FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > the calais children 2
the calais children 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *obka3 OP Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in."
Well i suppose it wasn't anticipated that loads of people would be involved at the time of writing.
Also some countries like greece, weakened by austerity is having to cope with massive numbers too. Is there a clause for exceptional circumstances where they can be passed onto other eu countries? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"The two main 'first contact' countries in the EU for refugees are Greece and Italy, it simply isn't possible or morally correct to place the entire burden on these two countries."
And this is widely accepted by all - aside from those who have irrational fears of people with brown skin - and racist thugs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty."
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?"
I dont see the problem with that. In fact, why not send some of the people here who don't share the moral duty over there, just to balance it up. After all, there'd be so many immigrants here, they'd probably prefer it there anyway .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?"
You poor thing, being overrun by all those brown people..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?
You poor thing, being overrun by all those brown people....."
what are you trying to say? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?
I dont see the problem with that. In fact, why not send some of the people here who don't share the moral duty over there, just to balance it up. After all, there'd be so many immigrants here, they'd probably prefer it there anyway ...."
you don't see the problem with that? Ok, its pointless debating it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?
You poor thing, being overrun by all those brown people.....
what are you trying to say?"
Xenaphobia is running deep through your veins, you are just one of millions of 'Little Englanders' who share your ideology.....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?
You poor thing, being overrun by all those brown people.....
what are you trying to say?
Xenaphobia is running deep through your veins, you are just one of millions of 'Little Englanders' who share your ideology.....
"
my family would disagree. I have no ideology, but like millions of others in the country have some common sense. It would not seem that common in your world though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?
You poor thing, being overrun by all those brown people.....
what are you trying to say?
Xenaphobia is running deep through your veins, you are just one of millions of 'Little Englanders' who share your ideology.....
my family would disagree. I have no ideology, but like millions of others in the country have some common sense. It would not seem that common in your world though"
Many of your posts say different |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty."
Here is an idea, why not just ship them all upto Scotland? Nicola Sturgeon keeps banging on about how she wants more immigrants, so let her have them on the condition that they stay in Scotland. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
Here is an idea, why not just ship them all upto Scotland? Nicola Sturgeon keeps banging on about how she wants more immigrants, so let her have them on the condition that they stay in Scotland. "
I am seriously considering Scotland myself ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I was very impressed by the passion and dedication many voiced to the principle of open door immigration of not least the Calais 'children'. So I will once again pose the question that was strangely removed from the earlier thread. How many here have already fostered or adopted one or more of the 'children' from Calais, or are in the process of doing so? And if not...WHY NOT? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was very impressed by the passion and dedication many voiced to the principle of open door immigration of not least the Calais 'children'. So I will once again pose the question that was strangely removed from the earlier thread. How many here have already fostered or adopted one or more of the 'children' from Calais, or are in the process of doing so? And if not...WHY NOT? "
Why not? Because I have three children of my own and no additional space in the house. I also work 12 to 14 hour days as my kids are teens. I do come into contact with immigrants daily .... and support them, as part of my job. This includes from Syria, Kurdistan, Afghanistan to name a few .... sometimes personal circumstances stop us helping in some ways and not others. Often then are places with Muslim families to ensure their culture is respected too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I was very impressed by the passion and dedication many voiced to the principle of open door immigration of not least the Calais 'children'. So I will once again pose the question that was strangely removed from the earlier thread. How many here have already fostered or adopted one or more of the 'children' from Calais, or are in the process of doing so? And if not...WHY NOT? "
Because they have been accepted into this country because they have family in this country. Why would you want to separate them from their family? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in."
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
I did ask at one point what was the difference between an immigrant and an "ex-pat"......
to which a friend of mine flippantly said "an Ex-pat is someone elses problem!"
how true are words spoken in jest.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
Here is an idea, why not just ship them all upto Scotland? Nicola Sturgeon keeps banging on about how she wants more immigrants, so let her have them on the condition that they stay in Scotland.
I am seriously considering Scotland myself ..."
Great idea, tatty bye! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
Here is an idea, why not just ship them all upto Scotland? Nicola Sturgeon keeps banging on about how she wants more immigrants, so let her have them on the condition that they stay in Scotland.
I am seriously considering Scotland myself ...
Great idea, tatty bye!"
People in Scotland can still communicate though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
Here is an idea, why not just ship them all upto Scotland? Nicola Sturgeon keeps banging on about how she wants more immigrants, so let her have them on the condition that they stay in Scotland. "
They wouldn't want to go there any more than stay in France. They want free housing, benefit money, healthcare, housing, the works. Scotland can't afford it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?"
.
Didn't we start doing that in 1672: The Royal African Company
. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
moral duty? Well why don't we just send ships over to Africa and the Middle East and transport anyone and everyone who wants to live here, up to say, I dunno, 500 million? Would that make you feel better?
.
Didn't we start doing that in 1672: The Royal African Company
."
not sure that they were volounteers then though
even so, the outcome would be even worse for everyone involved |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3 OP Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait. "
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait.
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash "
So you admit that I'm right and there is no mention of the first safe country in the UN Convention then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait.
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash "
Does,nt matter what the UN says EU law is what matters once you are in an EU country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait.
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash
Does,nt matter what the UN says EU law is what matters once you are in an EU country. "
So you also agree that there is no mention whatsoever about first safe country in the UN Convention? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3 OP Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait.
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash
So you admit that I'm right and there is no mention of the first safe country in the UN Convention then? "
Havent a clue as I havent bothered to look it up, what does it matter where its stated the point is they should have claimed in the first eu state, are you going to answer my question ???? No I doubt you will |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait.
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash
So you admit that I'm right and there is no mention of the first safe country in the UN Convention then?
Havent a clue as I havent bothered to look it up, what does it matter where its stated the point is they should have claimed in the first eu state, are you going to answer my question ???? No I doubt you will"
Well you thought it was important enough to start a thread about it, but you haven't bothered to look it up. 
With regards to how many children you have seen on TV in the camp, you must have missed the reports about the children coming to the UK before the camp was closed, thats why you haven't seen many when they closed camp.
I have already answered the question about people who predicted the financial crash in another thread, so I'm not going to answer that again. I don't know why you are so specific about wanting me to answer that question when there were millions of people who voted at least in part based upon the economic benefits of staying in the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term...."
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term....
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here!"
come on; you must be used to lies by now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term....
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here!"
If you take the time to read the Home Offce statement of Friday they clearly stated that many of the children needed to be assessed and gain clearance to stay before they are passed over to families, which I'm sure you will agree is important. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I was very impressed by the passion and dedication many voiced to the principle of open door immigration of not least the Calais 'children'. So I will once again pose the question that was strangely removed from the earlier thread. How many here have already fostered or adopted one or more of the 'children' from Calais, or are in the process of doing so? And if not...WHY NOT?
Because they have been accepted into this country because they have family in this country. Why would you want to separate them from their family?
Lol! They've just bussed 70 'children' to a small town in Devon where there are no other 'refugees' that I'm aware of. It's your opportunity to put your money where your useless PC mouth is. But no doubt you expect others to shoulder the burden.
I've dedicated my life to helping others, including refugees, what have you ever done to help others?
I'll get my violin out. Has Tony Blair nominated you for a knighthood as well?"
So I guess that means you don’t do anything to help others then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term....
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here!
If you take the time to read the Home Offce statement of Friday they clearly stated that many of the children needed to be assessed and gain clearance to stay before they are passed over to families, which I'm sure you will agree is important."
No. I don't believe anything the Home Office says on the matter, especially since a 15 foot screen has been erected around the reception centre in Croydon!? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3 OP Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
" As the first one was closed to reply to CLCC re his post below
This claim about the first safe country is often made, but I have previously posted links to the UN convention concerning refugees and asked people to tell me which section of the convention says that, so far no one has been able to, yet they keep on repeating the same lies.
Look up Dublin 11. It is the EU regulation that basically states refugees MUST claim asylum in the FIRST eu state they arrive in.
That is not the UN convention is it?
Shall I ask again? Which section of the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol says that they must claim in the first safe country? You look it up, I'll wait.
Dont need to look it up the rules of your beloved EU dictate what is meant to happen or are you going to argue that point too.Makesno difference whether its the UN or EU the result is the same , also have you seen all the tv coverage of the jungle? How many women or kids have you seen? Huge majority are young males and loads taking pics with mobile phones hardly destitute if they can afford phones
Talking of anwsering questions you still havent answered the about which of beloved experts predicted the banking crash
So you admit that I'm right and there is no mention of the first safe country in the UN Convention then?
Havent a clue as I havent bothered to look it up, what does it matter where its stated the point is they should have claimed in the first eu state, are you going to answer my question ???? No I doubt you will
Well you thought it was important enough to start a thread about it, but you haven't bothered to look it up.
With regards to how many children you have seen on TV in the camp, you must have missed the reports about the children coming to the UK before the camp was closed, thats why you haven't seen many when they closed camp.
I have already answered the question about people who predicted the financial crash in another thread, so I'm not going to answer that again. I don't know why you are so specific about wanting me to answer that question when there were millions of people who voted at least in part based upon the economic benefits of staying in the EU."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So the same people who are saying that the UK is on the brink of financial disaster, because they didn't get their way over BREXIT, are now saying we are a wealthy nation that can afford unrestricted immigration.
Make your bloody minds up! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was very impressed by the passion and dedication many voiced to the principle of open door immigration of not least the Calais 'children'. So I will once again pose the question that was strangely removed from the earlier thread. How many here have already fostered or adopted one or more of the 'children' from Calais, or are in the process of doing so? And if not...WHY NOT?
Because they have been accepted into this country because they have family in this country. Why would you want to separate them from their family?
Lol! They've just bussed 70 'children' to a small town in Devon where there are no other 'refugees' that I'm aware of. It's your opportunity to put your money where your useless PC mouth is. But no doubt you expect others to shoulder the burden.
I've dedicated my life to helping others, including refugees, what have you ever done to help others? "
That is probably the most pretentious thing I've ever read on these forums. I bet you never mention your charridy work, mate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term....
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here!
If you take the time to read the Home Offce statement of Friday they clearly stated that many of the children needed to be assessed and gain clearance to stay before they are passed over to families, which I'm sure you will agree is important.
No. I don't believe anything the Home Office says on the matter, especially since a 15 foot screen has been erected around the reception centre in Croydon!? "
I think the screen was put up so as to give them some privacy from the paps and onlookers.
Weather I agree with how things have been done or not they at least deserve this small curtesy ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term....
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here!"
This is so paperwork etc can be processed. Have you worked with refugees? It takes time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And they were moved to Torrington specifically because the town has a large former private girls school where these children can be housed in the short term....
Which bring me back to my original point. The Home Office told us categorically that the 'children' all had families here!
If you take the time to read the Home Offce statement of Friday they clearly stated that many of the children needed to be assessed and gain clearance to stay before they are passed over to families, which I'm sure you will agree is important.
No. I don't believe anything the Home Office says on the matter, especially since a 15 foot screen has been erected around the reception centre in Croydon!?
It's hardly surprising, these refugees have a right to privacy, some of the media have been disgusting in their coverage of the story, publishing face pictures and vilifying vulnerable children. To be honest the screen is there to protect the children from people like you. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was very impressed by the passion and dedication many voiced to the principle of open door immigration of not least the Calais 'children'. So I will once again pose the question that was strangely removed from the earlier thread. How many here have already fostered or adopted one or more of the 'children' from Calais, or are in the process of doing so? And if not...WHY NOT?
Because they have been accepted into this country because they have family in this country. Why would you want to separate them from their family?
Lol! They've just bussed 70 'children' to a small town in Devon where there are no other 'refugees' that I'm aware of. It's your opportunity to put your money where your useless PC mouth is. But no doubt you expect others to shoulder the burden.
I've dedicated my life to helping others, including refugees, what have you ever done to help others?
That is probably the most pretentious thing I've ever read on these forums. I bet you never mention your charridy work, mate "
Its quite possibly a fact. some of us work in the caring professions ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"So the same people who are saying that the UK is on the brink of financial disaster, because they didn't get their way over BREXIT, are now saying we are a wealthy nation that can afford unrestricted immigration.
Make your bloody minds up!"
But it's not unrestricted is it?, that's an utter nonsense that I have come to expect from your posts. If it was unrestricted then there would be no effort from the government in stopping the migrants who attempt to climb onto trucks in France..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So the same people who are saying that the UK is on the brink of financial disaster, because they didn't get their way over BREXIT, are now saying we are a wealthy nation that can afford unrestricted immigration.
Make your bloody minds up!
But it's not unrestricted is it?, that's an utter nonsense that I have come to expect from your posts. If it was unrestricted then there would be no effort from the government in stopping the migrants who attempt to climb onto trucks in France....."
I never said it is, stop twisting my words. What I posted was that some on here think it should be, that we are a "wealthy" country and we could afford it.
Then the same posters are saying that we are on the brink of financial disaster.
We can all go back and read the posts again, so much hypocrisy! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"So the same people who are saying that the UK is on the brink of financial disaster, because they didn't get their way over BREXIT, are now saying we are a wealthy nation that can afford unrestricted immigration.
Make your bloody minds up!
But it's not unrestricted is it?, that's an utter nonsense that I have come to expect from your posts. If it was unrestricted then there would be no effort from the government in stopping the migrants who attempt to climb onto trucks in France.....
I never said it is, stop twisting my words. What I posted was that some on here think it should be, that we are a "wealthy" country and we could afford it.
Then the same posters are saying that we are on the brink of financial disaster.
We can all go back and read the posts again, so much hypocrisy!"
Show me an example where anyone on here has advocated unrestricted immigration.....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If Britain was 'first contact' the same people would be whining that we are left with all the burden.
As a wealthy civilised country Britain should be sharing the burden, it's not perfect, it's hard to accept at times, but if we are happy with being the 5th largest economy in the world then we have a moral duty.
Here is an idea, why not just ship them all upto Scotland? Nicola Sturgeon keeps banging on about how she wants more immigrants, so let her have them on the condition that they stay in Scotland.
They wouldn't want to go there any more than stay in France. They want free housing, benefit money, healthcare, housing, the works. Scotland can't afford it."
They can't afford to do this for their own....but it's OK as the English/Welsh tax payers are funding it for them. Until they vote for independence! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just seen a report that the older kids pushed their way to the front of queues, leaving the younger and less physically fit ones at the back and missing out. The government officials and the situation being described as a farce. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
