This thread has certainly produced a great deal of polarization of views and I myself wrote a number of times about the situation at Calais and my opposition to allow those people into our country on the basis that we had no idea where they were from or their motivation for trying to get into the UK. But there is no doubt that the tragic events in Turkey this week may have changed the landscape of opinion although I do not accept that we in the UK are responsible for this tragic event it is clearly down to the people traffickers who put desperate people on craft that are not designed or appropriate and they are the real criminals in all this.
And it is not true that we are “Walking on by” as Nicola Sturgeon suggested in fact this country is providing £1 billion in aid to the Syrian refugees by supporting camps in Jordan and other countries which is by far the biggest contribution made by any country per capita and much more than the newly sanctimonious German’s.
The knee jerk reaction now is to open the door and take more refugees in and I see that David Cameron has announced such moves emphasizing that those we take will be from refugee camps in the Middle East and not those already in Europe which I fully support as we have no idea who these people are and their motivation I can fully believe that a number are IS infiltrators ready to bring death and destruction to our country. The facts are that Syria is a country of nearly 20 million people half of which have been displaced by the war and 4million are currently refugees in neighbouring counties. How are you going to organise placement of 4m people? THIS IS NOT A EUROPEAN PROBLEM IT IS A WORLD PROBLEM and all nations need to participate. But that is the tip of the iceberg I am afraid because Royal Navy Ships have picked up migrants in The Med and most were not Syrian they came from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and a whole host of other countries, basically economic migrants, what can we expect wholesale migration from Africa and the Sub Continent? I am no supporter of UKIP but Farage did predict one thing correctly and that is if migration isn’t controlled they will arriving in Europe in their millions not thousands.
So back to the Syrian crisis what constitutes our fair share? 10,000, 100,000? More? And the question is where will they be housed as we have a chronic shortage of local authority and affordable housing, the NHS is overrun already, schools are full to busting, where are they going to work? Then there is the cost of keeping all these people who pays? Well we do in the meantime as they are allowed to stay and they jump the housing queue inevitably tensions will rise and we will once again have racial problems coming to the fore. This is a problem on a Galactic scale and simply saying that we should take more in without considering l the consequences for the 64 million already here is foolish in the extreme. So the only answer is for it to be a UN led effort and the urge all countries to participate and even then it may not be enough. What a bloody mess!
Scotland's population is 5 and a half million. London's is 8 and a half million. There is no room in England for refugees. They state 58 million is our population but add a couple of million more. That is at least 10 million more than our infrastructure can handle.
Nicola Sturgeon as first Minister wants to help. Scotland could take 2 million extra people with no trouble at all, will need more police,hospitals Schools which will create jobs, for builders, teachers nurses, leisure industry etc. Then Scotland decide, stay part of the UK and get your money from Westminster, or get Independence and stand on your own two feet.
This Country is struggling to look after our own old folk, and having to sell my in-laws house which they had worked all their life for, to pay for their care,Sorry if i come across callous to some of you but i won't succumb to emotional Blackmail. A child dies of hunger every 10 seconds in Africa so a leaflet that came through my door tells me. shame the head of that organisation can't earn 60k a year instead of 250k a year then more money could go towards helping.
There are plenty of countries with room, not just Scotland. Canada and parts of the States, Alaska has plenty of space. This is like a crazy guilt trip. Help to find a solution but don't be naive to think that this won't get worse as the world becomes even more polarized by religious and tribal differences which result in internecine carnage.
Social Care = Stealth Inheritance tax only it's potentially worse than actual inheritance tax because it catches all property owners not just the "rich."
Sorry for digressing from the thread topic but this resonates.
The minority of people in the UK are right wing and happen to be the least intelligent. They are scared of change. Scared of what they can't understand. The media control them through their fear eg stories of nhs education housing being limited, the march of Europe, the march of Muslim fundamentalism, poor people coming for their jobs, disabled people taking their taxes etc etc. They are managed like that for the benefit of the establishment. Immigration is one such fear that is planted.
The fact is immigration has never hurt our economy or us as individuals and never will.
Don't fear and embrace the change. The 1930s 1950s etc have gone.
Funniest things i've ever read!! The media control us?? After what's just happened this week?? PMSL
The minority of people in the UK are right wing and happen to be the least intelligent. They are scared of change. Scared of what they can't understand. The media control them through their fear eg stories of nhs education housing being limited, the march of Europe, the march of Muslim fundamentalism, poor people coming for their jobs, disabled people taking their taxes etc etc. They are managed like that for the benefit of the establishment. Immigration is one such fear that is planted.
The fact is immigration has never hurt our economy or us as individuals and never will.
Don't fear and embrace the change. The 1930s 1950s etc have gone.
I don't think people have a problem with immigration per se, I think the problem is with MASS uncontrolled immigration.
It's an inconvenient truth that compared to the average 'indigenous' population, immigrants:
- commit less crime; - open more small businesses; - achieve better school results; - are less of a burden on the NHS (partly for example due to drinking less alcohol); and - claim less welfare benefits.
However whilst being less of a burden on the state than the existing population, they do of course increase the overall burden as many others have rightly noted.
Moreover whilst I would argue that immigration is (and always has been) of net benefit to the country as a whole, clearly there are cohorts of society which are very much negatively impacted (particularly the poor/unskilled).
As Richard Littlejohn noted today (speaking about typical middle class 'metropolitan' support for immigration), "This is the kind of joyous ‘diversity’ we are all ordered to ‘celebrate’ by self-righteous metropolitan Guardianistas — whose only interaction with immigrants is that nice woman who comes in to clean their toilet; that Stavros chap who runs the organic kebab van in Kentish Town; and the Eritrean taxi driver who takes them to Broadcasting House to pontificate about immigration on Newsnight."
With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
1,054 if you take England only 14,200 in London
1,210 New Jersey? 12,700 in Amsterdam 16,500 Brussel (pop is only 1.1m)
It's an inconvenient truth that compared to the average 'indigenous' population, immigrants:
- commit less crime; - open more small businesses; - achieve better school results; - are less of a burden on the NHS (partly for example due to drinking less alcohol); and - claim less welfare benefits.
It's an inconvenient truth that compared to the average 'indigenous' population, immigrants:
- commit less crime; - open more small businesses; - achieve better school results; - are less of a burden on the NHS (partly for example due to drinking less alcohol); and - claim less welfare benefits.
However whilst being less of a burden on the state than the existing population, they do of course increase the overall burden as many others have rightly noted.
Moreover whilst I would argue that immigration is (and always has been) of net benefit to the country as a whole, clearly there are cohorts of society which are very much negatively impacted (particularly the poor/unskilled).
As Richard Littlejohn noted today (speaking about typical middle class 'metropolitan' support for immigration), "This is the kind of joyous ‘diversity’ we are all ordered to ‘celebrate’ by self-righteous metropolitan Guardianistas — whose only interaction with immigrants is that nice woman who comes in to clean their toilet; that Stavros chap who runs the organic kebab van in Kentish Town; and the Eritrean taxi driver who takes them to Broadcasting House to pontificate about immigration on Newsnight."
With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
That was all going quite well until you brought that total c--t Littlejohn into it, a man who has made his fortune from bile and hatred against others.
I think Michael Winner rather summed little Dickie up very aptly....
....pray tell what Littlejohn's own interaction is with the non-Anglo community? I suppose he invites different ethnic groups round every night for evenings of communal healing.....
It's an inconvenient truth that compared to the average 'indigenous' population, immigrants:
- commit less crime; - open more small businesses; - achieve better school results; - are less of a burden on the NHS (partly for example due to drinking less alcohol); and - claim less welfare benefits.
However whilst being less of a burden on the state than the existing population, they do of course increase the overall burden as many others have rightly noted.
Moreover whilst I would argue that immigration is (and always has been) of net benefit to the country as a whole, clearly there are cohorts of society which are very much negatively impacted (particularly the poor/unskilled).
As Richard Littlejohn noted today (speaking about typical middle class 'metropolitan' support for immigration), "This is the kind of joyous ‘diversity’ we are all ordered to ‘celebrate’ by self-righteous metropolitan Guardianistas — whose only interaction with immigrants is that nice woman who comes in to clean their toilet; that Stavros chap who runs the organic kebab van in Kentish Town; and the Eritrean taxi driver who takes them to Broadcasting House to pontificate about immigration on Newsnight."
With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
Whats the density levels in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool? Because thats exactly where they will all head too.
I would like again to point out regarding the little boy and his family we're already away from a warzone in Syria.
Some news had been reported that they were denied refugee status in Canada which has now been proven incorrect as it was his brother that applied and not the father of the family. Oh and now the father has decided the stay in Syria, so now the warzone is okay?
Too many people start as refugees and turn into migrants, you cant have your cake and eat it too and be a burden on the larger city centres. If you come to europe follow the rules, claim refugee status where you land NOT where you choose.
You will have your application assessed at which point they can determine where you go. Simple. You are no longer in danger once on European soil and there is no reason to act like a bloody mob.
o dear o dear so there we have it the "Right" are less intelligent the the "left" ---of course they are its why your socialist ideology is in the dustbin with all the trash--rejected time and again---but all those people who rejected it are of the "right" and less intelligent !! cant wait till Corbyn wins and nails your political coffin shut for good.
just a point but if MASS immigration is so good for the UK why did your Labour Party lie about it happening for 13 years ?
Because the establishment have used the Tories and the press to make the words socialism and left hated, because they know their audience are thick. They laugh at those that vote for them. They gave the majority the chance of power but knew they could control that vote.
I hate it when you read someone's posts on a topic and think "this guys kinda on my wavelength, I like the things he has to say" then he goes and writes something mental.
Nah I love this, it's brilliant the kind of stuff people on here post, between this and the poster who won't put his wife on a lilo, provides endless entertainment in my lunch breaks.
In danger of bringing this back to the original post..... as a club (Valley Party aside) we, and English football in general, have never been political. We turn up, watch the game get involved and support our team.
This isn't always the same across Europe, and certain countries have very political elements to them. The right-wing leanings of Lazio in Italy, as one example... compared to the very left wing politcal activists from St Pauli in Germany (they already have 'refugees welcome' merchandise on their club website)...
As mentioned earlier... the Lee Rigby banner brought some comment and the general gist seemed to be that its not part of football... maybe we should be discussing the involvement of politics in football rather than the current global issues themselves? Save that for another thread/forum.
With the current level of immigration, which equates roughly to a population increase of a million every three years, I just can't understand why some people fail to see the effect this is having on our creaking infrastructure. This level of immigration is not sustainable.
With the current level of immigration, which equates roughly to a population increase of a million every three years, I just can't understand why some people fail to see the effect this is having on our creaking infrastructure. This level of immigration is not sustainable.
Maybe they are blinkered like those who rightly can see the issues in terms of infrastructure but can’t see the benefits. There are pros and cons and if you are making an economic argument for or against it is worth weighing the two up. Of course there is also a humanitarian element to this debate too.
The refugees are now breaking out of the refugee camps in Hungary. Refugees or Migrants?
It's an invasion of wealthy Europe by thousands of the have-nots from all over the world .. Pandora's box is well and truly open if not splintered and torn to pieces .. this current situation is just the tip of a VERY big iceberg/nee mountain of humans from all over the world who're looking to come to Europe for a better life. Who can blame them ? .. BUT .. I suspect that the betterment of a life for thousands of foreigners means the longer term diminution of life chances for my children, grand and great grand children .. we will see
according to the independent 1 in 10 brits would house a refugee for 6 months
Its a very charitable thing to do but if you've got a family, you must be f*****g mad to invite a complete stranger into your house. A child, fair enough but even though I'm sure the majority adults are genuine, how the hell do you know?
Migrants welcome, could we start with Lionel Messi ? On a more serious note, like any decent person I would love to help them of course, the sight of children dying or even being involved is heart breaking. The problem is that people like Cameron have no idea how it feels to be short of a shilling. I am sure that if you just announce that you are going to take in 1,000 migrants, 5,000 more will leave Syria the next day to head here.We need wordly politicians with the brainpower for instance to understand that waging armed conflict against the IRA, or invading and killing Dictators doesn't work, we have proved it too often. Jaw jaw will always be better than war war.
so seeing all over the news now that were taking 4000?, so what happens when Syria is safe will they go home or will they say they have settled here now and its unfair for them to go home, disruptive to the children etc?.
With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
1,054 if you take England only 14,200 in London
1,210 New Jersey? 12,700 in Amsterdam 16,500 Brussel (pop is only 1.1m)
And London has only just returned to it's peak population numbers of 1939, so we have been in this population situation before, with presumably a much less diverse citizenship then.
Comments
And it is not true that we are “Walking on by” as Nicola Sturgeon suggested in fact this country is providing £1 billion in aid to the Syrian refugees by supporting camps in Jordan and other countries which is by far the biggest contribution made by any country per capita and much more than the newly sanctimonious German’s.
The knee jerk reaction now is to open the door and take more refugees in and I see that David Cameron has announced such moves emphasizing that those we take will be from refugee camps in the Middle East and not those already in Europe which I fully support as we have no idea who these people are and their motivation I can fully believe that a number are IS infiltrators ready to bring death and destruction to our country. The facts are that Syria is a country of nearly 20 million people half of which have been displaced by the war and 4million are currently refugees in neighbouring counties. How are you going to organise placement of 4m people? THIS IS NOT A EUROPEAN PROBLEM IT IS A WORLD PROBLEM and all nations need to participate. But that is the tip of the iceberg I am afraid because Royal Navy Ships have picked up migrants in The Med and most were not Syrian they came from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and a whole host of other countries, basically economic migrants, what can we expect wholesale migration from Africa and the Sub Continent? I am no supporter of UKIP but Farage did predict one thing correctly and that is if migration isn’t controlled they will arriving in Europe in their millions not thousands.
So back to the Syrian crisis what constitutes our fair share? 10,000, 100,000? More? And the question is where will they be housed as we have a chronic shortage of local authority and affordable housing, the NHS is overrun already, schools are full to busting, where are they going to work? Then there is the cost of keeping all these people who pays? Well we do in the meantime as they are allowed to stay and they jump the housing queue inevitably tensions will rise and we will once again have racial problems coming to the fore. This is a problem on a Galactic scale and simply saying that we should take more in without considering l the consequences for the 64 million already here is foolish in the extreme. So the only answer is for it to be a UN led effort and the urge all countries to participate and even then it may not be enough. What a bloody mess!
Sorry for digressing from the thread topic but this resonates.
- commit less crime;
- open more small businesses;
- achieve better school results;
- are less of a burden on the NHS (partly for example due to drinking less alcohol); and
- claim less welfare benefits.
However whilst being less of a burden on the state than the existing population, they do of course increase the overall burden as many others have rightly noted.
Moreover whilst I would argue that immigration is (and always has been) of net benefit to the country as a whole, clearly there are cohorts of society which are very much negatively impacted (particularly the poor/unskilled).
As Richard Littlejohn noted today (speaking about typical middle class 'metropolitan' support for immigration), "This is the kind of joyous ‘diversity’ we are all ordered to ‘celebrate’ by self-righteous metropolitan Guardianistas — whose only interaction with immigrants is that nice woman who comes in to clean their toilet; that Stavros chap who runs the organic kebab van in Kentish Town; and the Eritrean taxi driver who takes them to Broadcasting House to pontificate about immigration on Newsnight."
With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
14,200 in London
1,210 New Jersey?
12,700 in Amsterdam
16,500 Brussel (pop is only 1.1m)
I think Michael Winner rather summed little Dickie up very aptly....
....pray tell what Littlejohn's own interaction is with the non-Anglo community? I suppose he invites different ethnic groups round every night for evenings of communal healing.....
Some news had been reported that they were denied refugee status in Canada which has now been proven incorrect as it was his brother that applied and not the father of the family. Oh and now the father has decided the stay in Syria, so now the warzone is okay?
You will have your application assessed at which point they can determine where you go. Simple. You are no longer in danger once on European soil and there is no reason to act like a bloody mob.
This isn't always the same across Europe, and certain countries have very political elements to them. The right-wing leanings of Lazio in Italy, as one example... compared to the very left wing politcal activists from St Pauli in Germany (they already have 'refugees welcome' merchandise on their club website)...
As mentioned earlier... the Lee Rigby banner brought some comment and the general gist seemed to be that its not part of football... maybe we should be discussing the involvement of politics in football rather than the current global issues themselves? Save that for another thread/forum.
Refugees or Migrants?
Who can blame them ? .. BUT .. I suspect that the betterment of a life for thousands of foreigners means the longer term diminution of life chances for my children, grand and great grand children .. we will see