**what annoyed me **

Status
Not open for further replies.
dejongj said:
No, not all of those are refugees. We need to offer safe harbour to those refugees amongst them, hence I suggested in my first response that we need to process them quickly on location and separate out the trafficking and criminal elements out from the refugees. Help the French authorities and hand the illegals to them for deportation. We have got the capability, technology and people to do that. It's just politics and pride that stand in the way of helping these poor people.
Click to expand...


It's a crying shame Sangat was shut. Offer medical care instead of fences and process applications quickly. Decide who is genuine before they get here
 
dejongj said:
No, not all of those are refugees. We need to offer safe harbour to those refugees amongst them, hence I suggested in my first response that we need to process them quickly on location and separate out the trafficking and criminal elements out from the refugees. Help the French authorities and hand the illegals to them for deportation. We have got the capability, technology and people to do that. It's just politics and pride that stand in the way of helping these poor people.
Click to expand...

I can see your angle but the illegals will claim they're refugees when they're anything but. I don't think separating wheat from Chaf is at all easy. Plus most of the refugees won't have travelled to Europe in the first place but near by states.

Helping the refugees as you say is one thing, but it shouldn't be done in Europe but in the home states where they're coming from.

Better fighting ISIS off as that's a threat to western life as are hoards of people entering from Africa etc
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
So you want to dilute the effects of British people standing up for Britain. Ok. That says a lot.

Luckily there is a strong polarised view to yourself and public opinion just won't tolerate letting in so many people.

I'd rather we helped ourselves than others.
Click to expand...

Well put it this way. 1 of those poor people is worth 1000 of those people that support Britain First. They are not people "standing up for Britain", they are racist scum. Why don't you spend some time perusing their Facebook page. I don´t want xenophobic filth like that "standing up for" me. They don't represent the decent people of this country.
 
dejongj said:
I don't think it is helpful to use that kind of language. It is perfectly ok to have a different opinion. If you aren't willing to engage and discuss and help then you aren't any different in my opinion.
Click to expand...
To some extent I agree JP, but you've gotta remember we're taking about a guy who thought machine gunning refugee boats a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Can we convert faslane lane in to a centre for them? That way the £500 million would be put to good use.
They would be away from the 'nimby' people, they would get plenty of fresh air and could fish too. Oh and Scotland gets rid of the nukes.
 
eeyore said:
Can we convert faslane lane in to a centre for them? That way the £500 million would be put to good use.
They would be away from the 'nimby' people, they would get plenty of fresh air and could fish too. Oh and Scotland gets rid of the nukes.
Click to expand...

Nukes are a good thing. Faslane is about the one decent thing that the area has. Trident is good.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Well put it this way. 1 of those poor people is worth 1000 of those people that support Britain First. They are not people "standing up for Britain", they are racist scum. Why don't you spend some time perusing their Facebook page. I don´t want xenophobic filth like that "standing up for" me. They don't represent the decent people of this country.
Click to expand...

How are they racist and xenophobic? Can you provide links to Britain first being involved in hate crimes and any factual evidence at all to back this up or I'd this typical guardian knee jerk reaction to a sensible debate that open borders isn't all it's cracked up to be.
 
ST4 said:
Nukes are a good thing. Faslane is about the one decent thing that the area has. Trident is good.
Click to expand...

Disagree, having worked on trident I've realised what a waste of time and money it really is.

The site would make a great location for them to stay. Large site with space for accommodation, transport links are OK and it's it a great part of the world.
The weather can be crappie but surely you would like that as it would be a shock to them and thus make them want to go home.
 
eeyore said:
Disagree, having worked on trident I've realised what a waste of time and money it really is.

The site would make a great location for them to stay. Large site with space for accommodation, transport links are OK and it's it a great part of the world.
The weather can be crappie but surely you would like that as it would be a shock to them and thus make them want to go home.
Click to expand...

Trident is about the one good thing thus county has. Nuclear weapons are a must. Whilst Putin, Kim Jon have them we must too.

We should spend more on armed forces, nukes etc and less on welfare and humanitarian aid.
 
jakeblu said:
To some extent I agree JP, but you've gotta remember we're taking about a guy who thought machine gunning refugee boats a good idea.
Click to expand...
I know but that is just silly persona stuff, he is too much of a coward to do that. Let alone actually ever held one and had to point it at people defending its country. It is a very unfortunate "joke" that many perpetuate on this forum and not just by st4. As long as people keep repeating it then it won't die out. All in my opinion of course, and that is the important part, we can and are allowed to express opinions evene when they make us look very silly.
 
dejongj said:
I don't think it is helpful to use that kind of language. It is perfectly ok to have a different opinion. If you aren't willing to engage and discuss and help then you aren't any different in my opinion.
Click to expand...
What language? A condition that he has many of the hallmarks.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Trident is about the one good thing thus county has. Nuclear weapons are a must. Whilst Putin, Kim Jon have them we must too.

We should spend more on armed forces, nukes etc and less on welfare and humanitarian aid.
Click to expand...

Agree to the spending more on our forces, just don't waste £100 billion on trident mk2.

The forces also do a lot of humanitarian work too, tho not via the ballistic face trauma method.
 
ST4 said:
I can see your angle but the illegals will claim they're refugees when they're anything but. I don't think separating wheat from Chaf is at all easy. Plus most of the refugees won't have travelled to Europe in the first place but near by states.

Helping the refugees as you say is one thing, but it shouldn't be done in Europe but in the home states where they're coming from.

Better fighting ISIS off as that's a threat to western life as are hoards of people entering from Africa etc
Click to expand...
Easy, no, doable, yes most definitely. Its willingness that gets in the way.

Oh for Pete's will you at least stop the crap regarding that they don't go to nearby states. The vast majority does and many other states as well.

When there is a war zone with an immediate need for humanitarian aid it is not best to do it at location. That is just daft. But feel free to volunteer and put yourself in danger. That stage can only commence after the event to help people rebuild.
 
rjbell said:
What language? A condition that he has many of the hallmarks.
Click to expand...
Language, tone, name calling slanging match instead of a mature discussion. Not very mature and guaranteed to get the thread locked very quickly. That kind of language.
 
As always this sort of discussion gets bogged down with mudslinging and extreme arguments from both sides.

The issue isn't about a few thousand people entering the country through fear and terrible persecution. Of course we should treat anyone with respect and humanity. Most decent people wouldn't argue with that.

The question is whether, as a nation, we feel we should accommodate say a million or 5 million or 10 million people (or more). There are many that believe what we see today is merely the tip of the iceberg. There is terrible suffering all over the world in many different countries at any one time. Europe contains comparatively rich nations in both financial and human rights terms. This large mass of human travel to Europe on this scale is a 'new' thing. I certainly haven't seen it in my lifetime before. Surely the question is how many will want to come?

In any large scale situation, such as this now, forward planning has to be the key. How many people can the UK accept before the infrastructure and 'system' we currently have breaks down completely. What are the short and long term effects of a large influx of people. How long is it before the country is enriched economically by these extra people? How does the benefits system have to change? The travel system? The housing position? The policing? The NHS? What are these numbers and more importantly, who is calculating them and what is the UK's stance on it? What and who am I voting for?

The truth is, in 100 years time, whether we call these fellow human beings 'migrants', 'refugees' or anything else will be irrelevant. What will be important is how we managed the situation and what positive steps we took to help, plan and manage the situation. The situation is live now, its happening now and I for one can't see how or why it will stop. So what does the UK and the rest of Europe plan to do about it? If we take the stance Germany seems to be taking then fine but how does that effect the current population now and in the long term. Surely they and we arent stupid enough to think nothing changes and we carry on as we are because it will change and it will have an effect. These are MASSIVE issues and will HAVE to be solved. If we shut our borders and 'protect' what we have then we should be prepared for a very long and hard fight, for it won't be long before it becomes a physical fight (with guns and troops) if it isn't already.

That hugely emotional picture of that little boy is gutting and makes most humane people sad, angry and ashamed. The sad reality is that there are thousands of little boys all over the world that arent having their photograph taken and published across the social networks but because we dont see them and it doesn't happen too close to our shores, we 'ignore' them. Its disgusting and its shameful but it happens and will continue to happen the world over.

If i'm right and this is the tip of the iceberg we had better have some coherent policy to deal with it. I doubt we will and I for one am concerned for everyone if my fears are realised. If it isn't the tip of the iceberg and it stops after this current situation then what did we do? We over reacted to a non existent bigger crisis. Better to be prepared than to have this ridiculous "Shoot them" v "let them all in" argument raging everywhere from a standpoint of total ignorance.
 
dejongj said:
Easy, no, doable, yes most definitely. Its willingness that gets in the way.

Oh for Pete's will you at least stop the crap regarding that they don't go to nearby states. The vast majority does and many other states as well.

When there is a war zone with an immediate need for humanitarian aid it is not best to do it at location. That is just daft. But feel free to volunteer and put yourself in danger. That stage can only commence after the event to help people rebuild.
Click to expand...

Have you seen footage of Calais, Hungary and Greece recently. There are so many here. Doesn't matter if it's a tiny minority or a massive majority- it's a s*** ton of people and very few will be genuine refugees given it's mainly young men you see.

Europe is getting overwhelmed:
 
ST4 said:
What's that got to do with it?
Click to expand...
Why not try thinking for yourself? Thinking is good.

You demonise others for leaving their home to make a better life for themselves, whilst having done the very same yourself. Ironic? Hypocritical? Cognitive dissonance? Trolling? Who knows what your motives are - I sometimes wonder if you even understand them yourself.
 
Llamaman said:
Why not try thinking for yourself? Thinking is good.

You demonise others for leaving their home to make a better life for themselves, whilst having done the very same yourself. Ironic? Hypocritical? Cognitive dissonance? Trolling? Who knows what your motives are - I sometimes wonder if you even understand them yourself.
Click to expand...

"Making a better life for themselves"

It's not up to us to provide it, just like it isn't up to Newzeanders to give me a better life.

Refuge is about safety not "a better life"

If you want to immigrate you need to prove to the host country you're worth having through their criteria, not by entering illegally under a lorry like criminal scum.

As a nation we should be thinking about make a better life for our own people and I can't see how assisting illegals will do that.
 
Last edited:
Rich_Ellis said:
As always this sort of discussion gets bogged down with mudslinging and extreme arguments from both sides.

The issue isn't about a few thousand people entering the country through fear and terrible persecution. Of course we should treat anyone with respect and humanity. Most decent people wouldn't argue with that.

The question is whether, as a nation, we feel we should accommodate say a million or 5 million or 10 million people (or more). There are many that believe what we see today is merely the tip of the iceberg. There is terrible suffering all over the world in many different countries at any one time. Europe contains comparatively rich nations in both financial and human rights terms. This large mass of human travel to Europe on this scale is a 'new' thing. I certainly haven't seen it in my lifetime before. Surely the question is how many will want to come?

In any large scale situation, such as this now, forward planning has to be the key. How many people can the UK accept before the infrastructure and 'system' we currently have breaks down completely. What are the short and long term effects of a large influx of people. How long is it before the country is enriched economically by these extra people? How does the benefits system have to change? The travel system? The housing position? The policing? The NHS? What are these numbers and more importantly, who is calculating them and what is the UK's stance on it? What and who am I voting for?

The truth is, in 100 years time, whether we call these fellow human beings 'migrants', 'refugees' or anything else will be irrelevant. What will be important is how we managed the situation and what positive steps we took to help, plan and manage the situation. The situation is live now, its happening now and I for one can't see how or why it will stop. So what does the UK and the rest of Europe plan to do about it? If we take the stance Germany seems to be taking then fine but how does that effect the current population now and in the long term. Surely they and we arent stupid enough to think nothing changes and we carry on as we are because it will change and it will have an effect. These are MASSIVE issues and will HAVE to be solved. If we shut our borders and 'protect' what we have then we should be prepared for a very long and hard fight, for it won't be long before it becomes a physical fight (with guns and troops) if it isn't already.

That hugely emotional picture of that little boy is gutting and makes most humane people sad, angry and ashamed. The sad reality is that there are thousands of little boys all over the world that arent having their photograph taken and published across the social networks but because we dont see them and it doesn't happen too close to our shores, we 'ignore' them. Its disgusting and its shameful but it happens and will continue to happen the world over.

If i'm right and this is the tip of the iceberg we had better have some coherent policy to deal with it. I doubt we will and I for one am concerned for everyone if my fears are realised. If it isn't the tip of the iceberg and it stops after this current situation then what did we do? We over reacted to a non existent bigger crisis. Better to be prepared than to have this ridiculous "Shoot them" v "let them all in" argument raging everywhere from a standpoint of total ignorance.
Click to expand...
The picture is quite late hitting the UK press. Many more of those existed and surfaced last week abroad and not just of a little boy. But regardless of that, what are you actually suggesting? I mean there are a lot of words but without actually saying or suggesting anything. What is YOUR view and what would YOU do?

Ps. I don't recall anyone suggesting let them all in?????
 
ST4 said:
Have you seen footage of Calais, Hungary and Greece recently. There are so many here. Doesn't matter if it's a tiny minority or a massive majority- it's a s*** ton of people and very few will be genuine refugees given it's mainly young men you see.

Europe is getting overwhelmed:
Click to expand...
Sure but you were making the comparison not me. There are even more elsewhere ;)

I've already said that we shouldn't let in economic migrants and process actual refugees only.
 
dejongj said:
Sure but you were making the comparison not me. There are even more elsewhere ;)

I've already said that we shouldn't let in economic migrants and process actual refugees only.
Click to expand...

I think to deter the economic ones lethal force needs used as that's the methods they understand otherwise they'll keep coming and we don't do nothing about it
 
ST4 said:
I think to deter the economic ones lethal force needs used as that's the methods they understand otherwise they'll keep coming and we don't do nothing about it
Click to expand...
The numbers drowning in the Med and suffocating in lorries don't seem to deterring them. What makes you think a quicker death will be less appealing?
 
dejongj said:
The picture is quite late hitting the UK press. Many more of those existed and surfaced last week abroad and not just of a little boy. But regardless of that, what are you actually suggesting? I mean there are a lot of words but without actually saying or suggesting anything. What is YOUR view and what would YOU do?

Ps. I don't recall anyone suggesting let them all in?????
Click to expand...
Didn't you read his suggestion. Shooting them in the face.

With coments such as that, I don't think I'm name calling.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
"Making a better life for themselves"
It's not up to us to provide it, just like it isn't up to Newzeanders to give me a better life.
Click to expand...
Economic migrants come here to work. They don't ask, or expect, that we provide. This is why I wrote "making a better life for themselves".
Glasgow has given you the opportunity to make a living there - should they have told you to go away because you're not from round there and they should look after Glaswegians first?
 
ST4 said:
Bordering ones provide that.
Click to expand...
Not if you're Kurdish.
Or Christian, or Alawite, or....

They come to Northern Europe because we (UK and Germany in particular) have a history of being welcoming to people of all ethnicity and faiths. Sadly, a lot of Europe cannot claim the same.
 
Llamaman said:
Economic migrants come here to work. They don't ask, or expect, that we provide. This is why I wrote "making a better life for themselves".
Glasgow has given you the opportunity to make a living there - should they have told you to go away because you're not from round there and they should look after Glaswegians first?
Click to expand...

WHy do you say I am not from Glasgow? Anyhow, Glasgow is in the UK
 
ST4 said:
WHy do you say I am not from Glasgow?
Click to expand...
You ducked the question when I asked.

ST4 said:
Anyhow, Glasgow is in the UK
Click to expand...
For now.

Just to get your position clear - economic migration between Kingdoms within the UK = good. Economic migration between states within the EU = bad. Riiiiight. That makes a lot of sense. o_O
 
Llamaman said:
You ducked the question when I asked.


For now.

Just to get your position clear - economic migration between Kingdoms within the UK = good. Economic migration between states within the EU = bad. Riiiiight. That makes a lot of sense. o_O
Click to expand...

The UK is one country. Some EU migration is good, a lot of it not, practically all migration from Syria etc and the calais crisis is bad for UK and EU
 
ST4 said:
The UK is one country.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's both one and four.

countries within a country
The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
 
ST4 said:
The UK is one country. Some EU migration is good, a lot of it not, practically all migration from Syria etc and the calais crisis is bad for UK and EU
Click to expand...
Most EU migration is good for this country, some isn't, but the good far outweighs the bad.

To be honest Steve I don't know why I and others bother, it probably just fuels your xenophobic hysteria.
 
ST4 said:
How are they racist and xenophobic? Can you provide links to Britain first being involved in hate crimes and any factual evidence at all to back this upe.
Click to expand...

BFs own founder left because he felt their mosque invasion policy was racist and counter productive ... its odd parties you support seem to have a record of their founder leaving because they have moved unaceptably far to the right, the same thing happened with Alan Skedd and ukip
 
ST4 said:
I wish you wouldn't to be honest. Although I'd love you to prove me with fact that what I am saying is xenophobic, but I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

you want to shoot immigrants in the face - the only thing needed to prove that is xenophobic is an OED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top