This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Anti immigration parties on the rise
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  04 Sep 15 12.33pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 04 Sep 2015 9.04am
I get that, but my opinion has changed slightly since having kids. Now I would 100% put my kids' welfare above the country, so if I thought doing a runner with them would make them safe, I'd probably make that call, but I agree it's tough to reconcile with the fact that many of the people travelling are young males alone. My rant is mainly aimed at the young men.....Women and children are always a different matter. I don't entirely disagree when you mention men with families......But I don't see what they are doing as being particularly safer or sensible. The west isn't there keeper and at some point they have got that idea into their head. Probably down to the short sighted immigration policies in the EU. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Sep 2015 12.37pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Sep 15 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote bright&wright at 04 Sep 2015 12.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 11.59am
Quote johnfirewall at 04 Sep 2015 11.37am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 10.18am
No ones living the life of Riley on 44.50 a week budget. Neither are the Brits who are living in a free house but the pocket money is besides the point. That's like saying everyone deserves to live in London because although they'll earn more they'll spend more and still have the same disposable income. Edited by johnfirewall (04 Sep 2015 11.51am) I don't think anyone deserves to live in London, but then I wouldn't want to live there either. When you're talking about refugees, its different than people coming here to fill jobs. We're talking about people who basically don't have a home, or belong somewhere and probably face persecution, imprisonment or even death, often in a country regularly berated for its poor human rights. And if it means the UK standard of living dips slightly, or we have to raise taxes, to fulfill the needs of people who are refugees, then I'm quite happy to spend a few quid less to see people secured from persecution, rape, murder, oppression etc. Money well spent for a change. Ok so a few quid now, what happens when a few more thousand turn up? Another few quid? And then a couple more thousand? Some more spare cash? People who say 'let them in' don't seem to be able to tell us when we can say enough is enough. When do we decide we have too many? When YOU can't afford to part with a few more quid? And because you're happy to part with money and I'm not does that mean I don't have to? I really don't understand this 'oh it's only a few quid to save people from torture' belief. Come on, it's not that simple is it? If Liberals lead this country in the 40's we'd have been screwed. As I don't support EU working migration laws, or economic migration, I'm only really interested in Asylum. Probably because they've been saying the same thing for 45 years. I remember it being the 'justification' in the 80s, wasn't true. Plus, I'm talking about a tiny fraction of the immigration in the UK, which is from Asylum. And I'm not a liberal either. Don't try to justify it by dragging in WWII either, what has that even got to do with it (Also the UK government at the time was surprisingly liberal anyhow, Churchill himself had been an MP for the Liberals, and had a rather Liberal political background). What's your solution to the humanitarian crisis of Syria, ignore it and let everyone else take responsibility for it? Presumably you're against UK citizens migrating from the UK?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Sep 15 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.02pm
Er, that pretty much describes how politics works. What is good for the country, isn't really relevant when dealing with refugees, its about what is right. Good of the country, when the f**k did politicians ever make decisions about what is good for the country.
Who's set of moral codes are we talking about here?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Sep 15 12.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Sep 2015 12.33pm
Quote npn at 04 Sep 2015 9.04am
I get that, but my opinion has changed slightly since having kids. Now I would 100% put my kids' welfare above the country, so if I thought doing a runner with them would make them safe, I'd probably make that call, but I agree it's tough to reconcile with the fact that many of the people travelling are young males alone. My rant is mainly aimed at the young men.....Women and children are always a different matter. I don't entirely disagree when you mention men with families......But I don't see what they are doing as being particularly safer or sensible. Probably down to the short sighted immigration policies in the EU. Women are just as capable of shooting people as men, and in a pinch, kids can support a war effort and women can fulfill a logistical support role. Problem usually is getting hold of weapons, ammo, training, finding allies etc. In a war between nations, its easy to sign up and join. In a civil war you can't just turn up at the recruiting office. Even the act of travelling to a place where you can join a faction, is likely to end up with you being murdered or pressganged by factions between you and them. The risk of death in a boat, or the certainty of death. I would guess that the latest wave of refugees has been driven by changes in the conflict. So far 3m people have fled from Syria, and another 6m are displaced within Syria.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Sep 15 12.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Sep 2015 8.46am
Or....those of a self-centred, mean-spirited, somewhat ruthless, emotionally stunted, unkind, non-generous persuasion now have nothing in common with the UK and the British sense of fair play having been caressed a bit too much by far-right politics.
You can keep stacking them in.....You will all love it.....I bet you won't go back though Kermy.....I don't know, maybe I'm wrong on that. You could get a job up there dealing with their public relations.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Sep 15 12.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Sep 2015 12.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.02pm
Er, that pretty much describes how politics works. What is good for the country, isn't really relevant when dealing with refugees, its about what is right. Good of the country, when the f**k did politicians ever make decisions about what is good for the country.
Who's set of moral codes are we talking about here? I talking about ethics here, arguably its a ethical right to do something to prevent suffering if you can (or at least its more ethical than to do nothing and absolve yourself of responsibility). As Plato puts it, it is better to suffer yourself than to be a cause of suffering in the world. I'd be happy for the UK to do something significant. Rather than the usual response of 'its not our problem'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 04 Sep 15 12.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.02pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 11.53am
What makes me cringe is that Government policy on this appears to be being determined by the publishing of some pictures. We should all be very nervous when you have politicians that are driven by popularity rather than what is good for the country. We all know they are slaves to money but the double whammy is always depressing for me. Er, that pretty much describes how politics works. What is good for the country, isn't really relevant when dealing with refugees, its about what is right. Yes it certainly does but what is good for the country certainly does matter for everyone. I take a long view on refugees. The trouble with making emotional decisions is that they often don't consider what comes next.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 04 Sep 15 12.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.28pm
Quote johnfirewall at 04 Sep 2015 12.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 11.59am
Quote johnfirewall at 04 Sep 2015 11.37am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 10.18am
No ones living the life of Riley on 44.50 a week budget. Neither are the Brits who are living in a free house but the pocket money is besides the point. That's like saying everyone deserves to live in London because although they'll earn more they'll spend more and still have the same disposable income. Edited by johnfirewall (04 Sep 2015 11.51am) I don't think anyone deserves to live in London, but then I wouldn't want to live there either. When you're talking about refugees, its different than people coming here to fill jobs. We're talking about people who basically don't have a home, or belong somewhere and probably face persecution, imprisonment or even death, often in a country regularly berated for its poor human rights. And if it means the UK standard of living dips slightly, or we have to raise taxes, to fulfill the needs of people who are refugees, then I'm quite happy to spend a few quid less to see people secured from persecution, rape, murder, oppression etc. Money well spent for a change. I though the argument was about who receives what where, and why people, those who have already escaped the danger, would favour a particular destination. People who have in one way or other have been sheltered in a new country. I'm just not particularly convinced by your angle that they're only receiving 50 quid cash and therefore not living particularly luxuriously while in the most expensive property in Europe. Not sure if sympathy is now meant to extend to those who've made it. Value does not equal quality. Look at the prices around Norwood Junction, and they're ridiculously high, despite it being a bit of a s**thole. People pay those prices because they have to, because our property and rental prices are out of control. At no point is it really worth 250k to own a house in Catford, other than from the necessity. And the rest. Hypothetically if there was a statutory contribution to each migrant they'd not being leaving the less prosperous EU countries to live in a cupboard in London.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Sep 15 12.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 9.49am
Hardly a big payoff, 36.50 a week. You do realize that prior to the civil war Syria was a fairly affluent country with a fairly decent standard of living, employment, education etc not some s**ty slum hole tribal backwater.
The fact is the opportunities afforded by a liberal democratic society with free health care and education and welcoming welfare state (once you're resident) is several orders of magnitude better than what they have. Of course they want what the working class here have. Fact is, I believe the state responsibility is to house and provide an economy for, by and large, the British. The help we should give should be in helping maintain camps and the fight against IS. This country is already spending considerable cash through the UN in helping Syria. I have suggested terms by which I'd agree with certain more asylum entrants......But I'm very aware of the pressure applied by those who don't really care about the disaster of housing we already have.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 04 Sep 15 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Sep 2015 12.41pm
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Sep 2015 8.46am
Or....those of a self-centred, mean-spirited, somewhat ruthless, emotionally stunted, unkind, non-generous persuasion now have nothing in common with the UK and the British sense of fair play having been caressed a bit too much by far-right politics.
You can keep stacking them in.....You will all love it.....I bet you won't go back though Kermy.....I don't know, maybe I'm wrong on that. You could get a job up there dealing with their public relations. Sturgeon can be as welcoming as she wants but we all know they wouldn't go near the place.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Sep 15 12.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.44pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Sep 2015 12.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.02pm
Er, that pretty much describes how politics works. What is good for the country, isn't really relevant when dealing with refugees, its about what is right. Good of the country, when the f**k did politicians ever make decisions about what is good for the country.
Who's set of moral codes are we talking about here? I talking about ethics here, arguably its a ethical right to do something to prevent suffering if you can (or at least its more ethical than to do nothing and absolve yourself of responsibility). As Plato puts it, it is better to suffer yourself than to be a cause of suffering in the world. I'd be happy for the UK to do something significant. Rather than the usual response of 'its not our problem'. The difference between ethics and morality is word play. I don't agree with 'something significant'. Let the pro immigration countries do 'something significant'. We will help around the edges.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Sep 15 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 12.40pm
Women are just as capable of shooting people as men, and in a pinch, kids can support a war effort and women can fulfill a logistical support role. Problem usually is getting hold of weapons, ammo, training, finding allies etc. In a war between nations, its easy to sign up and join. In a civil war you can't just turn up at the recruiting office. Even the act of travelling to a place where you can join a faction, is likely to end up with you being murdered or pressganged by factions between you and them. The risk of death in a boat, or the certainty of death. I would guess that the latest wave of refugees has been driven by changes in the conflict. So far 3m people have fled from Syria, and another 6m are displaced within Syria.
Most of them could very easily join the Kurds from Turkey......There's no real risk there. As for women.....You are talking about young single women....Not women with children like I was.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.