amazing howour papers will print that harrowing oicture of that ooor little boy yet wont put a cartoon of mohammed . anyway inspired? inspired to do what ? hold up a banner , not really.
There are towns up north that are bloody ghost towns they're so empty. Now, I understand most of the people wanting to come here won't want to live in Nowhereshire, but it's hardly a case of "no houses at all anywhere in the whole of Britain".
Countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya were places where the western powerhouses decided that boundaries should be drawn and countries made. They then arranged for a powerful leader to run each country, time passed and leaders changed and we ended up with Asad,Hussein and Gadaffi, all these leaders ran their countries with a rod of iron and kept the disparate populations in check. In the cases of Libya and Iraq we helped overthrow these dictators in the name of democracy with the result that both countries descended into bloody conflict which has made a refugee problem, In Syria the dictator remains and as he is not supported by the west he is weak and a vacuum is created which is filled by an extreme organisation and so it is another country of conflict. The countries of power should be backing the dictators to run their own countries and so stabilising them and reducing the refugee problem. Dictatorships aren't pretty but democracy doesn't work everywhere as can be seen in Saudi Arabia.
As for the current refugees all of Europe must help them but then so should Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and India, it needs all these countries to come together and provide shelter for these unfortunate people - but it won't happen, I wonder why?
The only reason we now need such vast quantities of affordable housing built is because the UK population is so out of control. Demand outstrips supply = house prices go up.
If you listen to any mainstream politician today, they simply won't acknowledge this.
The opening post clearly states 'refugees' not 'immigrants'. Yet we get the same old reslponses on here from people muddling the two. A cynical person might think that some posters are deliberately being obtuse to try and cloud the issue.
The opening post clearly states 'refugees' not 'immigrants'. Yet we get the same old reslponses on here from people muddling the two. A cynical person might think that some posters are deliberately being obtuse to try and cloud the issue.
I'm not sure certain posters are intelligent enough to be that obtuse on purpose.
The opening post clearly states 'refugees' not 'immigrants'. Yet we get the same old reslponses on here from people muddling the two. A cynical person might think that some posters are deliberately being obtuse to try and cloud the issue.
Conversely a cynical person might think that the word 'refugee' rather than the word 'immigrant' has been deliberately used to obfuscate the failures in government migration policy (or lack thereof) generally.
The opening post clearly states 'refugees' not 'immigrants'. Yet we get the same old reslponses on here from people muddling the two. A cynical person might think that some posters are deliberately being obtuse to try and cloud the issue.
You can almost predict who , when and what these same people will say. It does get a little tedious.
What a wonderful utopian world some of you live in. Please don't complain in years to come/now when the Ambulance doesn't get to you or there's no beds. Schools, housing, etc. Maybe Scotland who have the same population as Yorkshire, have the Infrastructure and room to cope. England can't cope. The population is already about 10 million too high. Watch the programes on India. If you want to see people herded together like Sheep. Without space there is no quality of life.
I'm not confusing refugees with immigrants, legal or otherwise.
I feel desperately sorry for those escaping the horrors in the middle east. I'm just making the point that the UK is not the first safe place these people will hit. If the UK just lets them all in then we'll find hundreds of thousands going through Europe just to be here. The refugees sitting in Calais have made a conscious decision not to seek asylum at the first place they hit.
The only reason there seems to be some hostility in the UK about taking in these refugees is that the Labour and subsequent Conservative government have made a total pigs ear of controlling immigration into the UK that people now lump the two together. I think if we left the EU and had proper border controls, people would feel differently about all this.
But as I said before, we should take in a controlled number of refugees. We're lucky in this country that war is a distant thought.
I don't think you understand, this isn't about the wider issue of illegal immigration (people moving through Europe to get here) these are thousands upon thousands upon thousands fleeing a country absolutely anyway they can. It's not opening our borders, it's taking our share along with the rest of the European community rather than leaving them to starve in some camp that may or may not eventually get caught up by ISIS, the people who they've wanted to flee.
I'm definitely pro immigration control, I think the Tories have done a terrible job bringing net immigration down. However this isn't about people wanting to come here to claim benefits. This is about people not wanting to be raped and killed by a regime that wants us all to be dead. They don't care where they go as long as it's somewhere safe.
KA - You can't tell me the thousands at Calais are all 'refugees' - the majority of them are young men, taking a chance to get here and settle. They've passed through France - why are they so desperate to get here and not just somewhere safe?
The recent picture was shocking and of course sad (no on could deny otherwise) but it does not mean our Country should be guilt tripped into opening the gates, just because a few hearts have (understandbly) bled.
All the people jumping on the bandwagon, (aimed at no one specifically) how would you feel if they open up a camp for them at the end of your street and then maybe a few years down the line your children miss out on their desired school places, or the NHS cracks further etc etc - is it a case of yes let them all in, because it won't affect me. Well one day it just might and by then it will be too late.
This will just be another (jump on the badwagon type thing) at the football, most of which participating have no idea of the concequences
I pretty much explained the major difference between those in Calais and those leaving struggling to get onto Greek shores.
We're not saying "yes, go through further death defying struggles to get to our doorstep and then we'll let you in". It's "you're in the EU now, Greece can't take all of you, no one can take all of you so we'll take on x amount in each town/council".
It depresses me that people seem to confuse refugees and people attempting to enter this country illegally.
I'll ask the question to you - if this country was torn apart by civil war would you want to leave the country with your family so they could be safe? Many of these people are not uneducated people but some of are educated, once had fair paying jobs like you and me and are simply desperately fleeing death. Don't be fooled by the brown boogie man the daily mail and Murdoch want you to think of. Refugees and people wanting to enter this country illegally so they can work at a kebab shop are two completely different things with the only similarity being that they are foreign.
I don't believe they would be put in "camps" as you so eloquently put it, they would be given council homes to live in. Oh, wait, there's no more council homes either.
What a wonderful utopian world some of you live in. Please don't complain in years to come/now when the Ambulance doesn't get to you or there's no beds. Schools, housing, etc. Maybe Scotland who have the same population as Yorkshire, have the Infrastructure and room to cope. England can't cope. The population is already about 10 million too high. Watch the programes on India. If you want to see people herded together like Sheep. Without space there is no quality of life.
I read the last line of your post then i can't help thinking about the picture of that little boy dead in the water . Where is the compassion?
What a wonderful utopian world some of you live in. Please don't complain in years to come/now when the Ambulance doesn't get to you or there's no beds. Schools, housing, etc. Maybe Scotland who have the same population as Yorkshire, have the Infrastructure and room to cope. England can't cope. The population is already about 10 million too high. Watch the programes on India. If you want to see people herded together like Sheep. Without space there is no quality of life.
that's why I believe there needs to be future repatriation
Most of you would have kept the Jews out in the 30s
The population was a lot lower in the 30s so we could cope.
I am very much in favour of offering succour to genuine refugees but there are undeniable difficulties in separating those refugees from other less deserving immigrants.
Successive governments, red and blue, have ballsed this up, whether by accident or design, for the best part of 20 years now.
Vast majority are not refugees or they would stay in the 1st country they came to which in most cases is Turkey. The reason they carry on is for economic reasons. The help of Europe should be to secure some land in one of these countries they are fleeing And keep them there with armed forces protecting them until it's safe to go home.
Football is sport. IMHO sport and politics should not mix.
This thread has turned into a debate with many positive and negative sides on both sides of the argument. However, the original question was about a banner.
Most of you would have kept the Jews out in the 30s
The population was a lot lower in the 30s so we could cope.
The unemployment rate never dropped below 10% from 1930 to 1935, and hovered around 9% for the rest of the 30s. It's currently 5.4%.
I think people should say what they mean, which is that Syrian refugees are someone else's problem. Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Germany, whoever. Someone else.
Having seen that 10,000 Icelanders offered to share their homes with refugees, I'm thinking about whether I'd do the same. Would have to discuss with my flatmate. That's 3% of the population of Iceland, by the way. Corresponds to almost 2m British people opening up their homes.
Most of you would have kept the Jews out in the 30s
The population was a lot lower in the 30s so we could cope.
I am very much in favour of offering succour to genuine refugees but there are undeniable difficulties in separating those refugees from other less deserving immigrants.
Successive governments, red and blue, have ballsed this up, whether by accident or design, for the best part of 20 years now.
The population was a lot lower so there were less people to do basic services jobs. Your logic doesn't make sense. But I agree about successive governments failing to make the investments in infrastructure and housing
What a wonderful utopian world some of you live in. Please don't complain in years to come/now when the Ambulance doesn't get to you or there's no beds. Schools, housing, etc. Maybe Scotland who have the same population as Yorkshire, have the Infrastructure and room to cope. England can't cope. The population is already about 10 million too high. Watch the programes on India. If you want to see people herded together like Sheep. Without space there is no quality of life.
If you want to see people herded together like sheep with no quality of life maybe head over to the refugee camps...
Comments
There are towns up north that are bloody ghost towns they're so empty. Now, I understand most of the people wanting to come here won't want to live in Nowhereshire, but it's hardly a case of "no houses at all anywhere in the whole of Britain".
The countries of power should be backing the dictators to run their own countries and so stabilising them and reducing the refugee problem. Dictatorships aren't pretty but democracy doesn't work everywhere as can be seen in Saudi Arabia.
As for the current refugees all of Europe must help them but then so should Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and India, it needs all these countries to come together and provide shelter for these unfortunate people - but it won't happen, I wonder why?
If you listen to any mainstream politician today, they simply won't acknowledge this.
Shelter say "279,000 long-term privately owned empty homes in England". England alone.
Or are you perhaps suggesting State confiscation of legitimately acquired private property?
2014 New housing 141k
2015 Net immigration so far 298k
Info from BBC.
German immigration running at 130k per MONTH.
Diversity is one thing, but 75 million people (from any background) living in UK is a total no no.
Please don't complain in years to come/now when the Ambulance
doesn't get to you or there's no beds. Schools, housing, etc.
Maybe Scotland who have the same population as Yorkshire,
have the Infrastructure and room to cope.
England can't cope.
The population is already about 10 million too high.
Watch the programes on India.
If you want to see people herded together like Sheep.
Without space there is no quality of life.
We're not saying "yes, go through further death defying struggles to get to our doorstep and then we'll let you in". It's "you're in the EU now, Greece can't take all of you, no one can take all of you so we'll take on x amount in each town/council".
It depresses me that people seem to confuse refugees and people attempting to enter this country illegally.
I'll ask the question to you - if this country was torn apart by civil war would you want to leave the country with your family so they could be safe? Many of these people are not uneducated people but some of are educated, once had fair paying jobs like you and me and are simply desperately fleeing death. Don't be fooled by the brown boogie man the daily mail and Murdoch want you to think of. Refugees and people wanting to enter this country illegally so they can work at a kebab shop are two completely different things with the only similarity being that they are foreign.
I don't believe they would be put in "camps" as you so eloquently put it, they would be given council homes to live in. Oh, wait, there's no more council homes either.
I am very much in favour of offering succour to genuine refugees but there are undeniable difficulties in separating those refugees from other less deserving immigrants.
Successive governments, red and blue, have ballsed this up, whether by accident or design, for the best part of 20 years now.
Vast majority are not refugees or they would stay in the 1st country they came to which in most cases is Turkey. The reason they carry on is for economic reasons.
The help of Europe should be to secure some land in one of these countries they are fleeing And keep them there with armed forces protecting them until it's safe to go home.
This thread has turned into a debate with many positive and negative sides on both sides of the argument. However, the original question was about a banner.
I think people should say what they mean, which is that Syrian refugees are someone else's problem. Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Germany, whoever. Someone else.
Having seen that 10,000 Icelanders offered to share their homes with refugees, I'm thinking about whether I'd do the same. Would have to discuss with my flatmate. That's 3% of the population of Iceland, by the way. Corresponds to almost 2m British people opening up their homes.