TheCountOfNowhere Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) sky reporting government promises to take in Syrian refuges they just love spending other peoples money. im all for helping people but peoples 60% to 70% annualtax liability has stretched us to breaking point. will they all be getting houses built for them...or will some lanlord getting silly amounts of our money to house them. charity begins at home torries. who do vote for to stop this? Edited January 28, 2014 by TheCountOfNowhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 its our 'fair share' dunno what happened to japans 'fair share' whats wrong with saudis taking them? theyre closer, muslim, have plenty of space and need guestworkers we'll see how it works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoWolves Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 its our 'fair share' dunno what happened to japans 'fair share' whats wrong with saudis taking them? theyre closer, muslim, have plenty of space and need guestworkers we'll see how it works out. Kindness is the white man's burden in the modern world. On the whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 sky reporting government promises to take in Syrian refuges they just love spending other peoples money. im all for helping people but peoples 60% to 70% annualtax liability has stretched us to breaking point. will they all be getting houses built for them...or will some lanlord getting silly amounts of our money to house them. charity begins at home torries. who do vote for to stop this? I have noticed they were saying temporary refuge, that is how it should have been for years as many " so called" war torn refugees have from what i have seen has been a bit of a trick in some cases to get a British passport. We should help but not be taken for a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righttoleech Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Let's hope the Home Office can differentiate between refugees and Al Quada rebels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btl_hater Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If ever there was a political myth that is incorrectly ingrained in the minds of the general population it is that " The Tories are tough on immigration". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vin rouge Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I notice in the governments statement that they intend to take in mainly women, children and disabled refugees. That will do wonders for the UK's productivity. Meanwhile countries elsewhere will have taken all the qualified and working ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are. Edited January 29, 2014 by Big Orange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) There is no legitimate reason to let people like this in. I would give asylum to virtually nobody. I would rather not pay for it anyway - not while there are homeless English people, old people freezing to death in their homes etc etc. Edited January 29, 2014 by Errol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Kindness is the white man's burden in the modern world. On the whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population I'd say the people who help out in massive refugee camps on the borders of war torn countries, or share their meagre resources with those fleeing death are kinder than us who begrudge letting a few damaged women and children in temporarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are. I don't consider myself cold hearted - I just can't see why we[1] send crates of weapons to 3rd world hellholes, then accept all the people fleeing the mayhem caused by those weapons. It feels like solving the wrong problem - that's why I'm not keen on it personally. [1] As in: our government and its various chums, especially the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are. You do know that the 21st July 2005 attacks in London were carried out by Somali refugees, don't you? How do you know that the same thing might happen again? I am quite welcome to let genuine refugees who will not blow up the tube but not ones who might do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If the truth be known for over 10 years or more...many thousands of asylem seekers came with few questions asked from all over the world.....a blind eye was taken, many all from outside the EU.......few were genuine, many were not, the target then seemed to be people/growth not circumstances more often than not for economic reasons not because of persecution........ That is why a limit on people who have a real and genuine need and assistance is not a bad thing......these people are real, in real desperate need........not at all like the many that did claim destitution that were not desperate like these people are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertop Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are. you can add me to the list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If the truth be known for over 10 years or more...many thousands of asylem seekers came with few questions asked from all over the world.....a blind eye was taken, many all from outside the EU.......few were genuine, many were not, the target then seemed to be people/growth not circumstances more often than not for economic reasons not because of persecution........ That is why a limit on people who have a real and genuine need and assistance is not a bad thing......these people are real, in real desperate need........not at all like the many that did claim destitution that were not desperate like these people are. Unfortunately the Somalis were also in genuine need - didn't stop terrorism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The worst terrorist atrocity in my neck of the woods was carried out by Irish Republicans. I don't remember anyone demanding a blanket ban on Irish immigration after that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are. For the amount of money that will be spent on each refugee admitted to Britain, the UK could probably support about 10 refugees if they stayed in the region (i.e. Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, etc.) given the huge difference in the cost of living. Admitting asylum seekers into the UK will deprive children of an education, force families to live without proper housing, and increase malnutrition. If making sure that people are properly looked after carries the risk of being called a "cold hearted *******" by some of the more simple-minded and self-righteous members of society, than so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The worst terrorist atrocity in my neck of the woods was carried out by Irish Republicans. I don't remember anyone demanding a blanket ban on Irish immigration after that though. Only a really stupid person would have done that as the IRA were mainly British citizens (NI is part of the UK). Syria is not part of the UK and although I would like to Christian/Atheist Syrians here, importing the rest would only cause more problems. Of course if we carry on importing Muslims then one day you might have some more atrocities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Only a really stupid person would have done that as the IRA were mainly British citizens (NI is part of the UK). Syria is not part of the UK and although I would like to Christian/Atheist Syrians here, importing the rest would only cause more problems. Of course if we carry on importing Muslims then one day you might have some more atrocities. The 7 July 2005 bombers (the ones who actually killed people) were also British citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) The worst terrorist atrocity in my neck of the woods was carried out by Irish Republicans. I don't remember anyone demanding a blanket ban on Irish immigration after that though. Probably because even if every last irishman emigrated to the UK they;d still not even equal the aggregate total of immigration from 1997-2010. On the other hand, theres about 3 billion third worlders who would want to come here. edit SpAg Edited January 29, 2014 by Executive Sadman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) They were quoting numbers like 30,000 on the radio this evening - due to that conflict alone. Edited January 30, 2014 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The 7 July 2005 bombers (the ones who actually killed people) were also British citizens. But unlike most members of the IRA they were British citizens because their parents (unfortunately) immigrated here. Whilst NI is part of the UK and therefore not the same thing. Can you see the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 I thought I would be slated for posting this as a topic....it seems not. I have a great deal of sympathy for any refugee, what is happening is tragic. However, the government is borrowing £120B a year and giving a lot of it away...they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking his credit card trying to get into some tarts pants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I thought I would be slated for posting this as a topic....it seems not. I have a great deal of sympathy for any refugee, what is happening is tragic. However, the government is borrowing £120B a year and giving a lot of it away...they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking his credit card trying to get into some tarts pants. I feel very sorry for them as well. BTW this "they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking his credit card trying to get into some tarts pants." should read "they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking OUR credit card trying to get into some tarts pants." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 But unlike most members of the IRA they were British citizens because their parents (unfortunately) immigrated here. Whilst NI is part of the UK and therefore not the same thing. Can you see the difference? I'm just trying to get a handle on your logic. Who exactly do you think should be banned from entering the UK on the grounds that they might carry out terrorist attacks, given that almost all of those responsible for deadly attacks to date were born in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.