A shameful time to be British

First topic message reminder :

Our attitude to refugees is appalling and event the Americans have noticed.  A WSJ article;

"Britain takes in so few refugees from Syria they would fit on a subway train"


We should be out on the streets in our millions demanding that the government does the humane thing and helps the refugees that we helped to create.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm neither a xenophobe nor am I racist, I do however have no empathy for anyone whether they're British or otherwise.

If people wish to enter the country, find work and provide for themselves then I have no issues with that.

Before or after being shot at?

Can only speak for myself but I would much rather we spent money on aiding in this crisis than a nuclear missle system we are almost certainly never going to use. Us liberals are funny like that though.

supes wrote:It's an algorithm Rick - it has no understanding of comfort.

Fair point, try this.

01111000 01100101 01101110 01101111 01110000 01101000 01101111 01100010 01100101 00100000

seanmichaels wrote:There are places where they are better culturally suited ie the middle east. It is a big old place with plenty of work (Qatar are shipping in Nepalese to build the stadiums).

They don't do refugees though. Wouldn't be surprised if Britain has taken in more in the past year than the whole Arabian peninsula have in total.

McLaren wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

McLaren wrote:Trussman66 (PS why the capitals?)

What stats/evidence did you use to decide that we are overpopulated?

Highest population density in Western Europe bar Holland and Benelux, council housing waiting lists of 5+ years, school class sizes of 40+, EVER BEEN TO LONDON??????

Is our population density at hharmful levels?  Would the addition of refugees to our population significantly impact the problem?

Whether we take a few hundred thousand refugees or not the UK needs a large house building project.  Not sure a few refugees will make any difference.  

If a large proportion of the country hadn't fallen for the austerity myth then maybe we could have afforded more teachers.  Although if you look at our education systems performance we still do pretty well compared to most of the world.  Lets share this system with those in need.

Yes, I have been to London many times.  I love it.  What has this got to do with the debate at hand?

If we can't house people then I'd suggest that pretty harmful. And given land supply is finite, 'simply build more' is now an excuse to open door to hundreds of thousands of refugees (whose number will grow exponentially once in situ).

Tbh, there's so much nonesense in your post, I don't even have the energy to reply further...

Rowley wrote:Realise I am risking Godwin's Law here but could you imagine in the early 40s when the European jews were being persecuted and sought refuge in countries such as ours and other friendly states our response had been sod off we're full. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Talk about totally different situation.

And yes, you have not just risked but fully opened up Godwins law in all its glory.

Adam D wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maybe have "X factor refugee".............Where they have to perform and the best ones get to stay..

Britains got Visas?

Love it it's definitely got legs

........Unlike some of the contestants !!

Strictly come chancing?

superflyweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

"The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

Ergo, fleeing a 'humanitarian crisis' does not make you a refugee. It makes you a migrant.

For the sake of stupid f*ck.  "Humanitarian Crisis" were my words Toppy and they weren't intended as a catch all description of what's going in Syria.  - you want me to go through your posting history and look for instances of you using certain words or phrases and then counter it with a definition found on Google.  Wouldn't take long.  What part of what is happening in Syria doesn't fall into that definition?

If you move because you're life is sh!t or getting sh!tter, you are a migrant. Not a refugee.

Syrians aren't being 'persecuted' due to being Syrian or Muslim. Their country is simply turning into a war-torn cr@phole.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Realise I am risking Godwin's Law here but could you imagine in the early 40s when the European jews were being persecuted and sought refuge in countries such as ours and other friendly states our response had been sod off we're full. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Talk about totally different situation.

And yes, you have not just risked but fully opened up Godwins law in all its glory.

Because they were white?

I don't know how any fan of any of the National sporting teams could be described as a Xenophobe myself, a Xenophobe would be strongly against the likes of Barritt, Pietersen, Sterling or Farah.

A phobia by it's very nature is irrational, therefore the scenario you paint, and xenophobia are not mutually exclusive...

Xenophobia- dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries

The scenario I paint is mutually exclusive but doesn't fit into your overly liberal thinking and standard retort of any liberal challenged; 'oh you must be racist if not you're a Xenophobe'.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

"The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

Ergo, fleeing a 'humanitarian crisis' does not make you a refugee. It makes you a migrant.

For the sake of stupid f*ck.  "Humanitarian Crisis" were my words Toppy and they weren't intended as a catch all description of what's going in Syria.  - you want me to go through your posting history and look for instances of you using certain words or phrases and then counter it with a definition found on Google.  Wouldn't take long.  What part of what is happening in Syria doesn't fall into that definition?

If you move because you're life is sh!t or getting sh!tter, you are a migrant. Not a refugee.

Syrians aren't being 'persecuted' due to being Syrian or Muslim.  Their country is simply turning into a war-torn cr@phole.

They are being persecuted (being as they are on the receiving end of hostility and ill treatment) against by virtue of being a citizen resident in the country in which a bloody great war is taken place.

But that's fine, you go ahead and keep arguing the semantics. Forget the moral argument, it really doesn't matter.

I am intrigued how you think I have an overly liberal way of thinking.

The only moral barometer that you can use is your own, and the consensus appears to be that yours is askew, which makes it very difficult for you to make any kind of moral judgement on others...

I love the old Farage argument where you need to be skilled to get into this Country...

Forget the Polish cleaner at our place who works two jobs and is going to night school to try to better herself and make a better life for her and her son....

Awful lot of stereotyping when it comes to immigration from ignorant sorts..

People should be more tolerant..

Xenophobia is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

Key word being "unreasoned" hence no mutual exclusivity...

Like "cockwomble" you can be a womble with a man sausage, or you can be a man sausage or a womble...

I'll stick to the Oxford dictionary definition myself.

It is hard to trust the moral barometer of a person who has just said:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I do however have no empathy for anyone

Hammersmith wrote:I'll stick to the Oxford dictionary definition myself.

Finding one explanation that you percieve to be correct and concurs with your argument appears to be the basis for all of your rhetoric, so this does not surprise me...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't know how any fan of any of the National sporting teams could be described as a Xenophobe myself, a Xenophobe would be strongly against the likes of Barritt, Pietersen, Sterling or Farah.

sh1t.......

rick_dagless wrote:

Hammersmith wrote:I'll stick to the Oxford dictionary definition myself.

Finding one explanation that you percieve to be correct and concurs with your argument appears to be the basis for all of your rhetoric, so this does not surprise me...

Seeing as the Oxford dictionary is the primary dictionary of use in the UK I don't feel it's about perception but rather using the most valid reference available.

Toppy: Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some. Tell me why you want to lay there, revel in your abandon?

Jeff: Honey, it don't make no difference to me baby. Everybody has to fight to be free, you see....

Super: You don't have to live like a refugee!

Jeff and Rick: Don't have to live like a refugee!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

Hammersmith wrote:I'll stick to the Oxford dictionary definition myself.

Finding one explanation that you percieve to be correct and concurs with your argument appears to be the basis for all of your rhetoric, so this does not surprise me...

Seeing as the Oxford dictionary is the primary dictionary of use in the UK I don't feel it's about perception but rather using the most valid reference available.

People go, "Why is it important, a question about Mr. Spock?" Oh, I go, "It's like saying I've got a new pedigree dog breed. It's half Alsatian, half Labrador". I go on to Crufts, I go, "Can I enter this dog in the Labrador section?" "No." "Why?" "Because it's not a Labrador." "Correct." "Can I enter it in the Alsatian section?" "No. For the same reasons. Now get that dog out of my sight." "Thanks, I will. You've proved my point." And that's Crufts. All right.

Hammersmith wrote:Seeing as the Oxford dictionary is the primary dictionary of use in the UK I don't feel it's about perception but rather using the most valid reference available.

Using one point of reference is never the most valid available especially when looking at a language which is one of the most diverse in the world, and derives from many varied sources, interpretations and inputs from a vast array of the wonderful cultural diversites we have allowed to enter the language we call our own, in being a renowned country of tolerance and adaptability...

seanmichaels wrote:Toppy: Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some. Tell me why you want to lay there, revel in your abandon?

Jeff: Honey, it don't make no difference to me baby. Everybody has to fight to be free, you see....

Super: You don't have to live like a refugee!

Jeff and Rick: Don't have to live like a refugee!

A Petty argument?

Excellent work...

superflyweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Realise I am risking Godwin's Law here but could you imagine in the early 40s when the European jews were being persecuted and sought refuge in countries such as ours and other friendly states our response had been sod off we're full. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Talk about totally different situation.

And yes, you have not just risked but fully opened up Godwins law in all its glory.

Because they were white?

That's a pretty hefty accusation of racism there, Superfly??

Reckon we should take responsibility for some of them since we started the f*cking problem in the first place. Anyone with half an ounce of sense knows we did this because A we wanted to show russians that our proxy wars could damage their allies and B we wanted to put more pressure on Iran. So we armed what is now an arm of Isis. In retrospect encouraging a rebellion in a barely stable country with 50 different sects from a variety of religions wasn't a good idea. Arming lunatics who eat their enemies hearts is probably one of the more stupid things we have done and that really is saying something. Especially with what we've done to Libya recently also. So after causing the problem by arming our lunatics to rebel against the established goverments and leaving two war torn countries behind we compound the felony by refusing to offer some help to the poor b*stards who have had to run for their lives. We should take our fair share of them and next time consider the impact of a refugee crisis before enacting regime changes.

I believe that this country should take in refugees from the Syrian crisis - how many is, of course, something that needs to be worked out. We also have to accept that this country can't take in as many refugees as, say, Germany, because our population is rapidly expanding at a rate that our present infrastructure can't keep up with.

The other side of the coin is the horrific situation in Calais. The majority of those people, the ones trying to board lorries and smashing down fences, are economic migrants, and our country (and every other) has no duty towards them. This horrific situation is being exacerbated by the failings of the European Union.

So - refugees yes, at a number we can reasonably take. Economic migrants should be deported.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Realise I am risking Godwin's Law here but could you imagine in the early 40s when the European jews were being persecuted and sought refuge in countries such as ours and other friendly states our response had been sod off we're full. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Talk about totally different situation.

And yes, you have not just risked but fully opened up Godwins law in all its glory.

Because they were white?

That's a pretty hefty accusation of racism there, Superfly??

No - it was a question.

Jesus, when you're to the right of Duty on an issue it really could be time to revisit your stance on the topic!

He said what tophat said in a less provocative way and is generally not a c*nt so it was more palatable coming from him.

TopHat24/7

If we are "full" then what countries are not "full" and are therefore able to take in refugees?

McLaren wrote:TopHat24/7

If we are "full" then what countries are not "full" and are therefore able to take in refugees?

Qatar, UAE. They can be looked after there until refugee status determined. Less dangerous travel and they will know which way to pray without the bloody grey skies over here blocking the sun.

There is a political element to this......

Have to remember that only 1 in 5 immigrants vote Conservative......

As Republicans have seen in America over the last few years the demography has changed beyond all recognition.........

And Qatar / UAE have bucket loads of cash

seanmichaels wrote:And Qatar / UAE have bucket loads of cash

And a great record on human rights

So what measures or statistics have you used to determine that Qatar or UAE are not "full"?

I am interested as it would be useful to use these metrics to find other not full countries and identify those countries that are full.

McLaren wrote:So what measures or statistics have you used to determine that Qatar or UAE are not "full"?

I am interested as it would be useful to use these metrics to find other not full countries and identify those countries that are full.

Google earth and http://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/20150408/ARTICLE/304089891/1037

Just out of interest sean do you know the route they'd have to take from syria to the UAE or Qatar? If you were fleeing syria would you go through iraq and Saudi? One is isis stronghold and the other is mostly desert.

sean, thanks we now have one measure of what constitutes a country/city that is not full.

Sean is proposing that areas where 20% of the premium properties are not lived in counts as not full.

Anyone else like to add to that?

ShahenshahG wrote:Just out of interest sean do you know the route they'd have to take from syria to the UAE or Qatar? If you were fleeing syria would you go through iraq and Saudi? One is isis stronghold and the other is mostly desert.

Boats shah, big boats.

McLaren wrote:sean, thanks we now have one measure of what constitutes a country/city that is not full.

Sean is proposing that areas where 20% of the premium properties are not lived in counts as not full.

Anyone else like to add to that?

It is a very sensible suggestion. Culturally similar people. I'd send them to f'king Alaska but that is a.) miles away, b.) too cold and c.) there's feck all work.

Liberalists need to provide a solution and they can't

Its a daft solution because they'd have to risk ISIS, The desert and boats (that capsize in the short distance to Greece and Italy) to travel around all of Africa to get to the UAE/Qatar. Culturally similar might be a bit off since a lot of them aren't Muslims hence them fleeing before ISIS Syria gets a hold of them.

Can't they just swim? If they're that desperate they should probably just swim. If they can't swim they're probably not even scared. Michael Phelps swims and he isn't even swimming away from anything.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Can't they just swim? If they're that desperate they should probably just swim. If they can't swim they're probably not even scared. Michael Phelps swims and he isn't even swimming away from anything.

They're worried that if Sean goes for a swim they might be sucked into his a*se

ShahenshahG wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Can't they just swim? If they're that desperate they should probably just swim. If they can't swim they're probably not even scared. Michael Phelps swims and he isn't even swimming away from anything.

They're worried that if Sean goes for a swim they might be sucked into his a*se

Sian Lloyd got sucked into his a*se and she never once complained. She enjoyed it.

McLaren wrote:So what measures or statistics have you used to determine that Qatar or UAE are not "full"?

I am interested as it would be useful to use these metrics to find other not full countries and identify those countries that are full.

Well, they're certainly not full of refugees. According to the World Bank there are more in Luxembourg than in Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia combined.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Can't they just swim? If they're that desperate they should probably just swim. If they can't swim they're probably not even scared. Michael Phelps swims and he isn't even swimming away from anything.

They're worried that if Sean goes for a swim they might be sucked into his a*se

Sian Lloyd got sucked into his a*se and she never once complained. She enjoyed it.

The national sperm bank only has 9 donors and his a*se has 9 000 000.

Do the Maths