Calais migrant trouble

Page 42 of 85 < 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 >

Hoof Hearted 01 Aug 15 11.51am
Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 11.36am Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.27am All these pages of discussion about why we should let these people in but NEVER any serious suggestions as to where they will live and how our infrastructure will cope. Serial Thriller ridiculously argued that only 3% of the UK is built upon, but even if it were true it includes all the parts of the UK that obviously cannot be built upon - mountainous regions, floodplains, dangerous coastal areas, swamps, areas of outstanding natural beauty, agricultural land, ex-mining regions, forests, islands with no safe access or remote locations, etc We are already at saturation point in the south east and our larger cities for housing density and lack of schools, GP's and hospitals. Look at the current mayhem with HGV's stacked on the M20 and the traffic chaos in Kent... some of this is down to problems with Calais but it occurs all too often on all the roads around London/SE because too many people are trying to travel on a limited road space. Public transport struggles to cope too, Buses and coaches get clogged up with cars and the rail and underground are too often swamped with commuters trying to get to work or home again. Food and Water - are we going to ignore how we will feed ourselves and millions more pouring in if we are to build on prime agricultural land? Anyone that can explain and demonstrate how we will be able to cope in 10 years time with a population nearly double what it is now can lecture us as to the rights and wrongs of allowing millions of new people to be allowed to set up home here. We cannot house the population we have now and clearly there would be a need for additional schools, GP surgeries and hospitals as well as the staff to run them. Ignoring this problem won't make it go away - we cannot take any more. I think it might demonstrate a certain level of bias to suggest the predominant theme of this thread is "why we should let all these people in" What part of 5,000 people being near Calais and a very small number of them succeeding in obtaining illegal entry leads to a logical conclusion by you that with our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls (from being an island) it will result in "millions" of such people like those in Calais arriving here? Taking your transport example.This would have nothing to do with underinvestment over the years and decades and a failure to adopt an integrated transport policy subsidised by the state as a social economic cost for an overall economic benefit to the country,including business? Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 11.37am) Have you ever noticed that a dam bursting begins with a small crack and a trickle of water? The 5000 (your estimate, not mine) are the fore runners. Their success drives on the multitude and many more are on their way from Africa and the middle east, together with bogus students who out stay their visas, relatives of foreign nationals arriving for holidays. Our borders are too easy to breach for those non EU migrants (legal or otherwise) and Cameron has yet to negotiate effective immigration policy with EU if we are to remain a member. Any transport planning done previously could not have foreseen the explosion in population growth we have already experienced and the ramping up of growth yet to come. Forget the smug dismissal of my concerns about how our infrastructure will cope with your time wasting irrelevant side issues. Address the problem I asked about possible solutions.... where will we build these houses, schools, hospitals and GP surgeries.... oh and extra supermarkets to cope with demand. Edited by Hoof Hearted (01 Aug 2015 11.52am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 01 Aug 15 11.51am

Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 11.36am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.27am

All these pages of discussion about why we should let these people in but NEVER any serious suggestions as to where they will live and how our infrastructure will cope.

Serial Thriller ridiculously argued that only 3% of the UK is built upon, but even if it were true it includes all the parts of the UK that obviously cannot be built upon - mountainous regions, floodplains, dangerous coastal areas, swamps, areas of outstanding natural beauty, agricultural land, ex-mining regions, forests, islands with no safe access or remote locations, etc

We are already at saturation point in the south east and our larger cities for housing density and lack of schools, GP's and hospitals.

Look at the current mayhem with HGV's stacked on the M20 and the traffic chaos in Kent... some of this is down to problems with Calais but it occurs all too often on all the roads around London/SE because too many people are trying to travel on a limited road space. Public transport struggles to cope too, Buses and coaches get clogged up with cars and the rail and underground are too often swamped with commuters trying to get to work or home again.

Food and Water - are we going to ignore how we will feed ourselves and millions more pouring in if we are to build on prime agricultural land?

Anyone that can explain and demonstrate how we will be able to cope in 10 years time with a population nearly double what it is now can lecture us as to the rights and wrongs of allowing millions of new people to be allowed to set up home here.

We cannot house the population we have now and clearly there would be a need for additional schools, GP surgeries and hospitals as well as the staff to run them.

Ignoring this problem won't make it go away - we cannot take any more.

I think it might demonstrate a certain level of bias to suggest the predominant theme of this thread is "why we should let all these people in"

What part of 5,000 people being near Calais and a very small number of them succeeding in obtaining illegal entry leads to a logical conclusion by you that with our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls (from being an island) it will result in "millions" of such people like those in Calais arriving here?

Taking your transport example.This would have nothing to do with underinvestment over the years and decades and a failure to adopt an integrated transport policy subsidised by the state as a social economic cost for an overall economic benefit to the country,including business?

Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 11.37am)

Have you ever noticed that a dam bursting begins with a small crack and a trickle of water?

The 5000 (your estimate, not mine) are the fore runners. Their success drives on the multitude and many more are on their way from Africa and the middle east, together with bogus students who out stay their visas, relatives of foreign nationals arriving for holidays. Our borders are too easy to breach for those non EU migrants (legal or otherwise) and Cameron has yet to negotiate effective immigration policy with EU if we are to remain a member.

Any transport planning done previously could not have foreseen the explosion in population growth we have already experienced and the ramping up of growth yet to come.

Forget the smug dismissal of my concerns about how our infrastructure will cope with your time wasting irrelevant side issues.

Address the problem I asked about possible solutions.... where will we build these houses, schools, hospitals and GP surgeries.... oh and extra supermarkets to cope with demand.

Edited by Hoof Hearted (01 Aug 2015 11.52am)

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Aug 15 12.13pm
"our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls" - a gem from legal. A conservative estimate of illegal immigrants in this country is over 600,000 - I wonder how many it would be if we didn't have 'strong controls'. In any case, as legal thinks immigration is an unmitigated blessing, with no downside or problems, surely we should encourage even more of it? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 01 Aug 15 12.13pm

"our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls" - a gem from legal. A conservative estimate of illegal immigrants in this country is over 600,000 - I wonder how many it would be if we didn't have 'strong controls'. In any case, as legal thinks immigration is an unmitigated blessing, with no downside or problems, surely we should encourage even more of it?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 01 Aug 15 12.37pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.51am Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 11.37am) Have you ever noticed that a dam bursting begins with a small crack and a trickle of water? The 5000 (your estimate, not mine) are the fore runners. Their success drives on the multitude and many more are on their way from Africa and the middle east, together with bogus students who out stay their visas, relatives of foreign nationals arriving for holidays. Our borders are too easy to breach for those non EU migrants (legal or otherwise) and Cameron has yet to negotiate effective immigration policy with EU if we are to remain a member. Any transport planning done previously could not have foreseen the explosion in population growth we have already experienced and the ramping up of growth yet to come. Forget the smug dismissal of my concerns about how our infrastructure will cope with your time wasting irrelevant side issues. Address the problem I asked about possible solutions.... where will we build these houses, schools, hospitals and GP surgeries.... oh and extra supermarkets to cope with demand. Edited by Hoof Hearted (01 Aug 2015 11.52am) One person's legitimate points are another's "smug" "irrelevant side-issues" Tis the way of the world...
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

01 Aug 15 12.37pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.51am

Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 11.37am)

Have you ever noticed that a dam bursting begins with a small crack and a trickle of water?

Any transport planning done previously could not have foreseen the explosion in population growth we have already experienced and the ramping up of growth yet to come.

Forget the smug dismissal of my concerns about how our infrastructure will cope with your time wasting irrelevant side issues.

Address the problem I asked about possible solutions.... where will we build these houses, schools, hospitals and GP surgeries.... oh and extra supermarkets to cope with demand.

Edited by Hoof Hearted (01 Aug 2015 11.52am)

One person's legitimate points are another's "smug" "irrelevant side-issues" Tis the way of the world...

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 01 Aug 15 12.52pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 12.13pm "our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls" - a gem from legal. A conservative estimate of illegal immigrants in this country is over 600,000 - I wonder how many it would be if we didn't have 'strong controls'. In any case, as legal thinks immigration is an unmitigated blessing, with no downside or problems, surely we should encourage even more of it? Illegal immigrants meaning people who have come any time in the past 70 or so years,many if not most being people who have entered legally and "overstayed" and including such groups as "overstayers" from countries like the USA,Canada and Australia and people who obtained tertiary level educational qualifications here. On your figures, perhaps about 1% of the population of the UK... Probably much the same as most countries.In the USA for example,the figure was estimated as of 2008 to be about 12 million such people,about 4% of the population. It is indicative of the way you see the world,that you can state (as if fact) that I see immigration as something with no downside or problems whatsoever,so shortly after I had posted that I do not agree with unrestricted immigration from outside the EU. Two differences between us being that I do not view immigration per se as inherently defined overwhelmingly solely by downside and problems and I perhaps take a somewhat different view to you as to economic migrants/refugees per se as people and perhaps indeed to people of a different race,ethnicity or religion to me more generally. Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 12.59pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

01 Aug 15 12.52pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 12.13pm

Illegal immigrants meaning people who have come any time in the past 70 or so years,many if not most being people who have entered legally and "overstayed" and including such groups as "overstayers" from countries like the USA,Canada and Australia and people who obtained tertiary level educational qualifications here.

On your figures, perhaps about 1% of the population of the UK...

Probably much the same as most countries.In the USA for example,the figure was estimated as of 2008 to be about 12 million such people,about 4% of the population.

It is indicative of the way you see the world,that you can state (as if fact) that I see immigration as something with no downside or problems whatsoever,so shortly after I had posted that I do not agree with unrestricted immigration from outside the EU. Two differences between us being that I do not view immigration per se as inherently defined overwhelmingly solely by downside and problems and I perhaps take a somewhat different view to you as to economic migrants/refugees per se as people and perhaps indeed to people of a different race,ethnicity or religion to me more generally.

Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 12.59pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Aug 15 12.52pm
The likes of legal simply have no answers to obvious questions. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 01 Aug 15 12.52pm

The likes of legal simply have no answers to obvious questions.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 01 Aug 15 12.56pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 12.52pm The likes of legal simply have no answers to obvious questions. Or perhaps rather,the likes of Derben,sorry legged struggle are so obviously questionable
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

01 Aug 15 12.56pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 12.52pm

The likes of legal simply have no answers to obvious questions.

Or perhaps rather,the likes of Derben,sorry legged struggle are so obviously questionable

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Aug 15 1.03pm
Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 12.52pm Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 12.13pm "our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls" - a gem from legal. A conservative estimate of illegal immigrants in this country is over 600,000 - I wonder how many it would be if we didn't have 'strong controls'. In any case, as legal thinks immigration is an unmitigated blessing, with no downside or problems, surely we should encourage even more of it? Illegal immigrants meaning people who have come any time in the past 70 or so years,many if not most being people who have entered legally and "overstayed" and including such groups as "overstayers" from countries like the USA,Canada and Australia and people who obtained tertiary level educational qualifications here. On your figures, perhaps about 1% of the population of the UK... Probably much the same as most countries.In the USA for example,the figure was estimated as of 2008 to be about 12 million such people,about 4% of the population. It is indicative of the way you see the world,that you can state (as if fact) that I see immigration as something with no downside or problems whatsoever,so shortly after I had posted that I do not agree with unrestricted immigration from outside the EU. Two differences between us being that I do not view immigration per se as inherently defined overwhelmingly solely by downside and problems and I perhaps take a somewhat different view to you as to economic migrants/refugees per se as people and perhaps indeed to people of a different race,ethnicity or religion to me more generally. Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 12.59pm) What do you see as the downside and problems then? Why do you disagree with unrestricted immigration? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 01 Aug 15 1.03pm

Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 12.52pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 12.13pm

On your figures, perhaps about 1% of the population of the UK...

Probably much the same as most countries.In the USA for example,the figure was estimated as of 2008 to be about 12 million such people,about 4% of the population.

Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 12.59pm)

What do you see as the downside and problems then? Why do you disagree with unrestricted immigration?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 01 Aug 15 1.08pm
More pertinently perhaps in your case,is there anything at all about immigration that you consider is not a downside and is there anything at all about economic migrants or refugees that could make them acceptable people to live in a house you occupied? If so,what?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

01 Aug 15 1.08pm

More pertinently perhaps in your case,is there anything at all about immigration that you consider is not a downside and is there anything at all about economic migrants or refugees that could make them acceptable people to live in a house you occupied?

If so,what?

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Aug 15 1.15pm
Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 1.08pm More pertinently perhaps in your case,is there anything at all about immigration that you consider is not a downside and is there anything at all about economic migrants or refugees that could make them acceptable people to live in a house you occupied? If so,what? No and no. Now answer my questions. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 01 Aug 15 1.15pm

Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 1.08pm

If so,what?

No and no. Now answer my questions.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 01 Aug 15 1.27pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.51am Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 11.36am Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.27am All these pages of discussion about why we should let these people in but NEVER any serious suggestions as to where they will live and how our infrastructure will cope. Serial Thriller ridiculously argued that only 3% of the UK is built upon, but even if it were true it includes all the parts of the UK that obviously cannot be built upon - mountainous regions, floodplains, dangerous coastal areas, swamps, areas of outstanding natural beauty, agricultural land, ex-mining regions, forests, islands with no safe access or remote locations, etc We are already at saturation point in the south east and our larger cities for housing density and lack of schools, GP's and hospitals. Look at the current mayhem with HGV's stacked on the M20 and the traffic chaos in Kent... some of this is down to problems with Calais but it occurs all too often on all the roads around London/SE because too many people are trying to travel on a limited road space. Public transport struggles to cope too, Buses and coaches get clogged up with cars and the rail and underground are too often swamped with commuters trying to get to work or home again. Food and Water - are we going to ignore how we will feed ourselves and millions more pouring in if we are to build on prime agricultural land? Anyone that can explain and demonstrate how we will be able to cope in 10 years time with a population nearly double what it is now can lecture us as to the rights and wrongs of allowing millions of new people to be allowed to set up home here. We cannot house the population we have now and clearly there would be a need for additional schools, GP surgeries and hospitals as well as the staff to run them. Ignoring this problem won't make it go away - we cannot take any more. I think it might demonstrate a certain level of bias to suggest the predominant theme of this thread is "why we should let all these people in" What part of 5,000 people being near Calais and a very small number of them succeeding in obtaining illegal entry leads to a logical conclusion by you that with our present strong non EU national immigration controls and strong border controls (from being an island) it will result in "millions" of such people like those in Calais arriving here? Taking your transport example.This would have nothing to do with underinvestment over the years and decades and a failure to adopt an integrated transport policy subsidised by the state as a social economic cost for an overall economic benefit to the country,including business? Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 11.37am) Have you ever noticed that a dam bursting begins with a small crack and a trickle of water? The 5000 (your estimate, not mine) are the fore runners. Their success drives on the multitude and many more are on their way from Africa and the middle east, together with bogus students who out stay their visas, relatives of foreign nationals arriving for holidays. Our borders are too easy to breach for those non EU migrants (legal or otherwise) and Cameron has yet to negotiate effective immigration policy with EU if we are to remain a member. Any transport planning done previously could not have foreseen the explosion in population growth we have already experienced and the ramping up of growth yet to come. Forget the smug dismissal of my concerns about how our infrastructure will cope with your time wasting irrelevant side issues. Address the problem I asked about possible solutions.... where will we build these houses, schools, hospitals and GP surgeries.... oh and extra supermarkets to cope with demand. Edited by Hoof Hearted (01 Aug 2015 11.52am) Hoof - You make some excellent common sense points that I cannot really argue against so the only thing left for me to do is call you a racist "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 01 Aug 15 1.27pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.51am

Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 11.36am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Aug 2015 11.27am

All these pages of discussion about why we should let these people in but NEVER any serious suggestions as to where they will live and how our infrastructure will cope.

We are already at saturation point in the south east and our larger cities for housing density and lack of schools, GP's and hospitals.

Food and Water - are we going to ignore how we will feed ourselves and millions more pouring in if we are to build on prime agricultural land?

We cannot house the population we have now and clearly there would be a need for additional schools, GP surgeries and hospitals as well as the staff to run them.

Ignoring this problem won't make it go away - we cannot take any more.

I think it might demonstrate a certain level of bias to suggest the predominant theme of this thread is "why we should let all these people in"

Edited by legaleagle (01 Aug 2015 11.37am)

Have you ever noticed that a dam bursting begins with a small crack and a trickle of water?

Any transport planning done previously could not have foreseen the explosion in population growth we have already experienced and the ramping up of growth yet to come.

Forget the smug dismissal of my concerns about how our infrastructure will cope with your time wasting irrelevant side issues.

Address the problem I asked about possible solutions.... where will we build these houses, schools, hospitals and GP surgeries.... oh and extra supermarkets to cope with demand.

Edited by Hoof Hearted (01 Aug 2015 11.52am)

Hoof - You make some excellent common sense points that I cannot really argue against so the only thing left for me to do is call you a racist

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 01 Aug 15 1.55pm
racist!
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

01 Aug 15 1.55pm

racist!

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 01 Aug 15 2.04pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 1.15pm Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 1.08pm More pertinently perhaps in your case,is there anything at all about immigration that you consider is not a downside and is there anything at all about economic migrants or refugees that could make them acceptable people to live in a house you occupied? If so,what? No and no. Now answer my questions. No thanks.People like "Hoof" make points that are not unreasonable,though I may disagree with some,and query why he exaggerates others and leaves additional factors out of his analysis. In contrast,people like you and derben are fundamentally lacking in anything I would want to dignify with an ongoing engagement, though to your credit you are unabashed above in confirming the obvious regarding the driving forces for your particular analysis of the world.Just an opinion.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

01 Aug 15 2.04pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Aug 2015 1.15pm

Quote legaleagle at 01 Aug 2015 1.08pm

If so,what?

No and no. Now answer my questions.

No thanks.People like "Hoof" make points that are not unreasonable,though I may disagree with some,and query why he exaggerates others and leaves additional factors out of his analysis.

In contrast,people like you and derben are fundamentally lacking in anything I would want to dignify with an ongoing engagement, though to your credit you are unabashed above in confirming the obvious regarding the driving forces for your particular analysis of the world.Just an opinion.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 42 of 85 < 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Calais migrant trouble

Site Map

Sponsors