Questiontime

[thechap]

Nobody ever says that though, well apart yourself and the other mongs who lack any knowledge on the subject. You just bang the same old broken drum in attempt to justify the crap you come out with. You are a sad human being and a massive fucking CUNT! Save your fucking crap for your UKIP/Britain First/NF chums. 

 

You're right, nobody actually says those words.  However in the blind rush to demonstrate how humanitarian they are some idiots on here and elsewhere don't stop to consider that not everyone might be a genuine refugee, not everyone might be a child when they say they are, not everyone will have relatives in this country when they say they do have and that there might, just might, be a few of them we're welcoming in who, if we looked more closely at who they are, might make us wish we had turned them away.

 

Or question why they haven't sought asylum in the many safe countries they've already passed through.

 

Cameron had it right - take refugees from the camps already set up in the region, not those who have passed through safe country after safe country to try and get to the country with the weakest regime for sorting out the genuine refugees from the bogus ones.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

You're right, nobody actually says those words.  However in the blind rush to demonstrate how humanitarian they are some idiots on here and elsewhere don't stop to consider that not everyone might be a genuine refugee, not everyone might be a child when they say they are, not everyone will have relatives in this country when they say they do have and that there might, just might, be a few of them we're welcoming in who, if we looked more closely at who they are, might make us wish we had turned them away.

 

Or question why they haven't sought asylum in the many safe countries they've already passed through.

 

Cameron had it right - take refugees from the camps already set up in the region, not those who have passed through safe country after safe country to try and get to the country with the weakest regime for sorting out the genuine refugees from the bogus ones.

 

I stopped reading after that, no doubt just a load of shit to make your ramblings sound reasonable. 

[thechap]

I stopped reading after that, no doubt just a load of shit to make your ramblings sound reasonable. 

 

Good. That means I won't have to roll my eyes at having to respond to yet another knobhead comment from you. Saved me the bother - thanks.

[moof]

You're right, nobody actually says those words. However in the blind rush to demonstrate how humanitarian they are some idiots on here and elsewhere don't stop to consider that not everyone might be a genuine refugee, not everyone might be a child when they say they are, not everyone will have relatives in this country when they say they do have and that there might, just might, be a few of them we're welcoming in who, if we looked more closely at who they are, might make us wish we had turned them away.

 

Or question why they haven't sought asylum in the many safe countries they've already passed through.

 

Cameron had it right - take refugees from the camps already set up in the region, not those who have passed through safe country after safe country to try and get to the country with the weakest regime for sorting out the genuine refugees from the bogus ones.

 

Any evidence backing up these claims of 'bogus' refugees?

 

I've seen many people using that kind of rhetoric, but not much in the way of solid evidence behind it.

[Rico1304]

Any evidence backing up these claims of 'bogus' refugees?

 

I've seen many people using that kind of rhetoric, but not much in the way of solid evidence behind it.

I think that lad in the blue coat has asked for a stanna stair lift in the children's home.

[Strontium]

Or question why they haven't sought asylum in the many safe countries they've already passed through.

 

Just a wild stab in the dark, but maybe it's because they'd prefer to live in this country? Something I imagine they have in common with most people who live here already.

 

Don't worry though, you and your pals are doing a bang up job of making this country into a place that nobody in their right mind would want to live.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Language reasons, easier for them to learn English (many speak enough anyway) than the language of other countries they have passed through.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Who's arsed if they choose here? We'd do exactly the same in their situation be they genuine refugees or economic migrants. In fact, we already do.

 

Some immigrants/refugees could buy and sell the detractors on here. I've in the past revealed my interactions with refugees in the UK. I've spoken with refugees from all walks of life. From a kurdish goat herder who knows nothing outside life in his village, to a cigarette seller on the streets of Mogadishu, to a Syrian television producer from Aleppo who dared to speak out against Assad, to a high ranking Iraqi politician who worked on the Chilcott enquiry and who submitted as evidence pics of him in a White House meeting room sitting a few feet away from Tony Blair and George Dubya.

 

All of these people share one thing though. Whether they're lying or telling the truth. They're saying goodbye to their past lives and embarking on a new chapter in their life in a different country. They're often doing it alone. They're leaving jobs, customs, family, friends, people who speak their own language, a way of life they've become accustomed to and, in some cases, is the only way they've known.

 

Basically, they're starting a new life. Irrespective of their motivations for doing that, what would most people do in their position? It's easy to blurt out "they're in a safe country/they've travelled through 5 safe countries" stuff, which ignores the reality of that journey such as having nowhere to live, living in a tent on wasteland, a huge proportion of a population who hate you, police beatings, a fairly unique and rare language to learn to have to fit in, limited opportunities to start again in terms of jobs and education.

 

Granted, they're "safe" in a loose interpretation of the word. But, what would YOU do in their situation? Would you settle in a camp in France or live on the streets without any assistance or acknowledgement of your right to live in dignity like happens in Greece or Italy?

 

Would you fuck as like. You'd try to head to a country that was more accepting, that gave you better opportunities to restart your life like the UK, Germany or the Scandi countries.

 

Anybody who says they wouldn't is talking through their arse, I'm afraid.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Nice. So you too think it doesn't matter if we let in the odd murderer, rapist or violent thug then? Or perhaps even the odd IS sleeper?

Melt off, you Fuck.

[Cardie]

So let's some slightly less nasty cunts in then, shall we? You know - like murderers and rapists..and some, i assume, are good people.

 

Great argument.

[Neil G]

Or question why they haven't sought asylum in the many safe countries they've already passed through.

It won't have escaped your attention that many of them are single men. They come to the UK because rightly or wrongly they believe it's the country where they have the best chance of getting work, so they can send money back home to pay for people smugglers to get their families out of their home country, and pay for their transit across Europe to be reunited.

 

In other words, exactly the same as you would do to protect and support your family if this country ever became unsafe for you to stay in.

[Rico1304]

There is a wider view on whether accepting a huge number of people with views that completely against the values and norms of our society is a good idea. Whilst I don't agree with the xenophobic views of some on here is allowing unchecked access to the uk tens of thousands of people who have abhorrent ideas about homosexuality, women's rights etc the right thing to do?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

There is a wider view on whether accepting a huge number of people with views that completely against the values and norms of our society is a good idea. Whilst I don't agree with the xenophobic views of some on here is allowing unchecked access to the uk tens of thousands of people who have abhorrent ideas about homosexuality, women's rights etc the right thing to do?

Tens of thousands? Where and when is that happening?

[cloggypop]

 

 

There is a wider view on whether accepting a huge number of people with views that completely against the values and norms of our society is a good idea.

Don't worry. We aren't kicking the tories out yet.

[moof]

There is a wider view on whether accepting a huge number of people with views that completely against the values and norms of our society is a good idea. Whilst I don't agree with the xenophobic views of some on here is allowing unchecked access to the uk tens of thousands of people who have abhorrent ideas about homosexuality, women's rights etc the right thing to do?

Where you getting those figures from?

[Jairzinho]

It won't have escaped your attention that many of them are single men. They come to the UK because rightly or wrongly they believe it's the country where they have the best chance of getting work, so they can send money back home to pay for people smugglers to get their families out of their home country, and pay for their transit across Europe to be reunited.

 

In other words, exactly the same as you would do to protect and support your family if this country ever became unsafe for you to stay in.

 

It's also worth noting that the vast, vast majority of refugees have sought refuge in neighbouring countries.

 

Whilst the sixth richest country in the world loses it's shit over a few thousand refugees, having helped to create the conditions that made them need to leave their own countries, Lebanon, for example, has taken over one million refugees.

[Hades]

It's also worth noting that the vast, vast majority of refugees have sought refuge in neighbouring countries.

 

Whilst the sixth richest country in the world loses it's shit over a few thousand refugees, having helped to create the conditions that made them need to leave their own countries, Lebanon, for example, has taken over one million refugees.

80% of the world's refugees are in 'developing' countries. Why don't these cunts just have the courage to say they benefited from imperialism, slavery and theft of foreign lands and are now terrified brown people will do the same to them because they only see the world in terms of how much it can be exploited.

[Stickman]

From the always excellent Mark Steel

 

Of course refugee children should face dental tests – we need to make sure we’re getting the ones we ordered....

 

When you see the rage and fury from politicians and newspapers about whether the child refugees we’re allowing in are actually children it makes you proud we’re a Christian nation. Because we all remember the sermon of Jesus in which he said: “Let the suffering children come, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these – but not that bastard, he’s 19 if he’s a day. Look at his stubble, he can piss off and get crucified by the Romans, the sodding liar.”

When we agreed to let children in, these weren’t the ones we ordered. We were expecting a cute four-year-old with a leg missing and a broken teddy. What’s the point in saving someone’s life if they turn out to be 23 and wearing a hood? Even the children we’ve accepted in the past have swindled us, because they might have looked like little cherubs at the time but they’ve gone on to become 25, 31 or, in some cases, 36 years of age. How much longer are we going to be taken for mugs like this?

This is why many commentators have made statements such as: “I’m as compassionate as anyone, and would happily dedicate my whole life to helping genuine refugees. But if some Afghan whose village has been shelled by warlords and had to live in a cave eating lizards carries his own mother across Hungary and then tries to come over here saying he’s 17 when he’s clearly 19, I’d be the first to strap him to a pedalo with masking tape and drop the ungrateful cockroach in the North Sea during a force nine gale.”

To make things worse, lots of these “children” aren’t real refugees, they’re just trying to sponge off our services. They crawl away from Islamist gangs in Somalia, disguise themselves as chickens so they can be transported in a crate to Calais, then crawl inside a car bonnet under the carburettor and get into Britain because they know our fire service will rescue cats from a tree for nothing.

One complaint in some newspapers this week has been that “many of the refugees don’t have identification papers”. That’s enough to make anyone suspicious. Surely, before setting off on a long journey on a rickety boat to flee from a gas attack, it makes sense to pop down to TK Maxx to get a waterproof jacket with plenty of pockets to keep your driving licence, library card and three recent electricity bills safe and dry. That’s the first rule if you’re heading off for a weekend break in the Lake District, so there’s no excuse if you’re taking a journey across the Mediterranean in a wardrobe.  

Another complaint has been from columnists who ask: “Why are there no pictures of actual children?” One possible explanation offered by photographers is they did take pictures of young children but press regulation means they cannot be used. One of them said: “We’d probably have to pixelate them.” Then The Sun could put a pixelated picture on the front page with a headline, “Why are we letting in this so-called refugee, when he rejects our culture by having a face that’s a collection of blurry squares?”

The suggestion from many politicians is to give refugees a dental test to check their age. Because when you’ve spent 18 months under a patch of tarpaulin stretched across a tree with raw sewage running nearby and the French police puffing tear gas at you twice a day, no gesture is more welcoming than a doctor examining the remains of your teeth in an age test; it’s the equivalent of a hotel leaving a chocolate on the bed.

It’s hard to see why anyone would object to this, as tests for age have been carried out before. In 1381 the original Poll Tax had to be paid by everyone aged over 13. So villagers would insist a child was only 12, then tax inspectors would take off a boy or girl’s trousers and if they had any pubic hair, they would be judged to be 13 and eligible for the tax.

If checks like that were good enough for the 14th-century peasantry, why can’t we do something like that now? Any refugee with three strands of pubic hair would be sent back as too old. What could be more humane? But we’re too politically correct these days to go back to the upstanding values of 1381.

This is why we have the appalling spectacle of some people showing compassion. Lily Allen let the country down by crying when she visited the Calais Jungle, just because she saw children wandering in hopeless filth and squalor. What sort of example is that to set for her young followers? And Gary Lineker said he was dismayed by the level of contempt some people showed towards refugees, to which many people quite reasonably replied: “What right has a striker and football presenter got to show a modicum of decency and warmth towards other human beings? How DARE he give a shit about anyone?”

It’s time we all learned to act properly towards anyone in need. If we see someone having a heart attack, it’s very important to act quickly and check they’re not feigning it as a ruse to get free biscuits at the cardiac unit. If an elderly person falls down the stairs, search their house for any clues they might be trying to swindle an insurance claim. 

Because when you look back at history, at the Huguenots fleeing France or the Jews escaping Germany, the people remembered with pride are those that had the courage to say: “Some of them are over 18 – send them back, the bastards.”

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/refugee-children-calaid-jungle-dental-test-age-older-migrants-uk-mark-steel-a7372156.html

[Rico1304]

Where you getting those figures from?

We've already agreed to 20k.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

We've already agreed to 20k.

Yes. And they all have abhorrent views about homosexuality and women's rights. Every single one of them. Women included. And the young kids. They can't fucking stand those gays....

 

Dickhead.

[lifetime fan]

Just watching last nights episode - fucking hell.

[lifetime fan]

The fuck happened to the face of the woman who asked about testing the age of refugees?

[Jairzinho]

Yes. And they all have abhorrent views about homosexuality and women's rights. Every single one of them. Women included. And the young kids. They can't fucking stand those gays....

 

Dickhead.

 

I'd happily swap the 11m people who voted Tory for 11m refugees.

[Strontium]

Yes. And they all have abhorrent views about homosexuality and women's rights. Every single one of them. Women included. And the young kids. They can't fucking stand those gays....

 

Dickhead.

 

That's decidedly unfair to Rico. They're coming from a socially conservative society, so it stands to reason that a significant number of them will hold socially conservative views.

 

I would argue that that fact is largely immaterial to our obligation to help as many of them as we can, but questioning our ability to accommodate and integrate social conservatives within a socially liberal society is not at all unreasonable.

[Rico1304]

I'd happily swap the 11m people who voted Tory for 11m refugees.

Would you really? Proves my point about stupid people I suppose.