I agree, the wording is rubbish but if anyone can find a better worded one then we can go for that instead. It might be naff but the numbers are still going up.
The wording is risible. Why not simply say something like ‘I object to the UK government increasing the number of asylum seekers accepted’? They'd have probably gained a lot more signatures, too.
I agree, that's why I am hoping that someone will create a more sensible one.
Edit: if anyone is interested, could they pm Jim Nash with an email address to set up a petition?
Keeping in mind Turkey has taken 2 million and Lebanon 1.3 million Syrians. Where do you want the extra 5 million to go?
I took umbrage at your post, suggesting I made a statement that I didn't make. Please don't do that again, it's not nice.
Why do you think that this is my responsibility? Or even the UK's responsibility? Or even the EU's responsibility? Frankly the onus is on the Arab League primarily and the United Nations secondary to help deal with the issue. The Arab League has another 23 countries within it and they should be stepping up. The UK can, and will, help as part of a global effort via the UN. The problem has been increased by unilateral responses to the crisis, each country dealing with it in different and sometimes in opposite ways. Situations like this need to be handled consistantly across the global community.
I'll repeat the question though, the one you initially replied to. If a family have made it as far as Hungary, are their lives still in danger? Should a refugee in Hungary (or any other safe country) be given refugee status to enter the UK?
Thanks to those of you who provided four, but you wouldn't think it'd be that hard to get five. Talk about armchair warriors - no one's being asked to go into battle or otherwise put their necks on the line.
Now got the five needed, Halleluiah. Next I'll try my hand at pulling teeth.
I'll draft something, post it and ultimately try to submit it as a petition.
Iceland (population 334k) has offered to take 10k refugees. We therefore need to take on around 1.8M to show the same spirit of solidarity given our own population of 64M. More if you take into account that we are responsible for the whole situation in the first place, with our criminal invasion of Iraq.
Thanks to those of you who provided four, but you wouldn't think it'd be that hard to get five. Talk about armchair warriors - no one's being asked to go into battle or otherwise put their necks on the line.
Hang on, I replied to your post, telling your I was more than prepared to help but I just wanted more details - I asked you to PM me!
Iceland (population 334k) has offered to take 10k refugees. We therefore need to take on around 1.8M to show the same spirit of solidarity given our own population of 64M. More if you take into account that we are responsible for the whole situation in the first place, with our criminal invasion of Iraq.
Bully for Iceland.
I would suggest that after a week, the 10,000 would be queuing at departures at Keflavik wanting a flight back home.
The Gulf States could, of course, solve this predicament and would provide an Islamic environment in which they refugees would settle far happier than in the heathen, liberal EU.
I wonder how long it will be before the countries who have offered homes to these people suddenly realise that it hasn't solved anything and that ever more thousands are coming because the word has spread that the Europeans will let us in?
Time will come when no countries population will accept their foolish politicians keep on letting 'em in at which point what then?
There certainly should be no place for single males nor anyone who doesn't speak English nor anyone who hasn't a skill we can use.
Otherwise we simply bump up the benefits bill again and the first to scream when benefits are cut to help pay for these people will be the same people who wanted them here.
As an aside my local education authority has a priority list for entry to its nursey schools. To put it simply if you are an asylum seeker, benefits claimant or single teenage mother you have priority over families who work and pay the taxes that create the schools in the first place.
In other words you pay but you are relegated behind those who never contributed
so could find you have to look miles away from home for a place for your child.
Yet more immigration means yet more indigenous British people pushed further down the list for all sorts of things.
Given we have huge waiting lists for homes where are these people going to go?
As an aside my local education authority has a priority list for entry to its nursey schools. To put it simply if you are an asylum seeker, benefits claimant or single teenage mother you have priority over families who work and pay the taxes that create the schools in the first place.
Which LEA is that, can you link the policy which gives priority?
The Gulf States could, of course, solve this predicament and would provide an Islamic environment in which they refugees would settle far happier than in the heathen, liberal EU.
Like Saudi Arabia for instance ? Which has up to 30% foreign workers in its economy ?
What an incredibly interesting reception some posters are getting, for having the audacity to air a viewpoint thayt doesn't involve wrapping the world in bubble wrap and concerning ourselves with the wellbeing of every single living creature on this fractured planet of ours.
"Vile, heartless, nasty, abhorrent, disgusting, angry, uncaring, self centred, selfish, despicable, waste of space" are just some verbs and descriptions labelled onto the "right" by the apparently compassionate and tolerant left.
Here's how I see it:
The left, traditionally, are more vocal about how much they care. They genuinely do believe that by caring and showing compassion makes you a better person. Nowt wrong in that. But in their mindset of being tolerant and understanding, they very often become the very opposite, because a left wing person tends to sit more in the pathway towards socialism, so to them they generally believe everyone to share their ideals and sympathise with everyone who does. Not a criticism, just an observation.
But, and it's a death valley, gargantuan crater of a but, they can not and will not comprehend a conflicting viewpoint. To them a conflicting viewpoint is nasty and heartless, written by an angry, evil minded right winger who cares for no one but themselves or those who are rich and eat peasants for supper. The amount of posters in these threads over the past couple of days who have said "I'm putting you on ignore because you're a vile individual" to other posters is alarming. The inability to value, consider and respect a differing viewpoint is not part of being a human in a democratic country. If you can't handle it, don't join the party! Simple as.
As a "vile, nasty, heartless, angry" right winger, I tend to be more conservative when it comes to expressing sentiment. I care (and worry) deeply about the situation in Europe, and the affects it will have on our, MY, country too. Of course we shouldn't ignore the genuine asylum seekers who are desperate to survive in a world of hate and chaos. But, the majority of these are waiting for help in refugee camps in sites managed by the United Nations. A chap said on the News last night, that the people the UK are going to take are extremely vulnerable and terrified. Some have had limbs blown off by the bombings, or fingers and hands severed by the regimes runnnig those countries they are fleeing from. They went to the first safe sanctuary they could find and registered there, correctly and are now going to be welcomed in by the UK. That is right and that is exactly what we should be doing.
People who are "fleeing from European countries" are not, in any way, in any danger. All those migrants in Hungary causing chaos because they refuse to go to a camp to be registered and fingerprinted are clearly worried they might be returned to where they came from. Why would that be? Because they are not actually seeking asylum but just want to go to Germany for a better life? People really need to sit up and consider things more clearly. Those people in refugee camps are being forgotten about because the emphasis has moved to the swarm of migrants trespassing illegally throughout Europe. I for one feel proud that our nation is taking in migrants from refugee camps who are living in absolute fear and terror and who abiding the rules laid before them in order to be helped.
My message to the European Migrants would be:
STOP! Please respect the territories you are entering. We will help you and try and provide you with a secure, welcoming place to live and to bring up your families. But, please go to the areas you are requested to go to otherwise we will have to consider sending you back where you came from. We can't help you if you don't help us.
If that makes me a vile person, then I can live with that.
Now got the five needed, Halleluiah. Next I'll try my hand at pulling teeth.
I'll draft something, post it and ultimately try to submit it as a petition.
Probably get about ten sigs.
If you are struggling for wording you could say something like:
Do not accept more asylum seekers and do not increase support for refugee migrants in the UK
This petition is if you disagree with the following petition:
'Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK.
There is a global refugee crisis. The UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts. We can't allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe. We must help..'
Which LEA is that, can you link the policy which gives priority?
Shown below :
1st Priority Category
Category A
1. Looked After Children, including children who have previously been looked after (see definition in our Glossary of Terms Word Doc 100Kb) and children who are subject of a Child Protection Plan
2. Children who have learning difficulties or a disability
3. Children subject of a team around the child (TAC) meeting
4. Children already attending the maintained nursery school or class that they have applied for as a funded 2 year old meeting the eligibility criteria
All applications for a priority place must be accompanied by supporting evidence from a relevant professional, such as a Health Visitor. This evidence must clearly outline how these circumstances impact on your child's learning and development. This information must be attached or sent in separately
2nd Priority Category
Category B - Family Issues: Asylum seekers / refugees, Families with significant health issues, Teenage parents
Category C - Speech and language difficulties
Category D - English as an additional language
Category E - Environmental issues: living in poor housing accommodation
Category F - Twin or triplet applications or where there are four or more children under 7 in the home
All applications for a priority place must be accompanied by supporting evidence from a relevant professional, such as a Health Visitor. This evidence must clearly outline how these circumstances impact on your child's learning and development. This information must be attached or sent in separately.
Other Categories
Category G - Children of residents measured by straight-line distance starting with the address closest to the school
Category I - Applications received after the closing date ordered by the criteria detailed at A - H above
Pragmatism is a concept The Left simply do not grasp or understand in any way. shape or form.
Exactly.
I have a few questions for those in favour of the "refugees welcome" movement:
1. Where are they going to go? We're running out of affordable housing as it is. If people say they'd invite them into their own home (a la Bob Geldof), I'd like to see them actually carry this out and I may change my opinion. These very same people complain about welfare cuts and NHS waiting times, which would only increase should we welcome thousands of migrants.
2. Why can't we help out our own homeless first? There's around 200,000 homeless people in the UK, and around 4,000 sleeping rough. Why can't we re-house these people first instead of leaving them on the streets?
3. I hate to even think about this but what if that one migrant slips into the UK who isn't actually what they say they are. What if they are a terrorist? This is a particular worry of mine if we end up inviting migrants to live with us.
Like Saudi Arabia for instance ? Which has up to 30% foreign workers in its economy ?
Not exactly all sweetness and light in Saudi Arabia :
"Yet xenophobia has been bubbling up among Saudis, mirroring the rise in Europe of nationalist movements that have flourished under austerity measures introduced since the global financial crisis, not to mention the long fight in the U.S. over illegal immigrants.
The animosity in Saudi Arabia follows a government crackdown on illegal labor in 2013 that sparked deadly clashes between nationals and foreign workers. Proposals to limit expatriate labor are also being discussed in other Gulf countries, including Kuwait and Oman.
“Today, they don’t ask for political rights, but what about in a decade or two?” Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi wrote in the local Al Hayat daily newspaper in January. Expatriate workers currently remain in the country on a residence visa that has to be renewed periodically; there is no program for citizenship".
I have a few questions for those in favour of the "refugees welcome" movement:
1. Where are they going to go? We're running out of affordable housing as it is. If people say they'd invite them into their own home (a la Bob Geldof), I'd like to see them actually carry this out and I may change my opinion. These very same people complain about welfare cuts and NHS waiting times, which would only increase should we welcome thousands of migrants.
2. Why can't we help out our own homeless first? There's around 200,000 homeless people in the UK, and around 4,000 sleeping rough. Why can't we re-house these people first instead of leaving them on the streets?
3. I hate to even think about this but what if that one migrant slips into the UK who isn't actually what they say they are. What if they are a terrorist? This is a particular worry of mine if we end up inviting migrants to live with us.
Here's an interesting news story that backs up people's claims that refugees DO take housing stock:
So, my question is: (I've asked it several times, but no supporter of more migrants has answered it):
Is it right that a refugee is given priority housing over a British citizen who has been on the waiting list for six years or more? Is the needs of the refugee more urgent and important than the needs of the British citizen? If so why, and how does that NOT make the British person a second class citizen?
Also, how would YOU feel if you were not given a house because a refugee took it instead?
What an incredibly interesting reception some posters are getting, for having the audacity to air a viewpoint thayt doesn't involve wrapping the world in bubble wrap and concerning ourselves with the wellbeing of every single living creature on this fractured planet of ours.
"Vile, heartless, nasty, abhorrent, disgusting, angry, uncaring, self centred, selfish, despicable, waste of space" are just some verbs and descriptions labelled onto the "right" by the apparently compassionate and tolerant left.
Here's how I see it:
The left, traditionally, are more vocal about how much they care. They genuinely do believe that by caring and showing compassion makes you a better person. Nowt wrong in that. But in their mindset of being tolerant and understanding, they very often become the very opposite, because a left wing person tends to sit more in the pathway towards socialism, so to them they generally believe everyone to share their ideals and sympathise with everyone who does. Not a criticism, just an observation.
But, and it's a death valley, gargantuan crater of a but, they can not and will not comprehend a conflicting viewpoint. To them a conflicting viewpoint is nasty and heartless, written by an angry, evil minded right winger who cares for no one but themselves or those who are rich and eat peasants for supper. The amount of posters in these threads over the past couple of days who have said "I'm putting you on ignore because you're a vile individual" to other posters is alarming. The inability to value, consider and respect a differing viewpoint is not part of being a human in a democratic country. If you can't handle it, don't join the party! Simple as.
As a "vile, nasty, heartless, angry" right winger, I tend to be more conservative when it comes to expressing sentiment. I care (and worry) deeply about the situation in Europe, and the affects it will have on our, MY, country too. Of course we shouldn't ignore the genuine asylum seekers who are desperate to survive in a world of hate and chaos. But, the majority of these are waiting for help in refugee camps in sites managed by the United Nations. A chap said on the News last night, that the people the UK are going to take are extremely vulnerable and terrified. Some have had limbs blown off by the bombings, or fingers and hands severed by the regimes runnnig those countries they are fleeing from. They went to the first safe sanctuary they could find and registered there, correctly and are now going to be welcomed in by the UK. That is right and that is exactly what we should be doing.
People who are "fleeing from European countries" are not, in any way, in any danger. All those migrants in Hungary causing chaos because they refuse to go to a camp to be registered and fingerprinted are clearly worried they might be returned to where they came from. Why would that be? Because they are not actually seeking asylum but just want to go to Germany for a better life? People really need to sit up and consider things more clearly. Those people in refugee camps are being forgotten about because the emphasis has moved to the swarm of migrants trespassing illegally throughout Europe. I for one feel proud that our nation is taking in migrants from refugee camps who are living in absolute fear and terror and who abiding the rules laid before them in order to be helped.
My message to the European Migrants would be:
STOP! Please respect the territories you are entering. We will help you and try and provide you with a secure, welcoming place to live and to bring up your families. But, please go to the areas you are requested to go to otherwise we will have to consider sending you back where you came from. We can't help you if you don't help us.
If that makes me a vile person, then I can live with that.
Pragmatism is a concept The Left simply do not grasp or understand in any way. shape or form.
I would emend that to some on the left, the shouty ones.
There are a lot of left leaning people who are concerned about the whole situation including the effect on a progresive increasingly liberal society of introducing large numbers of those who's culture is at odds with this - but won't say anything for fear of being shouted down and accused of being racists etc.
Comments
I agree, that's why I am hoping that someone will create a more sensible one.
Edit: if anyone is interested, could they pm Jim Nash with an email address to set up a petition?
I would be extremely grateful
I took umbrage at your post, suggesting I made a statement that I didn't make. Please don't do that again, it's not nice.
Why do you think that this is my responsibility? Or even the UK's responsibility? Or even the EU's responsibility? Frankly the onus is on the Arab League primarily and the United Nations secondary to help deal with the issue. The Arab League has another 23 countries within it and they should be stepping up. The UK can, and will, help as part of a global effort via the UN. The problem has been increased by unilateral responses to the crisis, each country dealing with it in different and sometimes in opposite ways. Situations like this need to be handled consistantly across the global community.
I'll repeat the question though, the one you initially replied to. If a family have made it as far as Hungary, are their lives still in danger? Should a refugee in Hungary (or any other safe country) be given refugee status to enter the UK?
Now got the five needed, Halleluiah. Next I'll try my hand at pulling teeth.
I'll draft something, post it and ultimately try to submit it as a petition.
Probably get about ten sigs.
Nah, you'll get more. Don't worry.
Hang on, I replied to your post, telling your I was more than prepared to help but I just wanted more details - I asked you to PM me!
Perhaps you didn't see my earlier message?
Sorry, ignore my earlier post - didn't see this.
Bring on the petition! You have my signature.
Bully for Iceland.
I would suggest that after a week, the 10,000 would be queuing at departures at Keflavik wanting a flight back home.
The Gulf States could, of course, solve this predicament and would provide an Islamic environment in which they refugees would settle far happier than in the heathen, liberal EU.
I beg your pardon?
It is not "your" thread. This is a public discussion board and freedom of speech, within the T&C, rules.
How illiberal.
Let us know when it's up.
Time will come when no countries population will accept their foolish politicians keep on letting 'em in at which point what then?
There certainly should be no place for single males nor anyone who doesn't speak English nor anyone who hasn't a skill we can use.
Otherwise we simply bump up the benefits bill again and the first to scream when benefits are cut to help pay for these people will be the same people who wanted them here.
As an aside my local education authority has a priority list for entry to its nursey schools. To put it simply if you are an asylum seeker, benefits claimant or single teenage mother you have priority over families who work and pay the taxes that create the schools in the first place.
In other words you pay but you are relegated behind those who never contributed
so could find you have to look miles away from home for a place for your child.
Yet more immigration means yet more indigenous British people pushed further down the list for all sorts of things.
Given we have huge waiting lists for homes where are these people going to go?
Which LEA is that, can you link the policy which gives priority?
Like Saudi Arabia for instance ? Which has up to 30% foreign workers in its economy ?
"Vile, heartless, nasty, abhorrent, disgusting, angry, uncaring, self centred, selfish, despicable, waste of space" are just some verbs and descriptions labelled onto the "right" by the apparently compassionate and tolerant left.
Here's how I see it:
The left, traditionally, are more vocal about how much they care. They genuinely do believe that by caring and showing compassion makes you a better person. Nowt wrong in that. But in their mindset of being tolerant and understanding, they very often become the very opposite, because a left wing person tends to sit more in the pathway towards socialism, so to them they generally believe everyone to share their ideals and sympathise with everyone who does. Not a criticism, just an observation.
But, and it's a death valley, gargantuan crater of a but, they can not and will not comprehend a conflicting viewpoint. To them a conflicting viewpoint is nasty and heartless, written by an angry, evil minded right winger who cares for no one but themselves or those who are rich and eat peasants for supper. The amount of posters in these threads over the past couple of days who have said "I'm putting you on ignore because you're a vile individual" to other posters is alarming. The inability to value, consider and respect a differing viewpoint is not part of being a human in a democratic country. If you can't handle it, don't join the party! Simple as.
As a "vile, nasty, heartless, angry" right winger, I tend to be more conservative when it comes to expressing sentiment. I care (and worry) deeply about the situation in Europe, and the affects it will have on our, MY, country too. Of course we shouldn't ignore the genuine asylum seekers who are desperate to survive in a world of hate and chaos. But, the majority of these are waiting for help in refugee camps in sites managed by the United Nations. A chap said on the News last night, that the people the UK are going to take are extremely vulnerable and terrified. Some have had limbs blown off by the bombings, or fingers and hands severed by the regimes runnnig those countries they are fleeing from. They went to the first safe sanctuary they could find and registered there, correctly and are now going to be welcomed in by the UK. That is right and that is exactly what we should be doing.
People who are "fleeing from European countries" are not, in any way, in any danger. All those migrants in Hungary causing chaos because they refuse to go to a camp to be registered and fingerprinted are clearly worried they might be returned to where they came from. Why would that be? Because they are not actually seeking asylum but just want to go to Germany for a better life? People really need to sit up and consider things more clearly. Those people in refugee camps are being forgotten about because the emphasis has moved to the swarm of migrants trespassing illegally throughout Europe. I for one feel proud that our nation is taking in migrants from refugee camps who are living in absolute fear and terror and who abiding the rules laid before them in order to be helped.
My message to the European Migrants would be:
STOP! Please respect the territories you are entering. We will help you and try and provide you with a secure, welcoming place to live and to bring up your families. But, please go to the areas you are requested to go to otherwise we will have to consider sending you back where you came from. We can't help you if you don't help us.
If that makes me a vile person, then I can live with that.
And how does it treat them? And why are there not thousands of migrants all desperate to get in to enjoy SA's famous warm, smiling embrace?
If you are struggling for wording you could say something like:
Do not accept more asylum seekers and do not increase support for refugee migrants in the UK
This petition is if you disagree with the following petition:
'Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK.
There is a global refugee crisis. The UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts. We can't allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe. We must help..'
If you have your own words, that's great too
What a pragmatic post. Excellent.
Pragmatism is a concept The Left simply do not grasp or understand in any way. shape or form.
Shown below :
1st Priority Category
Category A
1. Looked After Children, including children who have previously been looked after (see definition in our Glossary of Terms Word Doc 100Kb) and children who are subject of a Child Protection Plan
2. Children who have learning difficulties or a disability
3. Children subject of a team around the child (TAC) meeting
4. Children already attending the maintained nursery school or class that they have applied for as a funded 2 year old meeting the eligibility criteria
All applications for a priority place must be accompanied by supporting evidence from a relevant professional, such as a Health Visitor. This evidence must clearly outline how these circumstances impact on your child's learning and development. This information must be attached or sent in separately
2nd Priority Category
Category B - Family Issues: Asylum seekers / refugees, Families with significant health issues, Teenage parents
Category C - Speech and language difficulties
Category D - English as an additional language
Category E - Environmental issues: living in poor housing accommodation
Category F - Twin or triplet applications or where there are four or more children under 7 in the home
All applications for a priority place must be accompanied by supporting evidence from a relevant professional, such as a Health Visitor. This evidence must clearly outline how these circumstances impact on your child's learning and development. This information must be attached or sent in separately.
Other Categories
Category G - Children of residents measured by straight-line distance starting with the address closest to the school
Category I - Applications received after the closing date ordered by the criteria detailed at A - H above
Exactly.
I have a few questions for those in favour of the "refugees welcome" movement:
1. Where are they going to go? We're running out of affordable housing as it is. If people say they'd invite them into their own home (a la Bob Geldof), I'd like to see them actually carry this out and I may change my opinion. These very same people complain about welfare cuts and NHS waiting times, which would only increase should we welcome thousands of migrants.
2. Why can't we help out our own homeless first? There's around 200,000 homeless people in the UK, and around 4,000 sleeping rough. Why can't we re-house these people first instead of leaving them on the streets?
3. I hate to even think about this but what if that one migrant slips into the UK who isn't actually what they say they are. What if they are a terrorist? This is a particular worry of mine if we end up inviting migrants to live with us.
Not exactly all sweetness and light in Saudi Arabia :
"Yet xenophobia has been bubbling up among Saudis, mirroring the rise in Europe of nationalist movements that have flourished under austerity measures introduced since the global financial crisis, not to mention the long fight in the U.S. over illegal immigrants.
The animosity in Saudi Arabia follows a government crackdown on illegal labor in 2013 that sparked deadly clashes between nationals and foreign workers. Proposals to limit expatriate labor are also being discussed in other Gulf countries, including Kuwait and Oman.
“Today, they don’t ask for political rights, but what about in a decade or two?” Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi wrote in the local Al Hayat daily newspaper in January. Expatriate workers currently remain in the country on a residence visa that has to be renewed periodically; there is no program for citizenship".
Here's an interesting news story that backs up people's claims that refugees DO take housing stock:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/britain-to-take-in-thousands-more-refugees/ar-AAdWh3A
So, my question is: (I've asked it several times, but no supporter of more migrants has answered it):
Is it right that a refugee is given priority housing over a British citizen who has been on the waiting list for six years or more? Is the needs of the refugee more urgent and important than the needs of the British citizen? If so why, and how does that NOT make the British person a second class citizen?
Also, how would YOU feel if you were not given a house because a refugee took it instead?
And predictable.
Excellent post. Points well made
I would emend that to some on the left, the shouty ones.
There are a lot of left leaning people who are concerned about the whole situation including the effect on a progresive increasingly liberal society of introducing large numbers of those who's culture is at odds with this - but won't say anything for fear of being shouted down and accused of being racists etc.