A shameful time to be British

Our attitude to refugees is appalling and event the Americans have noticed.  A WSJ article;

"Britain takes in so few refugees from Syria they would fit on a subway train"


We should be out on the streets in our millions demanding that the government does the humane thing and helps the refugees that we helped to create.

We could do that but hopefully we don't.

Harrier

Are you saying that hopefully we don't take our fair share of refugees? Or have I misinterpreted your post.

It's a problem immigration......One big screw up..

But yes ideally genuine cases should be given presidence....

But where does it end ??.......Over populated here now........Where are you going to put them ???

Our government will do nothing until we start looking at refugees as real people, they are not statistics but actual people with feelings and emotions capable of feeling pain the same as the rest of us. I realise the impracticalities of adopting an open door policy, but when our response to this crisis and level of assistance we seem willing to offer seems so disproportionately lower than other countries it is hard to feel anything but embarrassed by our response.

McLaren wrote:Harrier

Are you saying that hopefully we don't take our fair share of refugees?  Or have I misinterpreted your post.

If they have jobs lined up and won't survive off our benefit system then by all means let them in, if not then sorry no entry.

Trussman66 (PS why the capitals?)

What stats/evidence did you use to decide that we are overpopulated?

Maybe WSJ should ask Presidential hopeful and nominee poll leader Donald Trump for his views on the matter......

USA can f*ck right off when it comes to this. About the world's most hypocritical country on immigration matters - it polices its borders with a thousand times more aggression and resentment than any Western European nation.

It's military patrols land border and its navy/coastguard patrols sea borders - immediately returning any refugees/migrants caught at see to their home countries. If the US ever had to deal with a massive crisis level influx like Europe is suffering from Africa and the Middle East, God knows how it would respond. Probably with another war.

Sort your own house out before criticising others.


And to the OP, I'm not in the slightest bit ashamed. Western Europe is not a suppository for the world's cr@p and there is a massive difference between a migrant and a refugee - shed loads of the former being wrongly held up as the latter to evoke sympathy.

It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

McLaren wrote:Harrier

Are you saying that hopefully we don't take our fair share of refugees?  Or have I misinterpreted your post.

If they have jobs lined up and won't survive off our benefit system then by all means let them in, if not then sorry no entry.

Not sure too many of the Syrian refugees will have had the opportunity to update their CV's and upload them to Monster at this point.

Harrier

How would you propose that someone coming from a country that is in great turmoil and who has probably been homeless for some time have lined up a job? Putting everything else aside they will have lacked the mere practical measures needed to find a hob for a considerable period of time.

Toppy - the original post referred specifically to refugees.

McLaren wrote:Trussman66 (PS why the capitals?)

What stats/evidence did you use to decide that we are overpopulated?

Highest population density in Western Europe bar Holland and Benelux, council housing waiting lists of 5+ years, school class sizes of 40+, EVER BEEN TO LONDON??????

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

I could try and falsify sympathy but I won't bother, I despise British citizens who scrounge off the system with no job so just because they come from Syria is not going to change my opinion on it.

superflyweight wrote:Toppy - the original post referred specifically to refugees.  

Disagree.

One of the main problem is, whilst the definition of refugee is objective, its application is subjective. People complain about us taking on a fair share of all these 'refugees', but maybe we are taking on our fare share of refugees, just that ACTUAL refugees are only a small proportion of the migrant population wrongly labelled as refugees.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Maybe WSJ should ask Presidential hopeful and nominee poll leader Donald Trump for his views on the matter......

USA can f*ck right off when it comes to this. About the world's most hypocritical country on immigration matters - it polices its borders with a thousand times more aggression and resentment than any Western European nation.  

It's military patrols land border and its navy/coastguard patrols sea borders - immediately returning any refugees/migrants caught at see to their home countries. If the US ever had to deal with a massive crisis level influx like Europe is suffering from Africa and the Middle East, God knows how it would respond.  Probably with another war.

Sort your own house out before criticising others.


And to the OP, I'm not in the slightest bit ashamed.  Western Europe is not a suppository for the world's cr@p and there is a massive difference between a migrant and a refugee - shed loads of the former being wrongly held up as the latter to evoke sympathy.

You have controversial opinions about America on all sorts of issues....

Americans can have controversial opinions about Britain......

Get over it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

I could try and falsify sympathy but I won't bother, I despise British citizens who scrounge off the system with no job so just because they come from Syria is not going to change my opinion on it.

So someone being persecuted and in real fear of their life and the lives of their family should just tough it out and shouldn't bother to try to find refuge? Is that what you would do?

Come on, we've all seen the adverts for Reed.



Have those silly people even spoken to that guy?

Rowley wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

McLaren wrote:Harrier

Are you saying that hopefully we don't take our fair share of refugees?  Or have I misinterpreted your post.

If they have jobs lined up and won't survive off our benefit system then by all means let them in, if not then sorry no entry.

Not sure too many of the Syrian refugees will have had the opportunity to update their CV's and upload them to Monster at this point.

You'd think these guys could finish their CV's whilst dodging bullets..

These immigrants just have no idea how to multi-task !!

Tophat

I agree, American foreign and immigration policy is inhumane. I used an American article to highlight that even the Americans think what we are doing is cruel.


"Western Europe is not a suppository for the world's cr@p", if world's cr@p is your way of referring to refugees, then yes, using your definitions western Europe is such a suppository.

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

"The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

Ergo, fleeing a 'humanitarian crisis' does not make you a refugee. It makes you a migrant.

Rowley wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

McLaren wrote:Harrier

Are you saying that hopefully we don't take our fair share of refugees?  Or have I misinterpreted your post.

If they have jobs lined up and won't survive off our benefit system then by all means let them in, if not then sorry no entry.

Not sure too many of the Syrian refugees will have had the opportunity to update their CV's and upload them to Monster at this point.

Really? They've been paying hundreds of Euros for train tickets from Hungary to Germany, pretty sure that'd by enough internet cafe time required......

superflyweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

I could try and falsify sympathy but I won't bother, I despise British citizens who scrounge off the system with no job so just because they come from Syria is not going to change my opinion on it.

So someone being persecuted and in real fear of their life and the lives of their family should just tough it out and shouldn't bother to try to find refuge?  Is that what you would do?

Do they fear for their lives in Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, France and all the other democratic countries they pass through to get to Britain, I don't think they do so it's not our problem.

I think the important thing to sort out in relation to this debate is the semantics.

McLaren wrote:Tophat

I agree, American foreign and immigration policy is inhumane. I used an American article to highlight that even the Americans think what we are doing is cruel.


"Western Europe is not a suppository for the world's cr@p", if world's cr@p is your way of referring to refugees, then yes, using your definitions western Europe is such a suppository.

What are we doing? And why is an American opinion useful or informative when you've already acknowledged it provides no yardstick for right?

Not massively in favour of letting the buggers in. There are places where they are better culturally suited ie the middle east. It is a big old place with plenty of work (Qatar are shipping in Nepalese to build the stadiums). There is also the significant possibility that there are terrorists slipping in amongst them.

Not a pleasant situation but I think we have enough issues in this country with mutliculturalism and poverty for the time being. It is time the Middle East / Northern Africans looked after their own.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

I could try and falsify sympathy but I won't bother, I despise British citizens who scrounge off the system with no job so just because they come from Syria is not going to change my opinion on it.

So someone being persecuted and in real fear of their life and the lives of their family should just tough it out and shouldn't bother to try to find refuge?  Is that what you would do?

Do they fear for their lives in Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, France and all the other democratic countries they pass through to get to Britain, I don't think they do so it's not our problem.

Many of those countries are taking many of these refugees in, most often in disproprtionate numbers to what we are. All anyone is asking is for us to do our share. We are in Europe, surely as an EEA member state we should be looking to share the burden with our fellow member states.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

"The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

Ergo, fleeing a 'humanitarian crisis' does not make you a refugee. It makes you a migrant.

For the sake of stupid f*ck. "Humanitarian Crisis" were my words Toppy and they weren't intended as a catch all description of what's going in Syria. - you want me to go through your posting history and look for instances of you using certain words or phrases and then counter it with a definition found on Google. Wouldn't take long. What part of what is happening in Syria doesn't fall into that definition?

Jeff wrote:I think the important thing to sort out in relation to this debate is the semantics.

Agreed, in times of humanitarian crisis it is the form, and not the spirit of the law, that should be debated.

Though I am unsure as to why where you arbitrarily drop out your mother should dictate the level of life you have...

People seem to p**s on Britain and America all the time....But let's be realistic there are good reasons so many immigrants want to live in our two Countries.....

Reasons that are to be applauded and not regarded as shameful..

The only thing shameful on here is the attitude some posters here have to debate...

I think we've shouldered our fair share of Europe's problems over the years so no we should not be further burdened by it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

McLaren wrote:Trussman66 (PS why the capitals?)

What stats/evidence did you use to decide that we are overpopulated?

Highest population density in Western Europe bar Holland and Benelux, council housing waiting lists of 5+ years, school class sizes of 40+, EVER BEEN TO LONDON??????

Is our population density at hharmful levels? Would the addition of refugees to our population significantly impact the problem?

Whether we take a few hundred thousand refugees or not the UK needs a large house building project. Not sure a few refugees will make any difference.

If a large proportion of the country hadn't fallen for the austerity myth then maybe we could have afforded more teachers. Although if you look at our education systems performance we still do pretty well compared to most of the world. Lets share this system with those in need.

Yes, I have been to London many times. I love it. What has this got to do with the debate at hand?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

I could try and falsify sympathy but I won't bother, I despise British citizens who scrounge off the system with no job so just because they come from Syria is not going to change my opinion on it.

So someone being persecuted and in real fear of their life and the lives of their family should just tough it out and shouldn't bother to try to find refuge?  Is that what you would do?

Do they fear for their lives in Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, France and all the other democratic countries they pass through to get to Britain, I don't think they do so it's not our problem.

So it's someone else's problem and we should just turn our backs? It's not a question of them trying to get to Britain - it's a question of Britain and the other EU countries each doing their bit to share the burden of what is a very real problem which has escalated because of years of Britain and other Western powers f*cking about with the Middle East.

Could send them to Madagascar?

Starting to think Hammer might not be real and is in fact a right wing, neo-Nazi algorithm that's gone rogue.

Realise I am risking Godwin's Law here but could you imagine in the early 40s when the European jews were being persecuted and sought refuge in countries such as ours and other friendly states our response had been sod off we're full. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Jeff wrote:Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Likewise the Mayflower and those founding father chaps...

Rowley wrote:Realise I am risking Godwin's Law here but could you imagine in the early 40s when the European jews were being persecuted and sought refuge in countries such as ours and other friendly states our response had been sod off we're full. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

If I was being persecuted I'd get out of the country for sure. I wouldn't however consider a warehouse in Calais as the ideal end point nor would I take up train surfing.

Their antics give rise to apathy.

I've been resisting the urge to break Godwin's law all the way through this thread but Top Hat Goering (both fat) and Hammer Himmler (I like the alliteration) make it so bloody difficult.

super wrote:I've been resisting the urge to break Godwin's law all the way through this thread but Top Hat Goering (both fat) and Hammer Himmler (I like the alliteration) make it so bloody difficult.

Just think about the holocaust to the average taxpayer though supes...

I invoked it beautifully Adam. A little prematurely perhaps but that is not a phenomena I am unfamiliar with.

Are people not allowed alternative opinions now without being labeled racist or neo-nazi.

Would you be more comfortable with xenophobe?

Rowley wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It might help public sentiment if the Government, the BBC and the majority of the other news and media outlets stared referring to people trying to escape a humanitarian crises as "refugees" and not "migrants".

Oh, and for f*ck sake Hammer - stop being a f*ck knuckle!

I could try and falsify sympathy but I won't bother, I despise British citizens who scrounge off the system with no job so just because they come from Syria is not going to change my opinion on it.

So someone being persecuted and in real fear of their life and the lives of their family should just tough it out and shouldn't bother to try to find refuge?  Is that what you would do?

Do they fear for their lives in Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, France and all the other democratic countries they pass through to get to Britain, I don't think they do so it's not our problem.

Many of those countries are taking many of these refugees in, most often in disproprtionate numbers to what we are. All anyone is asking is for us to do our share. We are in Europe, surely as an EEA member state we should be looking to share the burden with our fellow member states.

As an EU state we should be protected by the Dublin accord, Sangatte tells us otherwise.....

rick_dagless wrote:

super wrote:I've been resisting the urge to break Godwin's law all the way through this thread but Top Hat Goering (both fat) and Hammer Himmler (I like the alliteration) make it so bloody difficult.

Just think about the holocaust to the average taxpayer though supes...

If only these people could be placed into some type of camps which would concentrate them all into only a handful of non-intrusive locations?

super wrote:If only these people could be placed into some type of camps which would concentrate them all into only a handful of non-intrusive locations?

With en suite naturally?

rick_dagless wrote:Would you be more comfortable with xenophobe?

It's an algorithm Rick - it has no understanding of comfort.

I'm neither a xenophobe nor am I racist, I do however have no empathy for anyone whether they're British or otherwise.

If people wish to enter the country, find work and provide for themselves then I have no issues with that.

Maybe have "X factor refugee".............Where they have to perform and the best ones get to stay..