Have to agree with you @Stirlingsays & also @ Tom-the-eagle. I don't think I could have put it any better myself. Of course some swivel eyed, foaming at the mouth Lefty will probably try and disagree with you but it's futile. We can't be held responsible for what happens in these countries once we leave, normally because some left wing government has pulled our troops out. We can't also be responsible for all these people travelling across Europe to get here. They should be claiming asylum in the first country they come to, which is usually Spain, Italy or Greece. The fact that they've travelled hundreds of miles across europe so they can milk our soft benefits system for all it's worth surely shows what their main motivation is 'I love Britain! She give me money! She give me house!' as I heard some roma gypsie joker say on a program on channel 5 last weekend. I think we know what his sole motivation is, and if in any doubt the money was for 'so I build nice home back in Romania and send money back to family'. The British taxpayer isn't a registered charity for the love of God! Although the way the Left carry on you do wonder.

I think we should send them all to Bristol

Come on Hoof. If you were unlucky enough to be born in Eritrea or some other piss poor corrupt no future hell hole you'd be on yer invisible bike and in Calais as an economic migrant in no time rather than just accept your fate.

Edited by Kermit8 (26 Jul 2015 11.25am)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Stirling, interventionist policy does not only come through having troops on the ground. There are military and economic interests in the region which have played a decisive role in the emergence of IS (or whatever PC term Dave wants us to use ) which would still have a major role in combatting them were we to reverse them.

Take Syria as an example. Firstly we did play a fairly explicit interventionist role in the overthrow of the Assad regime, arming opposition forces who were criticised by many investigative agencies for holding tendencies which later became evident as IS emerged. We have also been using drone strikes for around a year now, with very little effect: the Free Syrian Army have actually claimed that US drone strikes are encouraging more and more locals to join IS, so actually bellicose action is proving counter-productive. It is also, as we are seeing in Calais, dehousing people who are in turn forced to flee from IS to Europe.

But actually IS has been aided by us in two more understated but equally disastrous foreign policy events. During their emergence as opposition to Assad, Islamic militants obtained weapons from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, weapons which we had very often provided them with, and indeed the CIA facilitated the providing of arms. That we continue to fund places like Saudi Arabia which has continued implicitly to back the Salafist ideology of IS and provide it with military and financial support is scandalous.

But similarly we have to look at our recent support of Turkey and question what the hell we are doing. This is a country which is bombing the Kurdish opposition to IS as well as IS itself, despite the Kurdish forces being one of the few local militias to make significant progress in combatting these nutters. The Turks have massive political interests in doing so, in that the Kurds in Syria are supported by the PKK, and Erdogan's government was under threat in the recent elections to the closely affiliated Kurdish People's Party.

Altering our stance on these three issues: drone strikes, funding IS sympathisers and working in the interests of the Turkish right, would be to massively reduce the power of IS, and thus to reduce the number fleeing from its expansion. Putting troops on the ground would be to enter in to another unwinnable war at the unnecessary cost of hundreds, if not thousands of British lives.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Well thanks for letting all of us know the excellent sources you have gathered your information from.

Please tell me though - I'm sure they would've covered it on what sounds like such a thought-provoking piece of investigative journalism - how an asylum seeker in Calais is going to apply for welfare considering they haven't a) lived here for a sufficient amount of time to claim or b) got a way of claiming JSA, the first benefit a migrant can take if they have passed a rigorous approval test?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

House them and stop causing the international tensions which result in so many fleeing their country of origin.

I have a question for those on the right who have no sympathy with these poor folk: how bad would things have to get in Britain for you to leave? Would you leave if war broke out? If bombings were frequent? Jeremy Corbyn became PM?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

The program was called benefits Britain, and no matter what you think of the program the guy admitted what his motivation was for all to see. Sorry that it wasn't a program like Horizons or 'Alan Yentob on immigrants'. They won't apply for it immediately obviously but they're coming here so they can be eventually supported by the state. I'm sure when Mr Beverage introduced the welfare system this isn't what he had in mind. We don't owe these people a living. When I see how the Gurkas are treated, people who have fought for this country then being told that they can't stay, yet all you have to do is hop on the back of a truck and come here, shout asylum and then get treated with kid gloves is disgusting. If you want them here then maybe you can support them from your own taxes? Because I sure as hell don't want my tax money supporting them. Lunar house in Croydon should be called 'Lunacy house'.
Coincidentally does anyone remember those Afghans who hijacked a plane which then landed at Stanstead? They're still here!