Explosion at parsons Green underground station

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 13 of 23 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

.TUX. 18 Sep 17 9.33pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger How very contrary of you XUT. Being observant suits you. Hopefully there's more to come. Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

18 Sep 17 9.33pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

How very contrary of you XUT.

Being observant suits you. Hopefully there's more to come.

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 Sep 17 10.10pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Don't worry about it Matt, they are like some cult - anyone who disagrees with them is a racist or a fascist. Matts a misogynist as well. He's not racist though.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 18 Sep 17 10.10pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Don't worry about it Matt, they are like some cult - anyone who disagrees with them is a racist or a fascist.

Matts a misogynist as well. He's not racist though.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Sep 17 11.11am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Yes,but you are suggesting that we should accept a percentage of terrorists along with our 'nice' refugees because that is just life. That is self justifying codswallop if I may be so bold, and no one is suggesting that all refugees are guilty, but that, most significantly, there is a clear, predictable and avoidable risk that the government has no right to subject us to. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Sep 2017 8.00pm) I think if were are going to have a system by which we offer refugee to people who are at significant threat in their home country, then we also have to accept that some people who take advantage of that will 'let the rest down' and not truly take advantage of the chance they're being offered. Offering Asylum to those who are persecuted and at threat for no reason of their own, by foreign states and oppressive regimes is the right thing to do as a country that represents freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Its like, you could massively reduce crime in the UK by adopting very authoritarian measures but these measures represent values we, as a nation, do not agree with. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Sep 17 11.11am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Yes,but you are suggesting that we should accept a percentage of terrorists along with our 'nice' refugees because that is just life. That is self justifying codswallop if I may be so bold, and no one is suggesting that all refugees are guilty, but that, most significantly, there is a clear, predictable and avoidable risk that the government has no right to subject us to.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Sep 2017 8.00pm)

I think if were are going to have a system by which we offer refugee to people who are at significant threat in their home country, then we also have to accept that some people who take advantage of that will 'let the rest down' and not truly take advantage of the chance they're being offered.

Its like, you could massively reduce crime in the UK by adopting very authoritarian measures but these measures represent values we, as a nation, do not agree with.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Sep 17 11.12am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Don't worry about it Matt, they are like some cult - anyone who disagrees with them is a racist or a fascist. Says the man who labels anything vaguely left wing as Communist. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Sep 17 11.12am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Don't worry about it Matt, they are like some cult - anyone who disagrees with them is a racist or a fascist.

Says the man who labels anything vaguely left wing as Communist.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 19 Sep 17 11.41am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Says the man who labels anything vaguely left wing as Communist. Well many of them are thinly veiled communists. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 19 Sep 17 11.41am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Says the man who labels anything vaguely left wing as Communist.

Well many of them are thinly veiled communists.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 19 Sep 17 11.49am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think if were are going to have a system by which we offer refugee to people who are at significant threat in their home country, then we also have to accept that some people who take advantage of that will 'let the rest down' and not truly take advantage of the chance they're being offered. Offering Asylum to those who are persecuted and at threat for no reason of their own, by foreign states and oppressive regimes is the right thing to do as a country that represents freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Its like, you could massively reduce crime in the UK by adopting very authoritarian measures but these measures represent values we, as a nation, do not agree with. But we could have minimised any risk by taking from the camps all the Christian Syrians, who were not only at risk in their own lands from ISIS, but also being murdered in the refugee camps by their fellow Syrians of different faith...... double whammy as they would also have assimilated better into communities here. A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 19 Sep 17 11.49am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Offering Asylum to those who are persecuted and at threat for no reason of their own, by foreign states and oppressive regimes is the right thing to do as a country that represents freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Its like, you could massively reduce crime in the UK by adopting very authoritarian measures but these measures represent values we, as a nation, do not agree with.

But we could have minimised any risk by taking from the camps all the Christian Syrians, who were not only at risk in their own lands from ISIS, but also being murdered in the refugee camps by their fellow Syrians of different faith...... double whammy as they would also have assimilated better into communities here.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Sep 17 12.16pm
Originally posted by becky But we could have minimised any risk by taking from the camps all the Christian Syrians, who were not only at risk in their own lands from ISIS, but also being murdered in the refugee camps by their fellow Syrians of different faith...... double whammy as they would also have assimilated better into communities here. I'd have no problem with that. Pick from the camps, where you can assess people on arrival and verify them, and select the best x number of applicants a year to fulfil quotas. Its worth noting that Syrian Christians aren't quite the same as Western Christians. They technically would be what was once classed as heretics... Unfortunately, our policy was to take next to no one until they arrive in the UK. At which point it becomes very difficult to know where they actually came from, who they are and what prospect they have to the UK. Or you could take Shia Muslims, Kurds, or any of the assorted different faiths of Muslims and non-Muslims "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Sep 17 12.16pm

Originally posted by becky

I'd have no problem with that. Pick from the camps, where you can assess people on arrival and verify them, and select the best x number of applicants a year to fulfil quotas.

Its worth noting that Syrian Christians aren't quite the same as Western Christians. They technically would be what was once classed as heretics...

Unfortunately, our policy was to take next to no one until they arrive in the UK. At which point it becomes very difficult to know where they actually came from, who they are and what prospect they have to the UK.

Or you could take Shia Muslims, Kurds, or any of the assorted different faiths of Muslims and non-Muslims

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 19 Sep 17 12.18pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Or you could take Shia Muslims, Kurds, or any of the assorted different faiths of Muslims and non-Muslims Well, Kurds yeah. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

19 Sep 17 12.18pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Or you could take Shia Muslims, Kurds, or any of the assorted different faiths of Muslims and non-Muslims

Well, Kurds yeah.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 19 Sep 17 12.20pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think if were are going to have a system by which we offer refugee to people who are at significant threat in their home country, then we also have to accept that some people who take advantage of that will 'let the rest down' and not truly take advantage of the chance they're being offered. Offering Asylum to those who are persecuted and at threat for no reason of their own, by foreign states and oppressive regimes is the right thing to do as a country that represents freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Its like, you could massively reduce crime in the UK by adopting very authoritarian measures but these measures represent values we, as a nation, do not agree with. Is it actually? If we are talking in terms of morals then I'd say that protecting our own citizens is the priority. How many of us would have to die before you changed your mind? Is there a statistical tipping point to this rightousness?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

19 Sep 17 12.20pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Offering Asylum to those who are persecuted and at threat for no reason of their own, by foreign states and oppressive regimes is the right thing to do as a country that represents freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Its like, you could massively reduce crime in the UK by adopting very authoritarian measures but these measures represent values we, as a nation, do not agree with.

Is it actually?
If we are talking in terms of morals then I'd say that protecting our own citizens is the priority.
How many of us would have to die before you changed your mind? Is there a statistical tipping point to this rightousness?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Sep 17 12.26pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Is it actually? If we are talking in terms of morals then I'd say that protecting our own citizens is the priority. How many of us would have to die before you changed your mind? Is there a statistical tipping point to this rightousness? How many innocent people would you let die, in order to protect your 'own citizens'. The reality is of course you have to have to take all reasonable precautions and be selective, of course. Problem is, we don't really do any of that or when we do, we're so late in the game, that we can't be reasonably sure, usually after they've turned up here, after being in refugee camps for a few years. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Sep 17 12.26pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

How many innocent people would you let die, in order to protect your 'own citizens'. The reality is of course you have to have to take all reasonable precautions and be selective, of course.

Problem is, we don't really do any of that or when we do, we're so late in the game, that we can't be reasonably sure, usually after they've turned up here, after being in refugee camps for a few years.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 19 Sep 17 12.26pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Is it actually? If we are talking in terms of morals then I'd say that protecting our own citizens is the priority. How many of us would have to die before you changed your mind? Is there a statistical tipping point to this rightousness? The US lost 3,000 in one day in 2001 but didn't stop asylum because of it. Were they being over the top righteous? You probably didn't have an opinion on it one way or the other. And if they had stopped all asylum where would that have gotten them 16 years later and now on the world stage? North Korea lost 1million citizens in 1953-54 and so closed themselves off. That's worked well. Edited by Kermit8 (19 Sep 2017 12.28pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 19 Sep 17 12.26pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The US lost 3,000 in one day in 2001 but didn't stop asylum because of it. Were they being over the top righteous? You probably didn't have an opinion on it one way or the other. And if they had stopped all asylum where would that have gotten them 16 years later and now on the world stage?

North Korea lost 1million citizens in 1953-54 and so closed themselves off. That's worked well.

Edited by Kermit8 (19 Sep 2017 12.28pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 19 Sep 17 12.43pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 How many innocent people would you let die, in order to protect your 'own citizens'. The reality is of course you have to have to take all reasonable precautions and be selective, of course. Problem is, we don't really do any of that or when we do, we're so late in the game, that we can't be reasonably sure, usually after they've turned up here, after being in refugee camps for a few years. How many of your own innocent citizens would you let die in order to protect others? Edited by hedgehog50 (19 Sep 2017 12.43pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 19 Sep 17 12.43pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

How many innocent people would you let die, in order to protect your 'own citizens'. The reality is of course you have to have to take all reasonable precautions and be selective, of course.

How many of your own innocent citizens would you let die in order to protect others?

Edited by hedgehog50 (19 Sep 2017 12.43pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 23 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Explosion at parsons Green underground station

Site Map

Sponsors