What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
I was with you in not really understanding the adulation meted out for the post but the thread is predominantly moving in a;
'I support us helping refugees' - 'would you let them sleep in your bed in between you and your wife' - 'no, I probably wouldn't be up for that' - 'oh, I see, but you expect us to do that' - 'no, not really but I do support us helping refugees' - 'sure you do, but would you give them the last of the Coco Pops and send your own kids off to school with no breakfast' - 'no, I'd have probably snuck out of bed and left the refugee family in there with my wife so that I could feed my own kids before they woke up' - 'oh, one rule for you and another for everyone else then' - 'not really, I thought we might just be able to help some of them out' - 'oh, so you want to concrete over Windemere and build a tower block for them to live in so that all of us that are already here fall ill with stress' - 'no, I really like holidaying in the Lakes' - 'you would you leftie, quinoa munching, Guardianista' - 'well, the right are all too stupid to even spell quinoa' - 'so you basically want ISIS operatives making dirty bombs in your reclaimed bathtub?' - 'not really, that would ruin the enamel' bla bla bla, ridiculous nonsense, kind of a direction.
As such, I think only those with the most admirable levels of perseverance are still participating...
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees. I read there are over 4 million refugees and there are probably even more potential ones, so the numbers don’t seem to add up. What surely is needed is money and planning and not knee jerk reactions to an admittedly heart wrenching occurrence. Money, to pay for secure temporary solutions for those people in camps in nearby land and planning to work out a way to give them the training and schooling they will need to pick up the pieces when the time comes to do so. The part this country should be playing here, amongst others including rich friendly Arab states, is a financial one. The refugees should be housed in camps in safe areas in the region and those countries need to benefit financially for housing them. They would probably prefer to go to Germany or Britain, but that shouldn’t be an option. Simply because by making it one, everybody will feel that is achievable and when say the German’s decide they have taken enough, you don’t have the confusion and chaos that will entail.
Then we have to help sort the problem out. We have to accept the part we have played in this through encouraging the Arab Spring uprisings. I’m not saying it was morally wrong to do this, but the landscape has become far more complicated because those fighting the Syrian regime were both secular and Islamist organisations. Past conflicts have dulled our appetite to go in a sort the mess out – but this has become a mess that requires sorting out. Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
The US no doubt, will be reluctant to intervene, until after their election.
The UK government, need to convince parliament, of the need for military intervention in Syria. Cameron & Osborne are for intervention.
France are already suggesting that they are ready for action now.
Can I ask what is the difference between refugees and asylum seekers?
Refugees are those fleeing war or persecution and it's too dangerous for them to return home. They are protected under the 1951 refugee convention.
Asylum seekers are those that have fled their country for whatever reason (usually it is persecution) and have applied for asylum in another state. States are bound to provide temporary subsistence to those individuals whilst they consider their claim for asylum.
So would A refuge have to return to there country when it's deem safe? Or after a period of years? And an asylum seeker not?
What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
For my part I genuinely found your Sept 5th post mostly incomprehensible. Your notion that the Guardian should redefine itself as a charity was so bizarre I could not muster a response
People are still getting illegal immigrants and refugees mixed up!
There lies the problem - we don't know which are which and those wanting to do harm in Europe can easily enter without proper checks.
Whereas, of course, we know exactly which of those people who are already in the country intend to do harm. Don't we?
We don't know. What I'll describe as foreigner entry (whatever category they are classified under) is a pigs ear after 20 years of Labour and Conservative incompetence so why be pressurised into making matters even worse just to be "seen to doing the so-called right thing?"
As I've said elsewhere on the thread let genuine refugees in but on our terms after proper checks to our satisfaction re their eligibility.
With the provision that the second they do anything significantly wrong, they give up the right to asylum for them and their family, and they are deported back to country of origin, or Germany.
Giving them a home and supporting them is one thing, giving them a cell and having to support them completely different. Same should apply to all people who have come to this country, whether they be, Asylum seeker, EU migrant or anybody else. Any crime that justifies a jail sentence, you serve the time and then exit !
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees.
Better for whom? Because if the UK, Germany or any other country provides refuge to a few thousand refugees, I can think of a few thousand people for whom life suddenly becomes a whole lot better, more comfortable and safer.
Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
"Military intervention" (and, of course there is a wide range of possibilities that might encompass) may well solve the immediate and medium-term crisis. But, at what cost? A few thousand lives? A few thousand British troops' lives?
Your suggestions (and I believe that you hold them honestly) can be paired down to this: "there's no point looking after a few thousand people who are in desperate need of support right now; instead, we should risk the lives of tens of thousands of others (and the certain death of numbers of British armed forces) to ensure the situation ends as soon as possible".
The problem - apart from the British body bags; the un-told numbers of civilian casualties; the certain additional threat to all British subjects at home and abroad; and the multi-million dollar cost of financing yet another overseas war - is that it would take years to prosecute.
The Iraq War - when we knew who and where the enemy was - took eight years.
Add to the confusion by not knowing who the enemy is - Assad? Forces opposed to Assad? al-Ba'ath? Hezbollah? al-Nusrah Front? Sootoro? Islamic Front? Mujahedeen? The Taliban? ISIS? Russia? - and you have a recipe for a never-ending war.
By all means propose a way of resolving the crisis. But simply suggesting the two words "military intervention" as the solution is missing the mark by a long way.
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
Right, let's go through this slowly then. It is not a valid argument, because it places responsibility for action at an individual level. Nobody is calling upon people to take action on an individual level to house refugees. What some people are arguing for is that as a country, as a nation, as a collective we should do more. You know and I know that there are very good reasons why for the majority of people personally housing a refugee is not a practical or desirable course of action. However, this is not relevant to the argument, because no-one is calling for this level of individual action. If people were going around stating that everyone should take in refugees personally and then didn't do it themselves, your argument would be a perfectly valid way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are all mouth and no trousers. But that's not the case is it. What people are arguing is that we should take collective action because collectively we have more resources, less exposure to risk and better access to expertise should we encounter any difficulties. There is absolutely no reason why someone who says this, should be expected to take action on an individual level. The reason that your particular argument is invalid is not because I, or anyone else, wants it to be invalid. It is invalid because it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is in fact a bit of smoke and mirrors, a particular type of smoke and mirrors called a false syllogism. You are setting out (whether intentionally or accidentally) to confuse the argument by railing against something that nobody is calling for.
I disagree. If I was about to hold up a banner somewhere advocating welcoming large numbers of refugees into my country, the first question I would ask myself before doing so is "would I be prepared to open my home to help at least one of these people". If I could not answer that question positively, I could not in good conscience advocate, and then expect, this burden to be placed on fellow citizens. This collective burden, or responsibility, that you speak of, is not simply restricted to providing accommodation, it involves stretching already under resourced and underfunded services such as healthcare, transport infrastructure, schools etc. It's not good enough to actively campaign to bring these people into the country, then stand back and say "nothing to do with me, it's up to the country to look after them". Personal responsiblity seems to be very lacking in today's world.
I am sorry to disagree with you QA. I can legitimately support the notion of my country supporting refugees without housing themselves for the following reasons
1} As a UK taxpayer I may be content for my taxes to be used to support said refugees 2} If other priorities must suffer as a result , I can be prepared to support that too 3} I can support the notion of troops being sent to X or Y without suiting up and going myself 4} I can support extra money being spent on midwifery without offering to deliver babies myself 4} I can support public monies being used to fund any number of things without needing to exemplify my support by becoming a surrogate professional
The nature of our society is that we pay taxes and specialist agencies to undertake many services on our behalf. That said this approach doesn't mean that I would not offer to house a family of refugees but rather , if I did not choose to do so it would not negate the argument that I wish my government to prioritise its resources to do so.
You make some great points Holyjo. I too support the notion of my country supporting the genuine refugees. But this doesn't have to involve active campaigning, it can be left to the democratically elected government to make decisions on our behalf. The point I was making revolved around taking personal responsiblity and a principled approach before actively campaigning for something that may have an adverse effect on my fellow countrymen. Would you for example be happy to actively campaign for sending our troops off to war and possible death? (Genuine question). Personally I couldn't do that unless I too was willing to give my life for my country. Of course it's easy to actively support and campaign for the positive things like spending more money on midwifery and other such things that benefit everyone. But accepting large numbers of refugees is not something that everyone is happy about.
I agree wholeheartedly that actions speak louder than words. People judge our sense humanity by what we do not by what we say. My point about the troops etc was to attempt to exemplify a broader point. I can think of few wars sanctioned by the UK or the west for that matter that I have supported.
Leuth said: What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
Holyjo said - For my part I genuinely found your Sept 5th post mostly incomprehensible. Your notion that the Guardian should redefine itself as a charity was so bizarre I could not muster a response
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
So instead of focusing on my response to bigstemarra you're focusing on my little joke about a newspaper. How trivial. Holyjo, you do realise I'm more or less 'on your side' here, right?
Covered End, you're going to have to engage with my actual posts if you want to dismiss me so glibly
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Just so I understand this properly, is it only Poles and Syrians that are bad neighbours?
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
I lived next door to a white Christian English couple who were always shouting and drinking, neither of them had jobs from what I can tell.
If you see a white English couple moving in next door to you then I would get seriously worried. From my experience they are nothing but bad news. I've also heard of other white English couples across the country who are like this so its not an isolated incident before you say so! A quick Google will tell you that I'm not alone!
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
I lived next door to a white Christian English couple who were always shouting and drinking, neither of them had jobs from what I can tell.
If you see a white English couple moving in next door to you then I would get seriously worried. From my experience they are nothing but bad news. I've also heard of other white English couples across the country who are like this so its not an isolated incident before you say so! A quick Google will tell you that I'm not alone!
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees.
Better for whom? Because if the UK, Germany or any other country provides refuge to a few thousand refugees, I can think of a few thousand people for whom life suddenly becomes a whole lot better, more comfortable and safer.
Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
"Military intervention" (and, of course there is a wide range of possibilities that might encompass) may well solve the immediate and medium-term crisis. But, at what cost? A few thousand lives? A few thousand British troops' lives?
Your suggestions (and I believe that you hold them honestly) can be paired down to this: "there's no point looking after a few thousand people who are in desperate need of support right now; instead, we should risk the lives of tens of thousands of others (and the certain death of numbers of British armed forces) to ensure the situation ends as soon as possible".
The problem - apart from the British body bags; the un-told numbers of civilian casualties; the certain additional threat to all British subjects at home and abroad; and the multi-million dollar cost of financing yet another overseas war - is that it would take years to prosecute.
The Iraq War - when we knew who and where the enemy was - took eight years.
Add to the confusion by not knowing who the enemy is - Assad? Forces opposed to Assad? al-Ba'ath? Hezbollah? al-Nusrah Front? Sootoro? Islamic Front? Mujahedeen? The Taliban? ISIS? Russia? - and you have a recipe for a never-ending war.
By all means propose a way of resolving the crisis. But simply suggesting the two words "military intervention" as the solution is missing the mark by a long way.
How do you propose that the crisis is going to be solved if not militarily?
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees.
Better for whom? Because if the UK, Germany or any other country provides refuge to a few thousand refugees, I can think of a few thousand people for whom life suddenly becomes a whole lot better, more comfortable and safer.
Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
"Military intervention" (and, of course there is a wide range of possibilities that might encompass) may well solve the immediate and medium-term crisis. But, at what cost? A few thousand lives? A few thousand British troops' lives?
Your suggestions (and I believe that you hold them honestly) can be paired down to this: "there's no point looking after a few thousand people who are in desperate need of support right now; instead, we should risk the lives of tens of thousands of others (and the certain death of numbers of British armed forces) to ensure the situation ends as soon as possible".
The problem - apart from the British body bags; the un-told numbers of civilian casualties; the certain additional threat to all British subjects at home and abroad; and the multi-million dollar cost of financing yet another overseas war - is that it would take years to prosecute.
The Iraq War - when we knew who and where the enemy was - took eight years.
Add to the confusion by not knowing who the enemy is - Assad? Forces opposed to Assad? al-Ba'ath? Hezbollah? al-Nusrah Front? Sootoro? Islamic Front? Mujahedeen? The Taliban? ISIS? Russia? - and you have a recipe for a never-ending war.
By all means propose a way of resolving the crisis. But simply suggesting the two words "military intervention" as the solution is missing the mark by a long way.
How do you propose that the crisis is going to be solved if not militarily?
Again, it depends on what you determine the crisis is. For each and every refugee seeking the comfort and protection of a caring country - like the UK has been in the past - the crisis is one of survival. On that basis, I propose that we solved each of those individual's crises by offering shelter, support and refuge.
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees.
Better for whom? Because if the UK, Germany or any other country provides refuge to a few thousand refugees, I can think of a few thousand people for whom life suddenly becomes a whole lot better, more comfortable and safer.
Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
"Military intervention" (and, of course there is a wide range of possibilities that might encompass) may well solve the immediate and medium-term crisis. But, at what cost? A few thousand lives? A few thousand British troops' lives?
Your suggestions (and I believe that you hold them honestly) can be paired down to this: "there's no point looking after a few thousand people who are in desperate need of support right now; instead, we should risk the lives of tens of thousands of others (and the certain death of numbers of British armed forces) to ensure the situation ends as soon as possible".
The problem - apart from the British body bags; the un-told numbers of civilian casualties; the certain additional threat to all British subjects at home and abroad; and the multi-million dollar cost of financing yet another overseas war - is that it would take years to prosecute.
The Iraq War - when we knew who and where the enemy was - took eight years.
Add to the confusion by not knowing who the enemy is - Assad? Forces opposed to Assad? al-Ba'ath? Hezbollah? al-Nusrah Front? Sootoro? Islamic Front? Mujahedeen? The Taliban? ISIS? Russia? - and you have a recipe for a never-ending war.
By all means propose a way of resolving the crisis. But simply suggesting the two words "military intervention" as the solution is missing the mark by a long way.
How do you propose that the crisis is going to be solved if not militarily?
I don't know how to resolve this but there's no doubt it's been caused by military action. I doubt if more bombs will help.
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees. I read there are over 4 million refugees and there are probably even more potential ones, so the numbers don’t seem to add up. What surely is needed is money and planning and not knee jerk reactions to an admittedly heart wrenching occurrence. Money, to pay for secure temporary solutions for those people in camps in nearby land and planning to work out a way to give them the training and schooling they will need to pick up the pieces when the time comes to do so. The part this country should be playing here, amongst others including rich friendly Arab states, is a financial one. The refugees should be housed in camps in safe areas in the region and those countries need to benefit financially for housing them. They would probably prefer to go to Germany or Britain, but that shouldn’t be an option. Simply because by making it one, everybody will feel that is achievable and when say the German’s decide they have taken enough, you don’t have the confusion and chaos that will entail.
Then we have to help sort the problem out. We have to accept the part we have played in this through encouraging the Arab Spring uprisings. I’m not saying it was morally wrong to do this, but the landscape has become far more complicated because those fighting the Syrian regime were both secular and Islamist organisations. Past conflicts have dulled our appetite to go in a sort the mess out – but this has become a mess that requires sorting out. Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
And perhaps if our esteemed government actually admitted the their policies are partly responsible it would be a bloody good start.
Isis only seem to understand violence so how do we get rid of them? They are a major cause of so many people fleeing Syria so how do you improve the situation without fighting them?
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees. I read there are over 4 million refugees and there are probably even more potential ones, so the numbers don’t seem to add up. What surely is needed is money and planning and not knee jerk reactions to an admittedly heart wrenching occurrence. Money, to pay for secure temporary solutions for those people in camps in nearby land and planning to work out a way to give them the training and schooling they will need to pick up the pieces when the time comes to do so. The part this country should be playing here, amongst others including rich friendly Arab states, is a financial one. The refugees should be housed in camps in safe areas in the region and those countries need to benefit financially for housing them. They would probably prefer to go to Germany or Britain, but that shouldn’t be an option. Simply because by making it one, everybody will feel that is achievable and when say the German’s decide they have taken enough, you don’t have the confusion and chaos that will entail.
Then we have to help sort the problem out. We have to accept the part we have played in this through encouraging the Arab Spring uprisings. I’m not saying it was morally wrong to do this, but the landscape has become far more complicated because those fighting the Syrian regime were both secular and Islamist organisations. Past conflicts have dulled our appetite to go in a sort the mess out – but this has become a mess that requires sorting out. Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
The US no doubt, will be reluctant to intervene, until after their election.
The UK government, need to convince parliament, of the need for military intervention in Syria. Cameron & Osborne are for intervention.
France are already suggesting that they are ready for action now.
WE do not need military intervention anywhere in the world let alone an area we have already destabilised....For gods sake IT'S THE WAR THEY ARE FLEEING!!!
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Yeh. When I lived in Forest Hill had a similar problem. Family living upstairs constantly drunk, incomprehensible screaming rows at 4am when I had to go to work next day, got burgled 1 month after they moved in, two underfed kids, council did nothing in response to my complaints. English bastards.
Isis only seem to understand violence so how do we get rid of them? They are a major cause of so many people fleeing Syria so how do you improve the situation without fighting them?
ISIS are desperate for the West to "put boots on the ground" Their warped view of ISLAM believes that they re involved in the final battle -Armageddon , and that Jesus will return as a prophet to make clear that Mohammed is the final prophet of God.
In addition when confronted with western style armies they will almost certainly revert to a guerrilla style war which has served countless countries well against the USA / Soviet Union / various other alliances. It is an unwinnable war
As distasteful as it might seem "politics" and politics alone will end this conflict. I suspect this after drone and bombs have wiped out much of the current ISIS leadership
Its a mess an absolute mess...... I would recommend to watch the BBC film "Bitter Lake" for the best documentary analysis of the birth of ISIS. Cinematography is beautiful
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Yeh. When I lived in Forest Hill had a similar problem. Family living upstairs constantly drunk, incomprehensible screaming rows at 4am when I had to go to work next day, got burgled 1 month after they moved in, two underfed kids, council did nothing in response to my complaints. English bastards.
Exactly enough scum already here, without letting in somebody else's . This and the other responses of the same ilk re shit English neighbors is a very tired argument. Let's try and find something more original can we !
Scum them English Christians scourge of society and terror raising bstds all of them
Don't know what they're up to! Bet they're IRA supporters as well.
Isis now the Ira is so 1990, it's all about the burka, 99% of all burka wearers In the UK today are white and he'll bent on conning the poor gullible common man
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Yeh. When I lived in Forest Hill had a similar problem. Family living upstairs constantly drunk, incomprehensible screaming rows at 4am when I had to go to work next day, got burgled 1 month after they moved in, two underfed kids, council did nothing in response to my complaints. English bastards.
Exactly enough scum already here, without letting in somebody else's . This and the other responses of the same ilk re shit English neighbors is a very tired argument. Let's try and find something more original can we !
I think those fleeing Assad and ISIS are hardly the scum in this scenario.
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Yeh. When I lived in Forest Hill had a similar problem. Family living upstairs constantly drunk, incomprehensible screaming rows at 4am when I had to go to work next day, got burgled 1 month after they moved in, two underfed kids, council did nothing in response to my complaints. English bastards.
Exactly enough scum already here, without letting in somebody else's . This and the other responses of the same ilk re shit English neighbors is a very tired argument. Let's try and find something more original can we !
A more valid argument is do you want them turning up on your street?
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
Female friend in nice road in Sidcup had a group of Polish move in next door. About 4males and 2 females in a 3 bedroom house. Two of the males and 1 of the females are constantly in residence, the other occupants are transient and can change almost daily.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Yeh. When I lived in Forest Hill had a similar problem. Family living upstairs constantly drunk, incomprehensible screaming rows at 4am when I had to go to work next day, got burgled 1 month after they moved in, two underfed kids, council did nothing in response to my complaints. English bastards.
Exactly enough scum already here, without letting in somebody else's . This and the other responses of the same ilk re shit English neighbors is a very tired argument. Let's try and find something more original can we !
After your original post? Beyond parody.
Charlton Life bingo, I just need a "Jesus Wept" and my card will be marked !
Comments
'I support us helping refugees' - 'would you let them sleep in your bed in between you and your wife' - 'no, I probably wouldn't be up for that' - 'oh, I see, but you expect us to do that' - 'no, not really but I do support us helping refugees' - 'sure you do, but would you give them the last of the Coco Pops and send your own kids off to school with no breakfast' - 'no, I'd have probably snuck out of bed and left the refugee family in there with my wife so that I could feed my own kids before they woke up' - 'oh, one rule for you and another for everyone else then' - 'not really, I thought we might just be able to help some of them out' - 'oh, so you want to concrete over Windemere and build a tower block for them to live in so that all of us that are already here fall ill with stress' - 'no, I really like holidaying in the Lakes' - 'you would you leftie, quinoa munching, Guardianista' - 'well, the right are all too stupid to even spell quinoa' - 'so you basically want ISIS operatives making dirty bombs in your reclaimed bathtub?' - 'not really, that would ruin the enamel' bla bla bla, ridiculous nonsense, kind of a direction.
As such, I think only those with the most admirable levels of perseverance are still participating...
The UK government, need to convince parliament, of the need for military intervention in Syria. Cameron & Osborne are for intervention.
France are already suggesting that they are ready for action now.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/refugee-crisis-france-to-welcome-24000-refugees-and-begin-syria-air-strikes-against-is/ar-AAe1T1d?li=AA59G2
Mind you, it looks like we are dabbling in Syria.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/raf-drone-strike-killed-cardiff-is-fighter/ar-AAe22rp
Giving them a home and supporting them is one thing, giving them a cell and having to support them completely different. Same should apply to all people who have come to this country, whether they be, Asylum seeker, EU migrant or anybody else. Any crime that justifies a jail sentence, you serve the time and then exit !
"Military intervention" (and, of course there is a wide range of possibilities that might encompass) may well solve the immediate and medium-term crisis. But, at what cost? A few thousand lives? A few thousand British troops' lives?
Your suggestions (and I believe that you hold them honestly) can be paired down to this: "there's no point looking after a few thousand people who are in desperate need of support right now; instead, we should risk the lives of tens of thousands of others (and the certain death of numbers of British armed forces) to ensure the situation ends as soon as possible".
The problem - apart from the British body bags; the un-told numbers of civilian casualties; the certain additional threat to all British subjects at home and abroad; and the multi-million dollar cost of financing yet another overseas war - is that it would take years to prosecute.
The Iraq War - when we knew who and where the enemy was - took eight years.
Add to the confusion by not knowing who the enemy is - Assad? Forces opposed to Assad? al-Ba'ath? Hezbollah? al-Nusrah Front? Sootoro? Islamic Front? Mujahedeen? The Taliban? ISIS? Russia? - and you have a recipe for a never-ending war.
By all means propose a way of resolving the crisis. But simply suggesting the two words "military intervention" as the solution is missing the mark by a long way.
What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
Holyjo said - For my part I genuinely found your Sept 5th post mostly incomprehensible. Your notion that the Guardian should redefine itself as a charity was so bizarre I could not muster a response
A concise & correct answer Holyjo.
They stand outside the front of the house drinking and smoking, they park on and across here drive, they have noisy party's. Any attempt to discuss this with them is met by abuse, and even threats to a single woman in her fifties.
Perhaps this is acceptable in Poland, cultural differences and all that. However, I am sure that none of would want to live under the stress and anguish these people have caused.
The activity has now been toned down. After our Polish friends had it pointed out them that, whilst she lived alone she was not without some support.
What's this got to do with Asylum seekers from Syria. In 6 months time this could 6 Syrians living next door to you !
Covered End, you're going to have to engage with my actual posts if you want to dismiss me so glibly
If you see a white English couple moving in next door to you then I would get seriously worried. From my experience they are nothing but bad news. I've also heard of other white English couples across the country who are like this so its not an isolated incident before you say so! A quick Google will tell you that I'm not alone!
In addition when confronted with western style armies they will almost certainly revert to a guerrilla style war which has served countless countries well against the USA / Soviet Union / various other alliances. It is an unwinnable war
As distasteful as it might seem "politics" and politics alone will end this conflict. I suspect this after drone and bombs have wiped out much of the current ISIS leadership
Its a mess an absolute mess...... I would recommend to watch the BBC film "Bitter Lake" for the best documentary analysis of the birth of ISIS. Cinematography is beautiful