**what annoyed me **

Status
Not open for further replies.
viv1969 said:
It's nowhere near full.
Especially Scotland

We'll send them there first.

You're welcome ;)
Click to expand...

Remember, so much of our land is uninhabitable and remote - all these landscapes I take, really, thats what much of Scotland is like, you cannot house people in places like that.

They could, and probably will, dump them in Glasgow. The left wing up here probably won't mind. I on the otherhand will be outraged to volume 12...
 
ST4 said:
Remember, so much of our land is uninhabitable and remote - all these landscapes I take, really, thats what much of Scotland is like, you cannot house people in places like that.

They could, and probably will, dump them in Glasgow. The left wing up here probably won't mind. I on the otherhand will be outraged to volume 12...
Click to expand...

Of course they can be housed there.
If all they have to worry about is folk like you, it'll be bloody paradise for them :)
 
ST4 said:
How can you separate the genuines from the economics when both groups seem intent on entering illegally and not taking the chance to claim their intentions to seek asylum. Personally I favour a more forceful final method of dealing with illegal immigration attempts and thwarting them using lethal force. Genuine refugees would make themselves known, the ecomomic migrants would either shove off, or apply for a VISA.
Click to expand...


It's not illegal to travel without the needed visas a a refugee
 
ST4 said:
You'd propose spoiling the natural beauty of our countryside to house refugees????
Click to expand...

Oh, if it p***es you off...absolutely!
 
About 8% of the country is actually inhabited, I wonder though what % of the country is uninhabitable ?
and or totally unsuitable to be built on?
We of course need farm land for erm, food, ( I wonder what % would actually be needed to sustain the agriculture and live stock farmers, I'm sure someone has done the maths)
Then there are the lakes rives marshes Mountains and streams and road infrastructure, hardly viable as prime building land.
Although we have the car parking in place ( the M25 :D )

Just musing ...
 
ST4 said:
No. But asylum should be seeked at the first safe place and not only that you need to make yourself known as a refugee. Not hide under lorries and avoid detection.
Click to expand...

Sought.
 
Cobra said:
About 8% of the country is actually inhabited, I wonder though what % of the country is uninhabitable ?
and or totally unsuitable to be built on?
We of course need farm land for erm, food, ( I wonder what % would actually be needed to sustain the agriculture and live stock farmers, I'm sure someone has done the maths)
Then there are the lakes rives marshes Mountains and streams and road infrastructure, hardly viable as prime building land.
Although we have the car parking in place ( the M25 :D )

Just musing ...
Click to expand...

It's not even that high.
It's around 7% of the UK that is urbanised, and that includes tarmac roads.
 
Cobra said:
About 8% of the country is actually inhabited, I wonder though what % of the country is uninhabitable ?
and or totally unsuitable to be built on?
We of course need farm land for erm, food, ( I wonder what % would actually be needed to sustain the agriculture and live stock farmers, I'm sure someone has done the maths)
Then there are the lakes rives marshes Mountains and streams and road infrastructure, hardly viable as prime building land.
Although we have the car parking in place ( the M25 :D )

Just musing ...
Click to expand...

There is a stat I heard that in the 50s we could feed 80% of our population, now it's around 20%.

Too many people here. Far too many.
 
viv1969 said:
It's not even that high.
It's around 7% of the UK that is urbanised, and that includes tarmac roads.
Click to expand...
:p

Scafell Pike , a housing estate with a stunning view (y)
 
ST4 said:
There is a stat I heard that in the 50s we could feed 80% of our population, now it's around 20%.
.
Click to expand...
In that case we need more agricultural land not less ;)
 
ST4 said:
So, despite wanting them here, you are not willing for them to live near you. Surely those who feel upset about the plight of refugees would have no issue with them living in your house, garden, garden shed, next door etc?
Click to expand...
Well you said that England is full not me, you suggested indirectly that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are better options. If that is the compromise to make then I'm happy to do so. Then there was also this emoticon with the tongue in cheek ;)

But seriously when I look around me there is plenty of land. And no I have no problem at all to have a refugee family next door. I would have a problem if the law doesn't allow them to work and just sit around all day. We've got 500,000 vacancies crying out for willing people. And we can do with more businesses being created. Yes, no problem at all.
 
ST4 said:
There is a stat I heard that in the 50s we could feed 80% of our population, now it's around 20%.

Too many people here. Far too many.
Click to expand...
Heck if we were to only allow fresh food/produce the majority wouldn't know what to do with it. It's much cheaper yet foreign import processed food seems to be preferred with a large group of people. I hate it, I prefer fresh. If the demand was there we can create it and supplement the rest by importing.
 
boyfalldown said:
That's what happens when you don't have a sensible EU wide policy of refugees
Click to expand...
Which to me is a real threat to the EU, surely something like that should make it shine as a union. Yet it does the opposite.
 
ST4 said:
Can't build more land
Click to expand...
Agreed but we can stop building on green belt, and build on the brown field sites.

Milton Keynes covers 89 square Km last count, and at an educated guess I'd say that 75% of that was farm land 40 odd years ago.
the rest were small towns and villages that have been connected by more & more urbanisation.
And they are still building large estates now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
dejongj said:
Well you said that England is full not me, you suggested indirectly that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are better options. If that is the compromise to make then I'm happy to do so. Then there was also this emoticon with the tongue in cheek ;)

But seriously when I look around me there is plenty of land. And no I have no problem at all to have a refugee family next door. I would have a problem if the law doesn't allow them to work and just sit around all day. We've got 500,000 vacancies crying out for willing people. And we can do with more businesses being created. Yes, no problem at all.
Click to expand...

I couldn't think of much worse than having refugees next door tbh.

We've got 500k unemployed British people. Get them working first. Importing labour isbt needed.

dejongj said:
Which to me is a real threat to the EU, surely something like that should make it shine as a union. Yet it does the opposite.
Click to expand...

Because like it or not, people on the whole don't want refugees on their doorstep. Moving them around isn't popular.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I couldn't think of much worse than having refugees next door tbh.

We've got 500k unemployed British people. Get them working first. Importing labour isbt needed.



Because like it or not, people on the whole don't want refugees on their doorstep. Moving them around isn't popular.
Click to expand...
But clearly they don't want too, so we could do with the extra income and wealth being generated. Business is being held back, it is still positive for EU migrants as well to come to Britain as the work is here and plentiful.
 
ST4 said:
I couldn't think of much worse than having refugees next door tbh.

.
Click to expand...

What is so bad about having a refugee family next door? I'd prefer that over some pot smoking chavvy lazy lay about or a million other things I can think off that are worse.
 
Last edited:
serious point. Perhaps stopping Isis would reduce refugees from that area of the world? People fleeing these barbaric idiots is understandable, surely.
 
ST4 said:
No, just what's on my mind. It simply doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should seek professional help? Thankfully dead children does bother most people and hopefully those images are a tipping point. You can sense public opinion shifting, international pressure is rising and Cameron will likely be forced to act before much longer. I look forward to outrage at full 100 if/when he does!
 
Paul Griffin said:
Perhaps you should seek professional help? Thankfully dead children does bother most people and hopefully those images are a tipping point. You can sense public opinion shifting, international pressure is rising and Cameron will likely be forced to act before much longer. I look forward to outrage at full 100 if/when he does!
Click to expand...

As are the images of the rioting in Hungary, videos of the violence at Calais. The public want something done, just maybe not what you want done.

Public opinion will shift very much my way when people see their safety and ways of life threatened.
 
ST4 said:
When you see the news it seems mainly young men who are "migrating". Shouldn't they be the ones fighting ISIS out their countries?
Click to expand...
The Isis threat should be treat as seriously as any we have had in recent history. Stop arsing about and take action. Balls to the bleeding heart liberals. Isis is extremely dangerous to this country.
 
ST4 said:
Id rather have neither.
Click to expand...
Sure but what is so bad? How would they be different than "normal" Scottish neighbours?
 
ST4 said:
Make them or let them starve to death.

Don't confuse that rabble in Calais with skilled qualified immigrants who will have visas and jobs lined up.
Click to expand...
I was talking about refugees. They are not the same as illegal immigrants and by definition won't and can't have a visa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top