Well you certainly have a hard-on for your interpretation of Japan's (and Poland's) ethnocentric attitudes and seem to believe they are much better places than Blighty because of it. I just thought if our country's way of doing things displeases you so much with your constant criticism of it you could always go to one where your mindset might fit in more? Makes sense.

Edited by Kermit8 (19 Sep 2017 1.17pm)

The game of who you would let live and let die is more complicated than just numbers. The people you let die might include someone who would have grown up to find a cure for cancer say. Similarly, those you let live might include someone who grows up to become a leader who does great damage to society - a baby Jeremy Corbyn for instance.

Edited by hedgehog50 (19 Sep 2017 1.30pm)

Of course 'moving' was meant to be a facetious proposition (oft used by The Right on here).

The bit in bold I like. Get your head around the fait accompli insofar as we are not just a clearly defined working, middle and Upper Class nation with a vast majority 99% caucasian population now but a mix of others, as well as British with far back ancestry here (still a huge majority but not vast as previous) and it won't seem so terrible.

Nearly everyone here just wants a quiet existence and not have obnoxious neighbours, etc, and to live and let live. It doesn't have to be happy clappy and it isn't but a pretty much peaceful melting pot is not such a bad thing. See London and New York. Probably the two best cities in the world all in all.

Fair to whom?
This is just one emotional choice against another. Who is making these moral decisions on our behalf and how wise are they really?
I'm all for a much more selective process but how effective can that really be? How do we determine who is a risk other than by blanket bans on specific groups? That policy would surely irk the least altruistic person. Better to try and resolve their problems remote from these shores. At least that is the same for all and protects the tax paying citizens of Britain. And the thousands of scroungers.

Everyone. The same rules apply. On a fundamental basis the UK has obligations to the UN on refugees, that we signed up to, and I think that's right; we should offer protection and sanctuary to valid refugees.

There are preferable alternatives, definitely, but blanket bans such as no Muslims is absurd - because the problem really is only with a section of Sunni Muslims - Turning the idea that somehow we should ban all Muslims is absurdly out of step when we know that only one sect of Islam, and then really only sections within that, are a risk.

We, as a country that represents the rule of law, freedoms and democracy, should act in a manner that represents that, and stand to protect those at risk from tyranny from tyrants.

Its our country, not specifically mine or yours, but it belongs to all British Citizens - not just those who can fit into certain criteria. Me, you, the bloke next door, his wife and his kids - it belongs to all of us.