UK net migration hits record high

[sir albion]

Polskies had a few gatherings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ke-place-in-poland--in-pictures-10499352.html

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So here we go again.

[video=youtube;sPl_D4bbqsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=sPl_D4bbqsE[/video]

 

[Hampster Gull]

Aaaaah ok, cannot seem to remember you saying this in earlier posts, it was a more fill yer boots strategy from what I recall, under the heading of 'compassion'.

It seems there is a backtrack by many, I find it astounding how you couldn't even begin to to foresee the potential problems for the recipient countries and the impact on those countries people.

Of course by 'measured' you mean restriction on passage to Europe, politically its too late already the impact of this wave of migration will be destabilising, security compromised and I fear some real problems around the edges of the more extreme parties throughout Europe.

you trying to catch me out? I have said a few times before what i have just outlined, i dont think i have been contradictory. I have never said fill your boots but i am far more liberal than you. immigration is good for a country, it is what has made this country and most others. I have praised Germany and Sweden also for their approach. What they, well at least Germany, have done since though has not been so great, ie trying to force others to take their refugees.

 

[sir albion]

So here we go again.

[video=youtube;sPl_D4bbqsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=sPl_D4bbqsE[/video]

What a wet blanket she is

 

[BigGully]

you trying to catch me out? I have said a few times before what i have just outlined, i dont think i have been contradictory. I have never said fill your boots but i am far more liberal than you. immigration is good for a country, it is what has made this country and most others. I have praised Germany and Sweden also for their approach. What they, well at least Germany, have done since though has not been so great, ie trying to force others to take their refugees.

Why would you think you are more liberal or tolerant because you are supporting the unfettered passage of the Syrian refugees, it only offers an insight into your view on migrants.

While we are here then, with 9 million displaced Syrians and many millions just as vulnerable where exactly is your tipping point when Europe might not be able to accept further migrants, 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 million ?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Why would you think you are more liberal or tolerant because you are supporting the unfettered passage of the Syrian refugees, it only offers an insight into your view on migrants.

While we are here then, with 9 million displaced Syrians and many millions just as vulnerable where exactly is your tipping point when Europe might not be able to accept further migrants, 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 million ?

I never said unfettered passage so not sure why you keep saying this.

Your second point on what is the tipping point is contradictory to the unfettered passage point.

Said many times, i think the UK should take 50k. What other countries take is up to them

 

[BigGully]

I never said unfettered passage so not sure why you keep saying this.

Your second point on what is the tipping point is contradictory to the unfettered passage point.

Said many times, i think the UK should take 50k. What other countries take is up to them

Why 50 000, why not 100 000 or 250 000, it seems quite an arbitrary figure.

You have 10+ million displaced vulnerable refugees and you directly effect 0.5% of the problem with your response, you do not seem to even target those 0.5% based on need.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Why 50 000, why not 100 000 or 250 000, it seems quite an arbitrary figure.

You have 10+ million displaced vulnerable refugees and you directly effect 0.5% of the problem with your response, you do not seem to even target those 0.5% based on need.

Happy to go around this again. Yes, 50k could be a different number, there is no correct number. My call is somehwat less than the number when we helped Jews feeing Germany before the outbreak of WWII, which was 70k. Of course as a percentage of the populatioh it would be far smaller now. We have also taken 25k on many occasions post WWII, eg Kenyan Asians. Its a number we can accomodate.

And yes, it a small %age but we are one of many countries. Others are appy to take far more as you know. But i have said we need humanitarian camps near the impacted country which sohlud be well funded whilst the core issue is sorted

 

[symyjym]

Happy to go around this again. Yes, 50k could be a different number, there is no correct number. My call is somehwat less than the number when we helped Jews feeing Germany before the outbreak of WWII, which was 70k. Of course as a percentage of the populatioh it would be far smaller now. We have also taken 25k on many occasions post WWII, eg Kenyan Asians. Its a number we can accomodate.

And yes, it a small %age but we are one of many countries. Others are appy to take far more as you know. But i have said we need humanitarian camps near the impacted country which sohlud be well funded whilst the core issue is sorted

That is key.

It was good to see Cameron visiting camps in Lebanon and Jordan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34242346

 

[BadFish]

That says it all about you. So, of the hundreds of thousands this year, to say nothing of the millions that have already settled in Europe fleeing for whatever purpose - they all or at least the vast majority, want to go home at the earliest opportunity. Unbelievable! The people you have met (whatever that means) are not the ones we are talking about on this thread.

Ignoring your massive exaggeration of my point. If it is 'unbelievable' then perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that it is wrong? (Ignoring your massive exaggeration of my point). If not i am going to take what i am told by refugees rather than some bloke on the internet with dubious comprehension skills and an agenda.

So you can't comprehend what I mean by the people i have met. Yet you know they are not the ones we are talking about?

 

[BadFish]

again, you confuse your perception of purpose with stated purpose. i get it, you really dont want to understand the difference. the refugees that are resettled are a fortunate by product of some countries appetite for aid and assistance.

Stated by whom? I am assuming you have some kind of definition up your sleeve that states that the sole exclusive purpose of a refugee camp is to provide shelter and basic safety. So lets see it, otherwise it is just your perception
.

the camps are safe, at least compared to a warzone. many of those "fleeing" Syria have in fact been doing so for some time. after some times years in Turkey they've decided to move on. and why not, Syria doesn't look like resolving, better to make a new life elsewhere. the poster child for this crisis was in such a family, denied entry to Canada, on way to Germany instead.

The camps are safer than the war zones people are escaping but they are not safe enough nor providing enough spaces (nor do they provide enough hope of resettlement) to stop people making the journeys you describe. Therefore they are currently not functional. One thing many people seem to agree on in this thread is that their needs to be more space provided in refugee camps or more refugee camps to improve the system.

Here is one in Jordan holding 160,000

depends on your count of "years" they have taken in more the past few years, not so much longer term. i wasn't making reference to total numbers, i dont know who has the biggest score there, i was making a point about directly taking refugees from camps according to need, rather than the alternative approach of taking migrants arriving at ones border according to ability.

So what are the figures for taking refugees directly from camps over the longer term. As i said i have not seen these stats and would be interested to have a look.

 

[beorhthelm]

Stated by whom? I am assuming you have some kind of definition up your sleeve that states that the sole exclusive purpose of a refugee camp is to provide shelter and basic safety. So lets see it, otherwise it is just your perception

you're free to look up the definition. i'll just point to some link that you'll reject just because. likewise you can look up how many we take from camps, its been in the press and web the past few weeks as the subject has been well covered, there's an awful lot of commentry to wade through so im afraid im not going to. you want to believe that the German policy (which they are rowing back on fast) of opening up the borders, and refugees are in a procees that normally expected to be resettled them across the world, which has never been accpeted before, so i'll just respect your right to hold these views of the world.

 

[heathgate]

I never said unfettered passage so not sure why you keep saying this.

Your second point on what is the tipping point is contradictory to the unfettered passage point.

Said many times, i think the UK should take 50k. What other countries take is up to them

Don't forget that the figures are based on heads of families, the numbers end up being inflated once you add dependents, sometimes as much as 400%.

 

[BadFish]

you're free to look up the definition. i'll just point to some link that you'll reject just because. likewise you can look up how many we take from camps, its been in the press and web the past few weeks as the subject has been well covered, there's an awful lot of commentry to wade through so im afraid im not going to. you want to believe that the German policy (which they are rowing back on fast) of opening up the borders, and refugees are in a procees that normally expected to be resettled them across the world, which has never been accpeted before, so i'll just respect your right to hold these views of the world.

Very enlightening thanks FWIW I did have a quick look at both things but found little concrete on either so I will remain skeptical until I find the time for a proper look.

I can't make head nor tail of the sentence in bold so i am not sure if i want to believe that or not.

 

[Hastings gull]

Ignoring your massive exaggeration of my point. If it is 'unbelievable' then perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that it is wrong? (Ignoring your massive exaggeration of my point). If not i am going to take what i am told by refugees rather than some bloke on the internet with dubious comprehension skills and an agenda.

So you can't comprehend what I mean by the people i have met. Yet you know they are not the ones we are talking about?

It is really weird, and hypocritical, how you always want others to provide evidence, yet your "evidence" for your earlier assertion that they all want to go home, is that the ones you talk to, say so. Might they also have an agenda? I recall an earlier post when you stated that all the hundreds of people you talk you, agree with you - that too was your version of "evidence".
You were quite unequivocal that the refuges all want to go home when they can, and I stand totally by my point that this is absolute nonsense. So they all want to get to Germany and Sweden, as far as away from Africa as they can, not to take advantage of the wealth there, but to be able to go home easily. Even you cannot seriously believe that the migrants currently camped around Calais want to go home, surely? We have immigrants numbering in the millions who have not come from war zones - they don't seem to want to go home.
Your final point shows you misunderstood my comment.

 

[BadFish]

It is really weird, and hypocritical, how you always want others to provide evidence, yet your "evidence" for your earlier assertion that they all want to go home, is that the ones you talk to, say so. Might they also have an agenda? I recall an earlier post when you stated that all the hundreds of people you talk you, agree with you - that too was your version of "evidence".
You were quite unequivocal that the refuges all want to go home when they can, and I stand totally by my point that this is absolute nonsense. So they all want to get to Germany and Sweden, as far as away from Africa as they can, not to take advantage of the wealth there, but to be able to go home easily. Even you cannot seriously believe that the migrants currently camped around Calais want to go home, surely? We have immigrants numbering in the millions who have not come from war zones - they don't seem to want to go home.
Your final point shows you misunderstood my comment.

**** me this is tedious, do i really have to go back and quote my posts to stop you misinterpreting them?

you see once again your comprehension skills let you down. Can you show me where i was 'unequivocal that refugees all want to go home?'

I thought i wrote this

I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home. I don't doubt that there are some who will stay in the country where they are resettled, i don't even doubt that there are some who begin their journey with this in mind. but to me to suggest they are trying to better themselves is disingenuous to their situation.

hardly unequivocal, and you will have to let me know how i am supposed to provide evidence for what i have seen little of?

You called it 'unbelievable' which suggests that you have seen plenty of evidence that they do not want to return home. i was interested to see said evidence as you seem pretty sure of yourself.

Apparently you cannot or will no provide said evidence so we will leave it there

 

[Hastings gull]

**** me this is tedious, do i really have to go back and quote my posts to stop you misinterpreting them?

you see once again your comprehension skills let you down. Can you show me where i was 'unequivocal that refugees all want to go home?'

I thought i wrote this



hardly unequivocal, and you will have to let me know how i am supposed to provide evidence for what i have seen little of?

You called it 'unbelievable' which suggests that you have seen plenty of evidence that they do not want to return home. i was interested to see said evidence as you seem pretty sure of yourself.

Apparently you cannot or will no provide said evidence so we will leave it there

This is what you wrote: "I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home." I questioned that statement, as I do not believe that this is true for the majority of refuges that we are now seeing in Europe. I also pointed out that you always want evidence from your adversaries, and yet rather hypocritically assume that you can make an assertion such as you do from talking to refugees - and that this is your evidence. To others that does not mean a great deal, and all sounds too convenient. You then said that you would rather take this (ie from refugees) evidence than from a bloke on the internet etc etc( and of course could not resist the customary arrogant put-down)
Now you write; "and you will have to let me know how i am supposed to provide evidence for what i have seen little of?"

And then you have the nerve to question others' comprehension skills -it is no wonder, given such confusion.

 

[looney]

And then you have the nerve to question others' comprehension skills -it is no wonder, given such confusion.

You could also ask why someone so keen on a topic is so poorly informed about what is going on?

Either a clueless idiot or a shit stirrersprings to mind.

HIs posting style follows a well warn path. Claiming ignorance of opposing views, demanding evidence of these views, the resorting to various forms of mis representation or underhand insults.

Or maybe the question is why moderators dont do their job and boot him from these theads?.He contributes nothing and just seeks to antagonise.

 

[BadFish]

This is what you wrote: "I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home." I questioned that statement, as I do not believe that this is true for the majority of refuges that we are now seeing in Europe. I also pointed out that you always want evidence from your adversaries, and yet rather hypocritically assume that you can make an assertion such as you do from talking to refugees - and that this is your evidence. To others that does not mean a great deal, and all sounds too convenient. You then said that you would rather take this (ie from refugees) evidence than from a bloke on the internet etc etc( and of course could not resist the customary arrogant put-down)
Now you write; "and you will have to let me know how i am supposed to provide evidence for what i have seen little of?"

And then you have the nerve to question others' comprehension skills -it is no wonder, given such confusion.

Are you still going on about this?

"I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home."

As a statement this suggests that i am going on my personal first hand experience as i have no seen any other evidence (how the hell could i provide evidence for this? Would you like me to show you the evidence i haven't seen? or perhaps some recording of the conversations i have had?)

You then started saying that i was 'unequivocal that refugees all want to go home?' (I have no idea how you can suggest that the phrase 'i have seen little to suggest.." can be unequivocal of anything i don't know") You also stated that was unequivocal that all refugees want to go home even though in the very next sentence i stated that some would stay and some would be planning to stay from the outset (some was a deliberately vague word as i really have no ideas of numbers (again how you can see this as an unequivocal statement is quite beyond me)

Then you change your interpretation by talking about a majority (presumably because you realised how daft your idea of my 'unequivocal' statement about 'all' refugees was.

You can't even manage to stay consistent with your own misinterpretation

I think your use of the word adversaries is very telling, you seem desperate to 'win' during these discussions and will obviously resort to misconstruing my points to make them easier to rebutt. either that or i was right and your comprehension skills are so poor that you really believe your interpretations of my posts.

Either way having to go back over my posts three or four times, while amusing at first, does becomes bloody tedious so I think i will go back to ignoring your posts.

i hope you enjoy your next glorious victory over another adversary (we have seen earlier on this thread the lengths you will go to to score a point)

Cheers

 

[Hastings gull]

Are you still going on about this?

"I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home."

As a statement this suggests that i am going on my personal first hand experience as i have no seen any other evidence (how the hell could i provide evidence for this? Would you like me to show you the evidence i haven't seen? or perhaps some recording of the conversations i have had?)

You then started saying that i was 'unequivocal that refugees all want to go home?' (I have no idea how you can suggest that the phrase 'i have seen little to suggest.." can be unequivocal of anything i don't know") You also stated that was unequivocal that all refugees want to go home even though in the very next sentence i stated that some would stay and some would be planning to stay from the outset (some was a deliberately vague word as i really have no ideas of numbers (again how you can see this as an unequivocal statement is quite beyond me)

Then you change your interpretation by talking about a majority (presumably because you realised how daft your idea of my 'unequivocal' statement about 'all' refugees was.

You can't even manage to stay consistent with your own misinterpretation

I think your use of the word adversaries is very telling, you seem desperate to 'win' during these discussions and will obviously resort to misconstruing my points to make them easier to rebutt. either that or i was right and your comprehension skills are so poor that you really believe your interpretations of my posts.

Either way having to go back over my posts three or four times, while amusing at first, does becomes bloody tedious so I think i will go back to ignoring your posts.

i hope you enjoy your next glorious victory over another adversary (we have seen earlier on this thread the lengths you will go to to score a point)

Cheers

A strop! Probably best you do ignore them, and then you won't misunderstand them. By the way, the hypocrisy never stops does it? I am desperate to "win" and you are of course not, are you?