So what you're saying is, those in the UK that are worried about increasing population density and severe demands on local resources are actually racist and should be honest about it.
I think there is at least an implicit and possibly subconscious element of racism, though that might not be quite the right word (perhaps more discriminatory on the basis of country of origin, and method of arrival) as well as the obvious overt element from a few nutters, but it wouldn't exist without the stunning pressure of numbers facing Europe at the moment and the behaviour of some of the migrants, as in Cologne. I would include myself in this to an extent - skin colour or ethnicity doesn't bother me, but religion does, some Islamic attitudes, for instance towards women, I find seriously disturbing regardless of 'moderation'. We have agreed to take 20,000 asylum seeking Syrians over 5 years. We recognise that these people are in need. We accept 300,000 economic migrant French into one city without a murmur. Even if they are rich I bet the 300,000 add to more housing shortages, use more local resources and obviously increase population density more than the 20,000 poor Syrians. The system is obviously discriminatory, even if it's not racist. As I have said several times above, the time has passed for an open door, or even managed policy across Europe (not that it would ever be agreed), the numbers are just too big. This has to be sorted at source and I see no prospect of that happening. Tragically. I have tried to answer your 'putting words in my mouth' post seriously and honestly. I think I'll leave this element of the discussion here.
I agree with the first part of this, but come on mate, accusing anyone who is concerned about immigration of being racist is a really tired left wing argument, which attempts to kill off debate. The economic migration into this country has been hugely beneficial to us over the decades and richly enhanced our way of life imo. However, for me, the scale of labour's multicultural experiment has left my country unbalanced and I don't like the way certain areas have become. Even if every single migrant wanting to come here is genuine, we can't take them all can we? Or do you tthink we should, regardless of numbers?
Read subsequent post responding to Goldie mate. I was probably too assertive on this one, but there is something to it. And for about the 4th time in recent posts, I am not arguing for an open door policy, the time has past and the numbers are too great for that.
We posted at the same time. There was never a time for an open door policy imo. Best to leave it there.
On a different point, I have just read that we are discussing sending 1,000 troops to Libya to work with 6,000 Italian troops in training Libyan army (is there such a thing, I thought the country was run by warlords rather than a government?) to fight 3,000 ISIS militia. Given the numbers I would have thought it would be simpler, and in the medium run safer, just to let the western troops deal with it. Ultimately I think it has to come to this in various places, though it won't stop terrorism and won't necessarily slow migration unless we get the end game right. which we never do.
Wow. Way to go labelling me a bigoted racist. And you have the gall to call ME passive aggressive? Typical left-wing response, mate. You really need to re-read what I ACTUALLY said, and apply it properly to the situation. 2 million economic migrants over 150 years, over the entire globe, is one thing. 5 million in a year, all trying to get to a very small sub-set of nations at once, is very much another. That has nothing to do with skin colour (so don't play the race card with me again). It has nothing to do with religion either. It has to do with identifying the genuine needs of a group of displaced people who would otherwise be in very real danger of death, against another, larger group who piggy-back on this genuine need as a means of cashing in and have done nothing except make a manageable humanitarian situation impossible, whilst stirring up hatred at the same time. EDIT: Having read the subsequent posts that also pick you up on this, I see you have responded to them. I am still exercising my right of reply to your baseless accusation though, and I think a response is warranted.
OK I'll respond, though your speciality is taking offence and thinking everything is about you, so it won't help. I don't think I accused you, personally, of being a racist, and it wasn't my intention to. I don't know whether you are a racist or not. But if you think I did I strongly suggest you bring it to the Mods' attention, happy to let them take any action they see fit, because it is a serious accusation and against the board rules. Here's what you said in response to me providing some biblical references on the Paris In Crisis thread a couple of months ago: Careful with the hypocrisy 'mate'. As this is an Internet message board and hugely unimportant, I really don't mind what you say or think about me. It's just entertainment.
Very wrong on all counts mate. I'll re-read, and if I feel appropriate I will flag your post, as it's clear that you don't think you've done anything wrong, and I am certain that you have.
Whatever. As this must be very tedious to other posters I suggest you communicate on this matter by PM, if you feel the need.
Anyway, in what may turn out to be the biggest news for sometime, scientists get permission to modify genes in human embryos (not yet to implant them to get them born). Obviously safeguards have to be built in, but I have no problem in principle with genetic modification for plants, animals and humans. First we can cut out a load of pesky diseases, then give ourselves superpowers! Brilliant! Designer babies - great (as long as no one is designer to be a servant like in Brave New World), Shame it's a bit late for me to benefit directly.
pretty simplistic, gangs of feral youths (mainly Moroccan) groping and robbing people at the main railway station. Locals condemning the police for not acting, so they have come to the conclusion they have to take action themselves.
Not according to the Swedish police. They were neo Nazis. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...king-to-attack-refugee-children-a3169061.html
Vigilantism is on the increase across Europe, and we're now seeing it in the South of England. If the police won't address genuine, often local, concerns, it will increase, so will fighting factions, and we'll find ourselves back in the 1930's
Doesn't really make reference to motive though. This is the same Swedish police whose chief expressed sympathy for the killer of the young woman at the asylum centre stating that he was sure the killer must have had a hard life. Interesting that even in liberal Sweden, it's illegal to mask your face in public. It was noticeable when the thugs were fighting in Dover on Saturday, the no-borders anarchists were virtually in uniform, with black tunics, black headgear and black masks.
