Welcome to refugees

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
BringBackFootie. said:
That's fair enough with the gougers, though Diego's map is dealing with the ****s excaping war.

The issue is not current immigration, it's the policies of the past when the economy was good becoming a problem when there is no money.
Ireland similarly literally just opened its borders to the guts of a million people, who after 2008 were suddenly not welcome any more

The immigrants I see here in Finland work the ****tiest jobs or two of them. Like delivering mail on a night shift in winter for buttons ect. Many of them have degrees.
Some of the hardest workers I have ever met were immigrants.

These one size fits all labels are less than useless. Yes there are gougers, yes more numbers stress services, but no one is asking why those services are already stretched and it's not because of immigration.

When left with a choice between poor services and social equality or 100bn for new nukes.

I fail to see the difference between an English gouger and a Syrian one. There are more native gougers than immigrant ones. I mean for ****s sake, many of these are not allowed even work as part of their deal to be allowed stay!
Click to expand...
This debate isn't about immigration in general though, it;s about the refugee issue.

Refugees are people who need humanitarian help as they've had no choice but to escape their homeland. Let's be clear, these people are deserving of assitance, but I would argue that permanent residency in a foreign land is the best solution for all of them.

The UK needs to play it's part though and give refuge to a proportion of those who are genuinely in need of help, as it would be wrong to leave the entire burden on those with the closest borders. However, allowing open borders is ridiculous and we should always remain in control of the flow of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garlic Klopp, Diego, jenners04 and 1 other person
Tobes said:
The naivety around is even more astounding....
Click to expand...

I do recognise that those who are pushing for the UK to do a bit more to receive these people at the borders and to take more refugees are viewed as being naive.

I for one would wish there would be more naivety and less cold calculated cynicism (or realism depending on who you talk to). Of course there needs to be political solution from all countries.

In the meantime, Britain has officially taken 216 refugess and Germany has taken 20,000. Of course these figures are understimates and likely to be larger but it provides an idea of the difference between the 2 countries.

And I do recognise also that we have to put in place systems that would differentiate real refugess fleeing war and persecution and death from those opportunist migrants from other countries who are jumping on the current bandwagon.
 
Tobes said:
This debate isn't about immigration in general though, it;s about the refugee issue.

Refugees are people who need humanitarian help as they've had no choice but to escape their homeland. Let's be clear, these people are deserving of assitance, but I would argue that permanent residency in a foreign land is the best solution for all of them.

The UK needs to play it's part though and give refuge to a proportion of those who are genuinely in need of help, as it would be wrong to leave the entire burden on those with the closest borders. However, allowing open borders is ridiculous and we should always remain in control of the flow of people.
Click to expand...

This is the issue I talked about. Refugees running from death and persecution. Not migrants from non-war countries.
 
The refugees issue can be the begining of the end of European Union, especially
if the burden is on few countries.
Greece have their own problem:you cannot ask them anything.
As for Turkey, I am sure if the refugees are willing to stay there or they are willing
to take any.
 
Tobes said:
This debate isn't about immigration in general though, it;s about the refugee issue.

Refugees are people who need humanitarian help as they've had no choice but to escape their homeland. Let's be clear, these people are deserving of assitance, but I would argue that permanent residency in a foreign land is the best solution for all of them.

The UK needs to play it's part though and give refuge to a proportion of those who are genuinely in need of help, as it would be wrong to leave the entire burden on those with the closest borders. However, allowing open borders is ridiculous and we should always remain in control of the flow of people.
Click to expand...

Why the **** is that so hard for some people to understand?

I notice, though, that Osbourne was decrying the Labour-led rebellion in the House four years ago against committing land forces and bombing in Syria. That was against Assad. Are we now proposing to bomb Assad, or is it Isis? Or both? Do we intent to install puppet governments there like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
That went well.
 
Tobes said:
<yikes>

Really?

The only thing I'd do that with, is a shovel.
Click to expand...

No, I must admit I fancy her. Not as much as 7 years ago, but there's still something 'Miss Ridgeway', my favourite primary school teacher, about her, if you know what I mean.

[HASHTAG]#fantasypervfuck[/HASHTAG]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
The country is full, all public service are stretched to the limit, and then we get all these do gooders claiming we should invite more in, do our bit etc.
We already donate far more than most to overseas aid.This should be redirected to where it is needed.
Maybe what we donate to India should go to Syria etc, do India really need it, the country has a space program FFS
What there should be is a vote whether we should let them in, all those voting yes can have their income tax increased to provide the extra services required.
They need to be helped in their own countries, else everyone will just migrate to Europe
Not being helped by government but charities then each individual can decide the contribution they wish to make
Haveing paid my way for 30+ years in this country, the next time i experience say a several hour wait in A&E, i will like all the do gooders, sit there thinking, oh well, this must be because the system cannot cope,but at least the refugees have been helped.
Bit like the Greek fiasco, looks like i will work to 70 while they retire at 50, sit in the sun,with muggins here bailing them out.

like a rant,can you tell??
 
louis211 said:
The country is full, all public service are stretched to the limit, and then we get all these do gooders claiming we should invite more in, do our bit etc.
We already donate far more than most to overseas aid.This should be redirected to where it is needed.
Maybe what we donate to India should go to Syria etc, do India really need it, the country has a space program FFS
What there should be is a vote whether we should let them in, all those voting yes can have their income tax increased to provide the extra services required.
They need to be helped in their own countries, else everyone will just migrate to Europe
Not being helped by government but charities then each individual can decide the contribution they wish to make
Haveing paid my way for 30+ years in this country, the next time i experience say a several hour wait in A&E, i will like all the do gooders, sit there thinking, oh well, this must be because the system cannot cope,but at least the refugees have been helped.
Bit like the Greek fiasco, looks like i will work to 70 while they retire at 50, sit in the sun,with muggins here bailing them out.

like a rant,can you tell??
Click to expand...


<laugh>

maybe you should ask my those services are stretched? Where has the money gone?
 
Exactly Diego
Charity begins at home.
If we didn't spend as much trying to sort other peoples **** out, and this includes the money spent on military action which has resulted in this
Trying to get rid of all these, dictators/tyrants has kind of back fired. They can't be that bad, nobody wanted to leave then!!
Just creating a void for worse to take over ie IS etc
 
and another thing whilst i am at it
If they really are true refugees, why risk your life even more by getting in a dingy to Europe
Just go to a neighbouring African country, or is that just as **** as your own country
Seems to be a bit more economical to me,or am i just cynical?

If war broke out in Liverpool,and you had to flee for safety,would you choose
1. Leg it to Manchester or Wales
2. Go to some exotic location where you would be welcomed with open arms looked after, given a house etc
 
louis211 said:
Exactly Diego
Charity begins at home.
If we didn't spend as much trying to sort other peoples **** out, and this includes the money spent on military action which has resulted in this
Trying to get rid of all these, dictators/tyrants has kind of back fired. They can't be that bad, nobody wanted to leave then!!
Just creating a void for worse to take over ie IS etc
Click to expand...

Yep, I am told we have "child poverty" here and I know we have people sleeping on the streets I have seen them (in a supposed first world country). Perhaps we should try to look after them first and once our own house is in order we will be in a better position to help others.

I am very cynical about refugees these days, it always seems safety is not enough they want a better way of life and have no intention of returning once the danger has passed.
We have many Somalian " refugees" in Manchester, their country went through a terrible war the likes of which most of us will hopefully never see but, you have to ask how many "safe" countries there are on the African continent which are a bit closer than Manchester/England.
I know in many places the danger may not pass for years and people can't live in a camp for ever, I just fail to see why once people have reached a place of safety they then attack the authorities with demands to be moved to their "desired" destinations quicker.
 
louis211 said:
and another thing whilst i am at it
If they really are true refugees, why risk your life even more by getting in a dingy to Europe
Just go to a neighbouring African country, or is that just as **** as your own country
Seems to be a bit more economical to me,or am i just cynical?

If war broke out in Liverpool,and you had to flee for safety,would you choose
1. Leg it to Manchester or Wales
2. Go to some exotic location where you would be welcomed with open arms looked after, given a house etc
Click to expand...

Barbados looks nice :emoticon-0100-smile

(not sure about the benefits system though:bandit:)
 
louis211 said:
and another thing whilst i am at it
If they really are true refugees, why risk your life even more by getting in a dingy to Europe
Just go to a neighbouring African country, or is that just as **** as your own country
Seems to be a bit more economical to me,or am i just cynical?

If war broke out in Liverpool,and you had to flee for safety,would you choose
1. Leg it to Manchester or Wales
2. Go to some exotic location where you would be welcomed with open arms looked after, given a house etc
Click to expand...

Even the Syrians don't want to go there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Page_Moss_Kopite
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back