chalga Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's damned inconvenient that a lot of refugees are ignoring geography and travelling further than a lot of people want them to come,it's making a lot of people jolly angry when you're living somewhere that should be exempt from putting up with them on grounds of distance and geographical position and they jolly well keep on ignoring that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) It's damned inconvenient that a lot of refugees are ignoring geography and travelling further than a lot of people want them to come,it's making a lot of people jolly angry when you're living somewhere that should be exempt from putting up with them on grounds of distance and geographical position and they jolly well keep on ignoring that fact.It's an undeniable fact that it's a problem. A serious one. Not so much in the UK at all currently, considering the numbers involved. But eventually it might, if things continue as they do. Whilst I'm certainly not siding with or succumbing to the argumentative simplicity of the shouty-shout xenophobic crowd, there is legitimacy to the socio-economic self-preservation argument. The EU, and the UK within it, is only just now getting back on its feet -teetering, at that- after the worst financial crisis the developed world has known for close to a century. The economic activity and the associated socio-political means just aren't there to take on millions at this time. Perfect storm. Edited September 2, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's damned inconvenient that a lot of refugees are ignoring geography and travelling further than a lot of people want them to come,it's making a lot of people jolly angry when you're living somewhere that should be exempt from putting up with them on grounds of distance and geographical position and they jolly well keep on ignoring that fact. It's not inconvenient, its in contradiction of the Geneva conventions that state that those fleeing their country must seek asylum in the 'first safe country' they come to. This is why I asked the question listing all the safe countries these people have travelled through. I suspect the answer to my question is inconvenient to people such as yourself and that is why you ignore it. The UK has been the first safe country for many people in recent history. Just because now we are not does not make us inhospitable or callus. It just means, geography has put us away form the problem parts of the world, for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's not inconvenient, its in contradiction of the Geneva conventions that state that those fleeing their country must seek asylum in the 'first safe country' they come to. This is why I asked the question listing all the safe countries these people have travelled through. I suspect the answer to my question is inconvenient to people such as yourself and that is why you ignore it. The UK has been the first safe country for many people in recent history. Just because now we are not does not make us inhospitable or callus. It just means, geography has put us away form the problem parts of the world, for now. That' s exactly what I said,you get down to Greece and start pointing at a map to all these people,tell'em that geography says we don't need to have anything to do with you lot,and a lot of people here are jolly well angry that they have decided not to do what we think they should be doing.........an it's damned inconvenient of them.........downright inconsiderate in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) There is also another angle to all of this and that is population density. The UK, disregarding the tiny provinces and small countries (less then 200,000 km²), has the highest population density in the EU. 256 people per km² compared to 233 in Germany, 192 in Italy, 124 in Poland, 111 in France, 100 in Turkey (not in the EU, but part of the transit route) and 92 in Spain. Those who seem to think all countries in the EU are the same and if country X takes 100,000 refugees, that that somehow means the UK should do the same are taking a very simplistic view. A view that will cause more unrest and resentment by the local population. ---------- Post added 02-09-2015 at 12:53 ---------- That' s exactly what I said,you get down to Greece and start pointing at a map to all these people,tell'em that geography says we don't need to have anything to do with you lot,and a lot of people here are jolly well angry that they have decided not to do what we think they should be doing.........an it's damned inconvenient of them.........downright inconsiderate in fact. I note you still have not answered the question I have posed. Why not stay in any of the countries I have listed? Edited September 2, 2015 by Berberis bad English I make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's damned inconvenient that a lot of refugees are ignoring geography and travelling further than a lot of people want them to come,it's making a lot of people jolly angry when you're living somewhere that should be exempt from putting up with them on grounds of distance and geographical position and they jolly well keep on ignoring that fact. Do you have lots of asylum seekers staying with you at the moment or is it just one or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I see Yvette Cooper is now saying every town, village and borough should be taking in 10 immigrants, and we all need to change our attitudes, WHAT! She's a politician lecturing us on morals, you couldn't make it up, still David Cameron must be having a good laugh, as she's one of the main contenders for the labour leadership the conservatives seem certain to remain in power for the next ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I see Yvette Cooper is now saying every town, village and borough should be taking in 10 immigrants, and we all need to change our attitudes, WHAT! She's a politician lecturing us on morals, you couldn't make it up, still David Cameron must be having a good laugh, as she's one of the main contenders for the labour leadership the conservatives seem certain to remain in power for the next ten years.She said refugees, there's a difference. And I agree with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slordy71 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 She said refugees, there's a difference. And I agree with her. but they are not refugees?????? if they were they would claim in the first country of entry:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) I see Yvette Cooper is now saying every town, village and borough should be taking in 10 immigrants refugees (link)Did she say how she was going to increase Local Council social care budgets pro rata, by any chance? EDIT - Ah. Read my link now. Didn't think so. Labour's Magic Money Tree™ strikes again, then. After taking much from Blair as regards rhetorical elocution, Ms Cooper wouldn't happen to be taking lessons in resource management from her husband, by any chance? Edited September 2, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts