The Northern Ireland 'loyalist' terrorists are not particularly pro-British, they are anti-Catholic. They are Irish and want to live in a Protestant Ireland. They are anti-British in that they carried out terrorist acts contrary to British law and sometimes involving British targets. Their 'loyalties' do not lie with Britain but to a Protestant partition of Ireland. It is like saying 'British' Muslim extremists are pro-British because they want an Islamic state in Britain.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Good response, I'd have said that the loyalists terrorists supported the loyalist political parties cause of anti-republicanism, but the anti-Catholic element of loyalism can't really be down played. I think they're only really pro-British as it would be impossible for them to survive as an independent state.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

So are we going to send a few Hercules to collect refugees then?

Banging on about needing to take more means absolutely nothing and isn't going to save kids from drowing in dodgy boats despite the accompanying pictures. Nor does it have any effect on those who have made it to safety in Europe other than appeasing the countries who are currently grudgingly accommodating them due to geographic convenience.

Telling everyone to come to England is going to make the journey less safe. Children are dying but not in Europe.

Back to the original topic, pro immigration sentiment is increasing too. There'll be civil war next. Already various marches announced. It's now reached the level of people offering to take them in themselves. Pretty shortsighted. Ignorant even. I wonder if people think it's just like raising a pet, or more like a child you'll have to look after till they find a job and end up on their own two feet. Fair play, crack on. Even Labour can only suggest taking an extra few thousand.

Edited by johnfirewall (03 Sep 2015 1.16pm)

It would reduce the frequency and probability though. What generally tends to happen is that refugees flee the country, to a bordering country, like Lebanon, and end up in a refugee camp. The UNHCR tries to then locate placements for refugees. The likelihood is that most of the people who are on the boats have likely passed through a Refugee camp at some point.

The problem tends to be that there are more refugees than the UNHCR can place, and unsurprisingly people aren't keen on staying in refugee camps on the borders of the nation they've fled.

So they try to make some headway, because its easier to get Asylum if your actually in a country, than not (even if the UK refused asylum, they'd never send people back into Syria).

Currently around 5000 Syrians have asylum status in the UK, only around 200 were granted asylum via the UNHCR, most of them were Syrian nationals working/studying or residing in the UK when the war broke out.

The simple fact is that we couldn't deport someone who is Syrian whilst the civil war is ongoing anyhow (there is no authority to deport them to). We can resist taking more from orthodox channels such as the UNHCR, but we'd never actually send anyone back if they happened to be in the country.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Do you not think that that is one child too many?

Cynic or realist? It's a fine line!

Another five confirmed, with a separate incident involving 12 adults.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]