Calais migrant trouble
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 dannyh  wherever I lay my hat....... 30 Jul 15 9.22pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote elgrande at 30 Jul 2015 2.44pm
Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 1.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector. Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans. More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| elgrande bedford 30 Jul 15 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 30 Jul 2015 9.22pm
Quote elgrande at 30 Jul 2015 2.44pm
Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 1.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.34pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.26pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it? Edited by leggedstruggle (30 Jul 2015 7.46am) Rumania and Bulgaria have surprisingly generous benefit schemes compared to the UK, housing isn't a problem and given that they'd need to work for three years in the UK to be eligible for benefits its questionable whether that's the attraction. I suspect most come to work, on the basis that the exchange rate massively favours them back home, where unemployment is quite high. In Romania, for example, benefits extend to cover utility bills, disability, funeral subsidy, Child Care for all under 18's and around half of the Romanian population receive welfare payments from the state in one form or another (including Healthcare and housing) - although in fairness Romania welfare system is crumbling and likely as not unsustainable in its current form, its easily far more generous and easy to qualify for than the UK system (three to five years employment or asylum acceptance). All funded by net contributors to the EU like us. Actually its funded by their state budget, much like our own. Turns out, that despite our prejudices about Romania and Romanians as all being shack living gypsies and yocals isn't the entire picture. Economically Romania has done rather well, although it was seriously hit by the economic crash, its GDP growth since the 2009/10 world crash has been year on year steady growth. But don't let facts and information get in the way of a good old bit of prejudice and old fashioned opinionated racism. Much better to inform yourself based on a few reports of bad experiences and the great tradition of 'hating gypsies'. It has a booming IT sector. Romania is in net receipt of 1,543,000,000 Euros per year from the EU (I expect they keep it stuffed in the mattresses of their bunk beds in their caravans. More caravans are bought in Britain then any other european country.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 30 Jul 15 9.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
“None of us want to live like this. I just want to live in Britain, make a family, take my kids to school” Poor, poor people in war-torn France. Pray for them, please.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 30 Jul 15 10.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
..and actually, I think we deserve all this, particularly for bombing their countries (Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan) to ruin.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 30 Jul 15 10.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.28pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 7.46am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.52pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 10.38pm
The Institute for Policy Research says that there are 635,000 empty homes in England alone and of those, 216,000 homes (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months. This would go some way to not only addressing the problem of homelessness and overcrowding in the UK but also alleviating the humanitarian crisis affecting the unfortunate people in Calais. You make a fair point about the scandal of unoccupied homes. In 2014,it was estimated that there were 700,000 unoccupied homes in the UK but 2 million in France.In terms of the present situation in France, there are legitimate questions as to why the French government has seemingly been not unhappy to let large numbers live in squalor near Calais rather than taking steps to deal with aspects of that. It would seem many are "economic migrants" as opposed to asylum seekers".We have pretty strong immigration policies in place re anyone who is not an EU national (or closely related) seeking to enter and I would suggest pretty strong "border control" (not least because we are an island) compared to many EU countries. In relation to the humanitarian crisis arising from many travelling from outside the EU into the EU,I can see the force of the argument for humanitarian resettlement being evenly spread (according to population etc) around the EU,including the UK.It is difficult to suggest we are or are likely to be worse off than say Greece or Italy in terms of any present/up to now "burden". In terms of anyone wishing to seek asylum,I am a strong supporter of the UN convention regulating asylum and refugees and from my work (admittedly 30 years ago) advising asylum applicants precisely how so many are not economic migrants/after claiming benefits but people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination.But there would seem to be some logic to anyone claiming asylum needing to do first it either in the first "safe" place they reach after leaving where they live or (for example with Yugoslavs already abroad when the wars broke out there in the 1990's) the country someone is in when the situation arises at home making it inappropriate for them to have to return. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jul 2015 11.10pm) LOL, you do make one laugh. Why don't these "people escaping hellish persecution/discrimination" flee to nearer countries, say Rumania, Bulgaria - do you think it just possible that the lure of housing, benefit handouts and the prospect of irresponsible fools like you supporting them might come into it?
UK immigration and migration is largely by people who are legally allowed to work in the UK under the EU legislation (rightly or wrongly). In terms of non-EU migration the UK is fairly strict in terms of how you can become a citizen you need; Then you need to be resident in the UK for at least five years, and pass a citizenship examination. The only exceptions to this are by marriage, asylum or Home Office sanction. Also its worth noting that if your asylum application takes five years or long to process and reach a decision, you can apply for citizenship. The UK really could do with actually investing properly in this area. My wife is a naturalized citizen (South African)., its nowhere near as easy as the Daily Mail makes out. Although the Citizenship test is something of a formality. Wife! I always assumed you were gay! Problem with assumptions etc. I'm in favor of gay equality, same as I believe that all citizens of a society should have the same rights in law Sorry, I thought it was more or less compulsory for someone with your views to be gay.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 31 Jul 15 1.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
I genuinely don't believe that we are that far from seeing a policy of murder being pursuited by the British government towards these people. Cameron has channeled the prominent animal terminology which the media have been using, while government policy rests uncomfortably between non-intervention (which will lead to thousands of deaths as the winter months approach) and aggressive action (sending in the army, whatever that's supposed to achieve). As has been said before ad infinitum, the referencing of human beings as animals has been a precursor to murder throughout history, be it the Jews under the Nazis, through the Rwandan genocide and Indians in the Raj to the Slave trade and everything in between. What's equally as concerning is that these people are now citizenless, without defence should a state that they don't belong to and have never set foot in decide to exterminate them. I think we're finding ourselves at a real tipping point, because there are now more displaced people in the world than ever before, and that number only looks set to increase as wealth inequality rises, climate change continues to take effect and resources become more and more scarce. In fact it could be one of the defining issues of the century, and it is incumbent on the leader's of the world to find a solution to the problem which doesn't merely involve large-scale temporary resettlement or, worse still, the deaths of millions of the poorest people in the world.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 31 Jul 15 7.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 31 Jul 2015 1.02am
I genuinely don't believe that we are that far from seeing a policy of murder being pursuited by the British government towards these people. Cameron has channeled the prominent animal terminology which the media have been using, while government policy rests uncomfortably between non-intervention (which will lead to thousands of deaths as the winter months approach) and aggressive action (sending in the army, whatever that's supposed to achieve). As has been said before ad infinitum, the referencing of human beings as animals has been a precursor to murder throughout history, be it the Jews under the Nazis, through the Rwandan genocide and Indians in the Raj to the Slave trade and everything in between. What's equally as concerning is that these people are now citizenless, without defence should a state that they don't belong to and have never set foot in decide to exterminate them. I think we're finding ourselves at a real tipping point, because there are now more displaced people in the world than ever before, and that number only looks set to increase as wealth inequality rises, climate change continues to take effect and resources become more and more scarce. In fact it could be one of the defining issues of the century, and it is incumbent on the leader's of the world to find a solution to the problem which doesn't merely involve large-scale temporary resettlement or, worse still, the deaths of millions of the poorest people in the world. I agree that 'swarm' (Oxford Dictionary: 'A large number of people or things') was a poor choice of words - 'plague' would have been more appropriate.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tom-the-eagle Croydon 31 Jul 15 7.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
I am writing this having been up since 6 this morning working, I am also writing this having just paid a (what was for me) huge amount for my half yearly tax last night which I (or my family) cannot really afford. On that basis, excuse me if I do not sound too sympathetic towards these economic migrants who would all be entitled to free healthcare, education, benefits and housing, for which I would need to start work even earlier in the morning in order to be able to pay even more tax to make sure all their needs are met when I, a small business owner, an employer, get absolutely sweet FA in help from the government even though I work 7 days a week just to put bread on my kids table. Do people not understand – all these people come at a HUGE cost to us, the taxpayer.
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
The Sash  Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 31 Jul 15 7.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote davenotamonkey at 30 Jul 2015 9.57pm
“None of us want to live like this. I just want to live in Britain, make a family, take my kids to school” Poor, poor people in war-torn France. Pray for them, please.
As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 31 Jul 15 8.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 31 Jul 2015 1.02am
I genuinely don't believe that we are that far from seeing a policy of murder being pursuited by the British government towards these people. Cameron has channeled the prominent animal terminology which the media have been using, while government policy rests uncomfortably between non-intervention (which will lead to thousands of deaths as the winter months approach) and aggressive action (sending in the army, whatever that's supposed to achieve). As has been said before ad infinitum, the referencing of human beings as animals has been a precursor to murder throughout history, be it the Jews under the Nazis, through the Rwandan genocide and Indians in the Raj to the Slave trade and everything in between. What's equally as concerning is that these people are now citizenless, without defence should a state that they don't belong to and have never set foot in decide to exterminate them. I think we're finding ourselves at a real tipping point, because there are now more displaced people in the world than ever before, and that number only looks set to increase as wealth inequality rises, climate change continues to take effect and resources become more and more scarce. In fact it could be one of the defining issues of the century, and it is incumbent on the leader's of the world to find a solution to the problem which doesn't merely involve large-scale temporary resettlement or, worse still, the deaths of millions of the poorest people in the world. i don't believe we are at a 'tipping point'. There have been plenty of examples in history where immigration has peaked. For example 1933 in Europe and 1979 from Vietnam & Cambodia. What we are seeing is two fold: 1. Media sensationalism; 2. The inability of the Middle East/Arab governments abilities to govern. The Arab Spring has not produced a utopia (revolutionaries take note) but has simply engendered more suffering, poverty and death at the hands of the 'new boss'. Blaming 'climate change and wealth inequality' is to me naive and ideologically driven.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 31 Jul 15 8.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Surely, in this day and age - after all it is the 21st century (or the 15th if you are a Muslim), it is time to reduce the numbers of the indigenous population to make way for these vibrant, enriching and diverse, wholly deserving, oppressed asylum seekers. All these, largely racist, people who have lived here all their lives, their mere existence oppressing the masses in Sudan, should be sent somewhere - corralled in Tower Hamlets perhaps. Failing that, everyone with a spare room should take in an asylum seeker or two. It is the least we can do to atone for our ancestors being slave owners (at least the ones who were not in effect slaves themselves as agricultural labourers, or early factory workers). The policies need refining - perhaps Nick and Kermit can come up with definite proposals when they publish their long awaited immigration policy.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 31 Jul 15 8.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 31 Jul 2015 1.02am
I genuinely don't believe that we are that far from seeing a policy of murder being pursuited by the British government towards these people. Cameron has channeled the prominent animal terminology which the media have been using, while government policy rests uncomfortably between non-intervention (which will lead to thousands of deaths as the winter months approach) and aggressive action (sending in the army, whatever that's supposed to achieve). As has been said before ad infinitum, the referencing of human beings as animals has been a precursor to murder throughout history, be it the Jews under the Nazis, through the Rwandan genocide and Indians in the Raj to the Slave trade and everything in between. What's equally as concerning is that these people are now citizenless, without defence should a state that they don't belong to and have never set foot in decide to exterminate them. I think we're finding ourselves at a real tipping point, because there are now more displaced people in the world than ever before, and that number only looks set to increase as wealth inequality rises, climate change continues to take effect and resources become more and more scarce. In fact it could be one of the defining issues of the century, and it is incumbent on the leader's of the world to find a solution to the problem which doesn't merely involve large-scale temporary resettlement or, worse still, the deaths of millions of the poorest people in the world.
Sending in the Army will give more man power to guard against the illegal activety (there's that word again illegal funny how that keeps cropping up) of breaking through fences, breaking into lorrys, and trying to gain illegal entry into the UK. The police dont have the numbers to cope, send the army in to patrol in riot gear no leathal weapons and you gain control of the situation, the simple fact of the matter is, at the moment there is not sufficeint man power to stop people attempting illegal (oh look there it is again) entry into the UK. A what a crime to used words, put him right up there with likes of Tony Blair WAR CRIMINAL. what should he have said then, a jambori of illegal immigrants ? perhaps a smorgsabord of refugee's ? A Bonhomie of benefit seekers ? Look up the menaing of "swarm" in the dictionary you recationary wet susan, (a swarm/swarms of) A large number of people or things: No one is going to get exterminated, WTF are you ? a dalek ? So now its the wealthy and the weathers fault!? I can only assume you are in the middle of serious Crystal Meth binge. The deaths of millions ? if there was a HOL prize for drama queen of the year you my good man would win by a country (no fox hunting) mile.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.