it's been lost or was never issued because the regime they came from didn't want them to leave the country. I work with lots of young women. Only once have I seen any of them shown any disrespect because of their gender and he was an arsehole anyway. Yeah well for arguments sake if terrorists were trying to get into this country. I'd imagine that they would put a act on and play nice . Or even if they was a gangster, people smuggler or any other kind of criminal." I worked with criminals for 5 years before I started this job. I'd rate my chances of noticing a bullshitter over yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me these people coming across in boats pose a security threat. They are destroying their papers and throwing their phones away. So we don't know who they are they could be Isis Fighters for all we know. Some people are conveniently overlooking the fact. That most these people come from cultures where Women are less than second class citizens. Even the labour MP Lisa Nandy who is pro immigration and a remainer was complaining just the other month about asylum seekers in a hotel harassing young school Girls. https://www.wigantoday.net/news/mp-calls-for-wigan-hotel-to-stop-housing-asylum-seekers-after-incident-involving-schoolgirl-3391661 And yet my actual, first hand experience, hasn't witnessed any of this. They often have phones (but no chargers), they usually have papers or a passport unless it's been lost or was never issued because the regime they came from didn't want them to leave the country. I work with lots of young women. Only once have I seen any of them shown any disrespect because of their gender and he was an arsehole anyway. Yeah well for arguments sake if terrorists were trying to get into this country. I'd imagine that they would put a act on and play nice . Or even if they was a gangster, people smuggler or any other kind of criminal. I worked with criminals for 5 years before I started this job. I'd rate my chances of noticing a bullshitter over yours." Unfortunately you don't fill me with confidence that you can spot people who wish to do us harm. Especially with that last comment, in fact you come across as being quite naive. Anyway I'll leave it at that Mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing? This is the biggest problem that i can see, we as a country are one of the most populated in europe, we need the other countries to step up and not just wave them through, many are econimic migrants, so are unable to get legal entry to the country, but when here they claim they are scared for their life at home, some are telling the truth, but im sure alot arent, then when they settle and have become legal here they can then bring families in legaly, the whole system is a mess, i know i wouldnt try crossing tha channel in a dingy, but they obviously feel the risk worth it. Are you serious? Many other European countries take far more refugees and Asylum seekers than we do. Also Spain is the most densely populated country in Europe. We are the 7th." Spain has a population density of 94 people per square km. The UK is 243 people per square km. Spain is well down the population density list! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing?" The bit you're missing is facts. 1) We're not full, the Netherlands for example has a higher population density. The reason there aren't enough hospitals and doctors is a simple lack of funding that has been the case for the last decade or so, plus that healthcare costs increase far higher than inflation globally. Same with schools, housing, and infrastructure in general, all underfunded. The one thing that is funded really well is are armed forces, with the UK being one of the few NATO countries to meet its 2% commitment of GDP. Why do you think we don't have an army/navy/air force? We've got a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent, new aircraft carriers, Typhoons, and F23's. Why are they desperate to get out of Italy, Greece, France? The unemployment rate in France is 8.5% compared to 4.5% here. In Greece it is 16%. Greece was holding 40,000 people in camps at its peak in 2020 by the way, which when you think they have a population of 10 million compared to the 67 million here, and a far higher GDP in the UK obviously, wouldn't you want to go to a place where you're more likely to get a job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing? The bit you're missing is facts. 1) We're not full, the Netherlands for example has a higher population density. The reason there aren't enough hospitals and doctors is a simple lack of funding that has been the case for the last decade or so, plus that healthcare costs increase far higher than inflation globally. Same with schools, housing, and infrastructure in general, all underfunded. The one thing that is funded really well is are armed forces, with the UK being one of the few NATO countries to meet its 2% commitment of GDP. Why do you think we don't have an army/navy/air force? We've got a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent, new aircraft carriers, Typhoons, and F23's. Why are they desperate to get out of Italy, Greece, France? The unemployment rate in France is 8.5% compared to 4.5% here. In Greece it is 16%. Greece was holding 40,000 people in camps at its peak in 2020 by the way, which when you think they have a population of 10 million compared to the 67 million here, and a far higher GDP in the UK obviously, wouldn't you want to go to a place where you're more likely to get a job?" Isn't going somewhere for better job prospects entirely different to going somewhere to be safe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't comment, don't comment, don't comment.........................too late! They are desperate to get out of France? Italy? Greece? Aren't these "safe" countries then? Why the UK? Would it be because we are stupid and are the only country in Europe that sticks to the rules? The UK is full! Not enough hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough schools, not enough housing, the roads are a mess, we don't have an army navy or airforce anymore as we have no money! Which bit am I missing? The bit you're missing is facts. 1) We're not full, the Netherlands for example has a higher population density. The reason there aren't enough hospitals and doctors is a simple lack of funding that has been the case for the last decade or so, plus that healthcare costs increase far higher than inflation globally. Same with schools, housing, and infrastructure in general, all underfunded. The one thing that is funded really well is are armed forces, with the UK being one of the few NATO countries to meet its 2% commitment of GDP. Why do you think we don't have an army/navy/air force? We've got a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent, new aircraft carriers, Typhoons, and F23's. Why are they desperate to get out of Italy, Greece, France? The unemployment rate in France is 8.5% compared to 4.5% here. In Greece it is 16%. Greece was holding 40,000 people in camps at its peak in 2020 by the way, which when you think they have a population of 10 million compared to the 67 million here, and a far higher GDP in the UK obviously, wouldn't you want to go to a place where you're more likely to get a job? Isn't going somewhere for better job prospects entirely different to going somewhere to be safe? " Not really if you are having open borders and accept economic migration then we figure we would be much better of in the states , also want free health care and be put up in a Hotel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not funny at all.Do all the people not have passport offices in the country they are coming from? Get a passport, get a plane!" Judging by the frozen bodies that fall from landing aircraft, some people try and get a plane without having a passport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me these people coming across in boats pose a security threat. They are destroying their papers and throwing their phones away. So we don't know who they are they could be Isis Fighters for all we know. Some people are conveniently overlooking the fact. That most these people come from cultures where Women are less than second class citizens. Even the labour MP Lisa Nandy who is pro immigration and a remainer was complaining just the other month about asylum seekers in a hotel harassing young school Girls. https://www.wigantoday.net/news/mp-calls-for-wigan-hotel-to-stop-housing-asylum-seekers-after-incident-involving-schoolgirl-3391661 And yet my actual, first hand experience, hasn't witnessed any of this. They often have phones (but no chargers), they usually have papers or a passport unless it's been lost or was never issued because the regime they came from didn't want them to leave the country. I work with lots of young women. Only once have I seen any of them shown any disrespect because of their gender and he was an arsehole anyway. Yeah well for arguments sake if terrorists were trying to get into this country. I'd imagine that they would put a act on and play nice . Or even if they was a gangster, people smuggler or any other kind of criminal. I worked with criminals for 5 years before I started this job. I'd rate my chances of noticing a bullshitter over yours. Unfortunately you don't fill me with confidence that you can spot people who wish to do us harm. Especially with that last comment, in fact you come across as being quite naive. Anyway I'll leave it at that Mate "I'm far from naive, and have no idea what would draw you to that conclusion? What I am also not however, is a bigoted arsehole who thinks that everyone with a slightly different colour skin and that worships a different sky fairy, is out to do me mortal harm, when no evidence suggests this to be the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is." it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen "Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900. Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900.
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?"no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff! BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900.
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!"You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on. This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive. So you are wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900.
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!"Churchil:'The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril. ' Why? Because Britain couldn't feed itself with a population of 47 million back in WW2. So unless you're proposing to kill half of the indigenous population as well, your argument is flawed. We can, obviously, continue to have enough resources for everyone though by importing food. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find endlessly surprising on threads like this is how many people seem so willing to advertise just how horrible a human being they are, showing no compassion, empathy, sympathy or anything to people who in many cases are fleeing war, murder, abuse and so many untold hardships. It beggars belief, it really does. Says quite a lot about many that they are prepared to make such jokes or statements about this when people are drowning in the sea for the temerity of seeking a better life for themselves and their family." Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find endlessly surprising on threads like this is how many people seem so willing to advertise just how horrible a human being they are, showing no compassion, empathy, sympathy or anything to people who in many cases are fleeing war, murder, abuse and so many untold hardships. It beggars belief, it really does. Says quite a lot about many that they are prepared to make such jokes or statements about this when people are drowning in the sea for the temerity of seeking a better life for themselves and their family." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find endlessly surprising on threads like this is how many people seem so willing to advertise just how horrible a human being they are, showing no compassion, empathy, sympathy or anything to people who in many cases are fleeing war, murder, abuse and so many untold hardships. It beggars belief, it really does. Says quite a lot about many that they are prepared to make such jokes or statements about this when people are drowning in the sea for the temerity of seeking a better life for themselves and their family." Absolutely, and once you have met a migrant and realised what they have gone through, how much they are working for a better life for themselves and whichever country they settle in, you cannot believe that other people don't feel the same way. That so many people are against people coming over, but that they've never met any of them themselves says everything. We're full apparently, except no one can actually point out a single person they've met that is making us full. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffs" I do have a grip pity are government hasn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't " if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ?" don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel." Re benefits Do you know the benefits an asylum seeker gets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel. Re benefits Do you know the benefits an asylum seeker gets?" A pittance at £5.66 a day! Yeah worth risking ur life for that! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900.
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong."so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900.
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports "Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that. Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900. Again cut and paste. Please try and be accurate ongoing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Without imports of food we'd have starved at any point from about 1900.
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
Churchil:'The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril. ' Why? Because Britain couldn't feed itself with a population of 47 million back in WW2. So unless you're proposing to kill half of the indigenous population as well, your argument is flawed. We can, obviously, continue to have enough resources for everyone though by importing food. "Its not an argument lol im asking if its really a good idea to be unable to feed yourselves on a basic level.... looks like the people on fab thinks that is fine... lol I personally think you have to be a moron to over populate an area too such an extent that you depend on others, like babies. And doing so is not an act of kindness but an act of foolishness | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing. "Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no? "You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above. I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you."Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed... "Oh dear. The points are extremely relevent. Get to it please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed...
Oh dear.
The points are extremely relevent.
Get to it please. "Yes it is very relevant, can we feed ourselves? that was my question before you started your waffle, it only required a yes or no and you start going on about 1930 and north korea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed...
Oh dear.
The points are extremely relevent.
Get to it please.
Yes it is very relevant, can we feed ourselves? that was my question before you started your waffle, it only required a yes or no and you start going on about 1930 and north korea "This is where you shoot yourself in the foot, again, the only one talking about 1930 is you. You are advocating adoption of the North Korean policy of juche. I've been in studiously polite to you, gently pointing out where you have made silly errors and encouraging you to make amends. Your response seems to be to double down on the errors, see above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed...
Oh dear.
The points are extremely relevent.
Get to it please.
Yes it is very relevant, can we feed ourselves? that was my question before you started your waffle, it only required a yes or no and you start going on about 1930 and north korea
This is where you shoot yourself in the foot, again, the only one talking about 1930 is you.
You are advocating adoption of the North Korean policy of juche.
I've been in studiously polite to you, gently pointing out where you have made silly errors and encouraging you to make amends.
Your response seems to be to double down on the errors, see above."your right you said 1900 not 1930... (that was elsewhere) but in the scheme of things it doesnt make any difference to the main issue... can we feed ourselves? you clearly have no intention of answering that question boris | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel." The majority do stay in mainland Europe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed...
Oh dear.
The points are extremely relevent.
Get to it please.
Yes it is very relevant, can we feed ourselves? that was my question before you started your waffle, it only required a yes or no and you start going on about 1930 and north korea
This is where you shoot yourself in the foot, again, the only one talking about 1930 is you.
You are advocating adoption of the North Korean policy of juche.
I've been in studiously polite to you, gently pointing out where you have made silly errors and encouraging you to make amends.
Your response seems to be to double down on the errors, see above.
your right you said 1900 not 1930... (that was elsewhere) but in the scheme of things it doesnt make any difference to the main issue... can we feed ourselves?
you clearly have no intention of answering that question boris "Actually it makes a huge difference in the scheme of things. Did you miss out the bit about the green Revolution? I've told you when I would answer that question, it's in the thread. Try again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel. Re benefits Do you know the benefits an asylum seeker gets? A pittance at £5.66 a day! Yeah worth risking ur life for that! X" They don't even get that until they've been properly processed. Until then, they get fed and a bed, no cash at all. Though I'm sure some of the people on this thread would begrudge them that too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel. Re benefits Do you know the benefits an asylum seeker gets? A pittance at £5.66 a day! Yeah worth risking ur life for that! X They don't even get that until they've been properly processed. Until then, they get fed and a bed, no cash at all. Though I'm sure some of the people on this thread would begrudge them that too." Yes I'm sure they would sadly! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed...
Oh dear.
The points are extremely relevent.
Get to it please.
Yes it is very relevant, can we feed ourselves? that was my question before you started your waffle, it only required a yes or no and you start going on about 1930 and north korea
This is where you shoot yourself in the foot, again, the only one talking about 1930 is you.
You are advocating adoption of the North Korean policy of juche.
I've been in studiously polite to you, gently pointing out where you have made silly errors and encouraging you to make amends.
Your response seems to be to double down on the errors, see above.
your right you said 1900 not 1930... (that was elsewhere) but in the scheme of things it doesnt make any difference to the main issue... can we feed ourselves?
you clearly have no intention of answering that question boris
Actually it makes a huge difference in the scheme of things.
Did you miss out the bit about the green Revolution?
I've told you when I would answer that question, it's in the thread.
Try again."Im bored of you, really, its not funny or clever banter, its just boring... you have no point just endless...what about china, boris didnt do up his shoes, it could rain, i never said it would i said it could la la la have fun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is impossible to put more and more people on an island and it not impact that island... Anyone who says different is deluded. Can the uk actually feed itself? if we went to war tomorrow and supply lines were cut we would starve to death! but we could then blame Boris of course for letting it happen
Are you advocating a north Korea style economic approach?
no we wouldnt have! population was 30 million its now over 68 million and we havent got more land to plant stuff!
BUT thanks for demonstrating and agreeing with my point... its a very good idea to be able to feed your own citizens!
You missed out the green Revolution brought about by the use of pesticides and fertilizers which took place from the 20's on.
This means that land is more productive, so although we had less people, the land was less productive.
So you are wrong.
so you now think we can feed ourselves? and you have evidence of this? because in your previous post you claim we have starved from 1900 onwards without imports
Firstly I have never said we could feed ourselves now. Feel free to cut and paste where I have said that.
Secondly I have not said we have starved since 1900.
Again cut and paste.
Please try and be accurate ongoing.
Do you think the uk can feed 68 million plus, us or no?
You know I'll answer right after you do the cut and paste as above.
I realize that you are trying to divert from your little mistakes and I don't blame you.
Are you related to kier? pointless points? You cant bring yourself to admit that we must be stupid having more people than we can feed...
Oh dear.
The points are extremely relevent.
Get to it please.
Yes it is very relevant, can we feed ourselves? that was my question before you started your waffle, it only required a yes or no and you start going on about 1930 and north korea
This is where you shoot yourself in the foot, again, the only one talking about 1930 is you.
You are advocating adoption of the North Korean policy of juche.
I've been in studiously polite to you, gently pointing out where you have made silly errors and encouraging you to make amends.
Your response seems to be to double down on the errors, see above.
your right you said 1900 not 1930... (that was elsewhere) but in the scheme of things it doesnt make any difference to the main issue... can we feed ourselves?
you clearly have no intention of answering that question boris
Actually it makes a huge difference in the scheme of things.
Did you miss out the bit about the green Revolution?
I've told you when I would answer that question, it's in the thread.
Try again.
Im bored of you, really, its not funny or clever banter, its just boring... you have no point just endless...what about china, boris didnt do up his shoes, it could rain, i never said it would i said it could la la la have fun "Your bored ? Your trite blatantly wrong comments have not exactly been inspirational. No body mentioned China, no mention of BoZo Johnson's shoes. You just make things up. If you stay on topic and post accurate comments it may help you ongoing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees?" Why shouldn't they?? X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel. Re benefits Do you know the benefits an asylum seeker gets? A pittance at £5.66 a day! Yeah worth risking ur life for that! X They don't even get that until they've been properly processed. Until then, they get fed and a bed, no cash at all. Though I'm sure some of the people on this thread would begrudge them that too. Yes I'm sure they would sadly! X" no don't no about benefits yet never been on except sick pay but I don't think they should get any money until they have been assed and if refused that's it nothing no help with rent food send straight back personally we don't need them or want them most I see in Sheffield aren't asylum seekers just young migrants that don't want to fit in but carry on as they are still in there countries.yes im racist I no but who cares | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X" Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country?" Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x" By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country?" The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit?" By their own definition. They are the only ones that get a say when they cross an international border. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is." So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit?" No upper limit! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit? No upper limit! X" So if we accepted, say, 20m...what about jobs, housing, schools, transport? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I don't understand most of my friends and family can't wait to get to Europe for 2 weeks in the summer yet these people carry on saying it's not nice we want england am I missing something or are my friends lying to me how good Europe is.it’s not nice we want England really mate get a grip ffsI do have a grip pity are government hasn't if they are saying how good Europe is but wamt England have you asked them what does want England mean ? don't think you understood what I was saying my friends love going to Spain France Greece for there holidays they always go on about how nice the places are how nice people are so why do people after traveling from there countries not settle there instead come to raciest horrible england for me can only be because are councils are soft and benefits are good family here or not should not be a reason to allow them in I'd have more respect and empathy for them if they came through the proper channels not the English channel." Do your friends stay in "the Jungle" camp in Calais, or the rundown, shabby suburbs of Paris, such as Gare du Nord? Do they stay in a tented refugee camp on the island of Lesbos, with limited sanitation and lack of access to healthcare? Do they stay there for years and years and years while the authorities in that country park about and fail to process their applications to remain or frankly ignore their duty to do anything? If your friends ARE holidaying in these places, then I can suggest some much nicer alternatives. If your friends are going all inclusive to bloody Palma Nova in a four star hotel, costing a couple of grand for a week, then they haven't got a fucking clue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit? No upper limit! X So if we accepted, say, 20m...what about jobs, housing, schools, transport? " Now u being ridiculous! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit? No upper limit! X So if we accepted, say, 20m...what about jobs, housing, schools, transport? Now u being ridiculous! X" No, I promise you I'm not. You said we should accept anyone. How do you handle the consequences? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x" What part did we play in making Albanians refugees? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting" That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 " No longer fit for purpose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose" correct but they will keep going about it but don't come up with anything them self's other than we are rich loads of space. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? Yes we have to accept the part we played in making them refugees and help these people x By what definition are they 'refugees'? Should we just accept any economic immigrant who turns up? What should be the upper limit? No upper limit! X" that’s the thing when you ask how many they won’t give you a number | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose" Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose" What is the refugee situation like in Spain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records." Bigots? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. Bigots? " Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records." But in what sense are people 'bigots' for not wanting to allow unlimited economic immigration? Because, you may not like to acknowledge it, but it is perfectly clear that most are not actual 'refugees' as the term is commonly understood. So why do you use the term 'bigots'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. But in what sense are people 'bigots' for not wanting to allow unlimited economic immigration? Because, you may not like to acknowledge it, but it is perfectly clear that most are not actual 'refugees' as the term is commonly understood. So why do you use the term 'bigots'?" Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. Bigots? Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." Ah, welcome back. I thought you were stayy away after  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. But in what sense are people 'bigots' for not wanting to allow unlimited economic immigration? Because, you may not like to acknowledge it, but it is perfectly clear that most are not actual 'refugees' as the term is commonly understood. So why do you use the term 'bigots'? Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." Do you think you meet that definition of 'bigot'? Which parts of that definition do you NOT satisfy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. Bigots? Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." How clever. Clever enough to work out that ‘bonce’ is a typo for ‘once’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. Bigots? Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. How clever. Clever enough to work out that ‘bonce’ is a typo for ‘once’." Winding my neck out L O L. Winding it back in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. Bigots? Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. How clever. Clever enough to work out that ‘bonce’ is a typo for ‘once’." Are you ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation." Really? What are the ‘certain circumstances’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation." The EU is preventing refugees from even entering the EU at the Polish border. I call that bigotry by the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Really? What are the ‘certain circumstances’? " Not sure, but I'm not hung up on that. I believe the treaties need rewriting from first principles: that 'refugees' stay in the first safe country that they reach. Anything else is economic immigration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in saying that these young men are coming from France? And that France is classed as a safe country? Why should Britain accept them as refugees? Why shouldn't they?? X Because a 'refugee' is someone fleeing war etc. There is no war in France. Are you saying we should just accept that anyone is a 'refugee' even if they are coming from a peaceful country? The status of France is irrelevant. The only nation statuses that matter are the country of origin (where they lived) and their chosen country of settlement. All the countries in between, whether that is 1 or 101, are irrelevant. And only the refugees get a say in where the destination is. So they can just keep going until they get to where they want to be? If so, international treaties need rewriting That would be the UNHCR that was driven primarily by the British delegation at the UN in 1951 No longer fit for purpose Yes it is. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever changes. Refugees have been upsetting bigots since the earliest historical records. But in what sense are people 'bigots' for not wanting to allow unlimited economic immigration? Because, you may not like to acknowledge it, but it is perfectly clear that most are not actual 'refugees' as the term is commonly understood. So why do you use the term 'bigots'? Bigot a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." Which parts of that definition of 'bigot' would you fail to satisfy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Really? What are the ‘certain circumstances’? Not sure, but I'm not hung up on that. I believe the treaties need rewriting from first principles: that 'refugees' stay in the first safe country that they reach. Anything else is economic immigration." A bit vague, why don’t you message your local MP, start a campaign to get these treaties changed , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Really? What are the ‘certain circumstances’? Not sure, but I'm not hung up on that. I believe the treaties need rewriting from first principles: that 'refugees' stay in the first safe country that they reach. Anything else is economic immigration. A bit vague, why don’t you message your local MP, start a campaign to get these treaties changed ," What part of that is 'vague'? I've reread it and it's perfectly clear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Really? What are the ‘certain circumstances’? Not sure, but I'm not hung up on that. I believe the treaties need rewriting from first principles: that 'refugees' stay in the first safe country that they reach. Anything else is economic immigration. A bit vague, why don’t you message your local MP, start a campaign to get these treaties changed , What part of that is 'vague'? I've reread it and it's perfectly clear" Then why doesn’t the UK use this mystery Dublin treaty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. Really? What are the ‘certain circumstances’? Not sure, but I'm not hung up on that. I believe the treaties need rewriting from first principles: that 'refugees' stay in the first safe country that they reach. Anything else is economic immigration. A bit vague, why don’t you message your local MP, start a campaign to get these treaties changed , What part of that is 'vague'? I've reread it and it's perfectly clear Then why doesn’t the UK use this mystery Dublin treaty? " The Dublin Treaty isn't a mystery. It exists. How would you tighten the legal position up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
