My view is that we can't expect people who come here as refugees etc to behave in the same way as you or I might, as they've witnessed things we never will other than via a tv screen, atrocities or even grown up from a very early age in warzones, often inflicted by the west. It all requires specialist help, but when you take people in whether it becomes by the hundreds or by the thousands, that specialist care becomes very stretched. As the saying goes, live by the sword, die by the sword. We can never seem to have a sensible conversation in this country, for two reasons, people either start shouting racist and don't want to listen or hear what someone like myself really thinks, secondly because the Tories are a useless bunch of shhites, I'd say stronger but leave it there. However, we should not forget, today two kids are up before the judge to be sentenced for the killing of Brianna, if you listen to the reports on the defendents mindset, you'd have thought they came from somewhere you need to escape as a refugee with their warped mindset, but sadly they never, they came from the lovely UK. Food for thought of keeping things in proportion and not jumping on media hype when talking of asylum seekers, even if we may be daunted with fears.
Every single country on earth has its fair share of psychopaths. Just last week a pleasant Norwegian grandfather killed himself ... right after killing his daughter and her children, even shooting the family dog. That is not a mystery to anyone, this **** happens all over the globe. But, the issue you have is if every single nation has home grown mentalists, we have to be very careful about inviting more in. So, you have people with PTSD, you have people who have seen bad things ... you cannot possibly give them the specialist care required with the sheer numbers coming in, I'd say we would be stretched if 2,000 people regularly claimed refugee status, last year alone it was 75,000. Then because this is international "LLLAWWW" which isn't even a ****ing thing anymore according to some, we can't even really punish them for ****, you just have to give them a cell and we will be paying for them forever. The reason I pointed out the working migrants thing is, when we have control over people, we can set the regulations and rules they need to follow, or they need to **** off home. When it comes to refugees, you can't just **** them off home, you have to pussy foot around it. By the way, plenty of refugees have seen bugger all violence. You also have people who genuinely in Afghanistan think its perfectly acceptable to rape children, like it's absolutely normal. There's people in Somalia who think its completely OK to rip open a womans vagina to make it easier to **** them. I speak vulgarly because I think sometimes we can sugar coat what some "cultures" genuinely think is acceptable and what we invite in because we are soft tarts. If any of the above seems racist, I don't care lol. If we are inviting in people we need to speak openly about what we find gross and disgusting and what they need to leave at the border gate, if they can't do it, go back to the Taliban bro. Let them reeducate you. If we have people who commit horrific crimes, our society has failed them. If we have people who move here and commit an horrific crime, THEIR society has failed them and THEIR society should deal with them.
I was going to say. I’ll send them some of Newcastles best if it’s big fannies they’re after and it keeps them over there
I’ll just say one name for the mass migration of people through Europe……. George soros aka the divide and rule funder
To be honest whatever you want to class it (personally I'd give it the same sentencing as murder) I'd be perfectly happy if someone sees him on the street and shoots him in the face As for his asylum rights. It's obvious some will use this case as a political football to bash their own narrative. As far as I'm concerned once you've been convicted of a crime then you lose your right to asylum and get deported. That's got fck all to do with the Rwanda policy or so-called "illegal immigration" though.
But are they the kind of slags that invite you into their patients homes Icelandic birds are fit as ****.
This is my over arching point here mate at the bottom. I'm not saying stop asylum seekers or stop helping folk. But if they come here and spit in our face and just misuse our system, then they should be gone. Simple as. If we produce murderous ****s, that's our problem to fix and deal with. But we shouldn't be importing them, if they can't get on, get rid.
Some of them are like, but not all ' As a rule I'm gonna say they're quite plain, it's the inbreeding that. But the Swedes? ****ing hell, gorgeous. I was recently in Denmark too and they're nice enough.
The bloke was turned down for asylum twice. The system up until that point had worked. So why wasn't he deported back then? That's when the system failed. And it's very likely because (like most services these days) it's probably underfunded and understaffed. The fact he went on to commit a sexual offence, got a letter from archbishop, and then got asylum is after the fact. While it may show just much more fcked the whole system is, it doesn't take away from the fact he was initially turned down for asylum twice. The sexual offence should have rung alarm bells and immediate action taken but it wasn't.
got to agree here. When i went to iceland on holiday (twice), i don't remember seeing that much totty
If someone comes here and claims refugee status, with it being considered "impossible" to send them back, they can simply remain here until a solution is found. I've spoken to refugees about it before. There are many, for example, who reside in Switzerland but haven't actually got asylum residence in Switzerland, they have to sit tight and wait for a country to say "OK." So, if this person is here in the UK and has a past of sexual offences, the chances of an outside country saying they will take them is next to zero. That's first and foremost where the system is failing, if they get here and it's a death sentence to send back, we can't. This is when the Tory Rwanda idea enters the conversation, as that is the third party location they can be sent to in this instance. I have no opinion really on the specific of the Rwanda plan, I simply haven't read enough about it. On paper it sounds barmy, but reading into a bit more there is logic there. But it's complicated, very complicated.
It's a difficult one I agree. I think it depends on a case by case basis. So for example someone comes over with a past history of sexual offences. But that's because he/she is gay and in that country homosexuality is illegal and so the conviction is based on that, then you wouldn't class that person as a danger. It depends on each case and also whether it's politically motivated persecution?
It also depends on what visa they have received and who they have applied the status through. A colleague of mine is a refugee through the UN and received help from them while a refugee in Lebanon. So his situation is completely different from someone who gets in a car and bombs it directly to Greece. Under a UN visa, he is not allowed to return to his homeland, ever. (To clarify, this is because he gave up his passport for a special UN passport. It greatly restricts travel.) But if you drive and apply through the EU, you can return to your homeland. I have another friend, afghani, who has done exactly that.
I went running in the park earlier. As I'm running I see two women walking along the path towards me, and it suddenly occurs to me I'm holding a water bottle. And about 3 or 4 different thoughts go through my head. Firstly how easy it is to be someone like me running with a bottle full of acid and just dash it at some passers by. And then I think I wonder if them two are thinking the same thing So I literally veered about a metre off the path to the side just so they felt comfortable. And chances are they probably hadn't even given it a second thought
Haven't seen anyone comment on the situation in Texas right now. Texas governor is basically in open revolt with the US federal government on migration into Texas. The State decided to call in the Texan national guard to reinforce the Texan border, military installations have been put in place across the border. Border guards, employed by the US federal government, have been interrupted in their tasks, so began to destroy these instillations, which has caused altercations between the two groups. The Texans sued the Feds, who have been ordered to not interrupt National guard activity until they find a solution. Almost every single Republican state has came out supporting Texas, who have began stuffing illegal migrants on buses and sending them north to Democratic states. This support from Republicans goes as far as Florida sending out their own national guard to back the Texans up. The Texan and Floridan national guard comes to about 40,000 personnel. Seemingly extremely loyal to their states. Interesting ****.
Federal state problems mate, go independent, just don't get a Republican to sort it, oh hang on, it's the Republicans complaining...fook 'em. Texans are shhites anyway... please log in to view this image
