Calais transfer.

[Fozziebear]

tannhauser said:

Dindoit said:

Fozziebear said:

Ok, question for those saying we should take these children in with open arms, will you be putting your names down to house them? Will you be volunteering to help them at school? Or is this the job of others? Just curious as I've had this conversation with others and they are for them coming but turn white and said they didn't have the space/skills/money etc to do it

We're "full up" and have a housing problem already so why more foreigners? We need to look after our own first, right?

Would you house a white British born and bred family who've never worked and live solely on benefits? For full disclosure they have a large black labrador that's technically house trained but to be frank I don't hold out much hope for your sofa or stair carpet. Also, the dad vapes.

Neither. Look after our own first, but only those that have contributed to society.

See that's the answer I've had from most folk who have been screaming the poor children need our help. I believe that charity starts at home, also we must stop the downward spiral of benefits blagging. We do need to help these humans, it's part of what we started with Iraq and Afghanistan, which I've been involved in and seen the dregs of human brutality. The uk has plenty of children needing safe homes, but not enough brace people to take them on, I did it for a few years, it was hard and emotional. I'm not saying let them all in, that's dangerous and will be dumb. Why don't we go into the jungle and rip it down? Rebuild it? Make it safe? It could work, make them realise they can't come any further

[Dindoit]

tannhauser said:

Dindoit said:

Fozziebear said:

Ok, question for those saying we should take these children in with open arms, will you be putting your names down to house them? Will you be volunteering to help them at school? Or is this the job of others? Just curious as I've had this conversation with others and they are for them coming but turn white and said they didn't have the space/skills/money etc to do it

We're "full up" and have a housing problem already so why more foreigners? We need to look after our own first, right?

Would you house a white British born and bred family who've never worked and live solely on benefits? For full disclosure they have a large black labrador that's technically house trained but to be frank I don't hold out much hope for your sofa or stair carpet. Also, the dad vapes.

Neither. Look after our own first, but only those that have contributed to society.

It's the vaping isn't it? OK he'll do it in your shared stairwell. Final offer.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Facial recognition software has aged all of that first bunch shown in the media from 22-38, says it all.

Disgraceful. The UK (or rather our leaders) make mugs of us all yet again.

[Dindoit]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Facial recognition software has aged all of that first bunch shown in the media from 22-38, says it all.

Disgraceful. The UK (or rather our leaders) make mugs of us all yet again.

You'll notice they using this "facial recognition software"

17, my arse. Pull his teeth out!!!

[clio007]

I think we should welcome all children from countries that our government have bombed.

[MrBrightSi]

clio007 said:

I think we should welcome all children from countries that our government have bombed.

Open your doors first then, if you want to virtue signal and show us all how open and caring you are, i hope you've made the 20 "syrian" "children" A packed lunch by now.

When is this anti-western slant in everyones right-on bullst going to end. We intervened in Iraq for a reason, you want to complain about it, then go back to the 90's when we had a real chance at a clear run with ousting Sadam. Shame touchy feely pricks like you caused lethargy when it came to sorting this st out right.

It's funny how people are so eager to see good works done by other people but do nothing themselves. It's bad enough this rhetoric is forcing things on other people, it's even worse we're being told it's for "The greater good" or some such.

[worsy]

Just put my photo through that app and it added 10 years. Can't be right!

[MrNoisy]

What do you mean by 'countries that our government have bombed"?

Genuine question, would you elaborate?

clio007 said:

I think we should welcome all children from countries that our government have bombed.

[anonymous-user]

MrBrightSi said:

When is this anti-western slant in everyones right-on bullst going to end. We intervened in Iraq for a reason, you want to complain about it, then go back to the 90's when we had a real chance at a clear run with ousting Sadam. Shame touchy feely pricks like you caused lethargy when it came to sorting this st out right.

What was the reason we entered Iraq?

And what should we have done post Saddam that the touchy feely pricks stopped happening?

[blindswelledrat]

MrBrightSi said:

Open your doors first then, if you want to virtue signal and show us all how open and caring you are, i hope you've made the 20 "syrian" "children" A packed lunch by now.
.

It's such a lame argument this one. Since when does our tax system work in a way that individuals have to do the work of a central government?
"You want roads, go out and build them yourself"
"Oh, you want your kids educated. I don't see you getting a teaching qualification"
"You want our criminals kept in prison. Let's see how you like them in your garden shed"
Wanting the government to do something does not equate to you wanting to do it yourself and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.

[MrBrightSi]

desolate said:

What was the reason we entered Iraq?

And what should we have done post Saddam that the touchy feely pricks stopped happening?

We entered Iraq in the 90's after they annexed a neighbor and then went on to invade saudi arabia. We had the backing of the Arab league, i mean hell even Syria had armed forces helping.

If we had followed through with getting rid of Sadam in the 90's this whole insurgency would of been a lot less intense. The argument that he was one of these benign dictators that the middle east needed is wrong.

The west turned low-energy when we had the images of the fleeing iraqi army getting it's arse handed to it. Then when it came to the messed up 2nd time around, we'd already established the anti-western rhetoric that has become so cool and fashionable now that you could never justify anything beneficial as it was just more "imperialism from the west."

It makes me sick that people still default to this "MUH OIL IT WAS FUR MUH OIL" argument, i think it's insulting to the people who gave their lives for giving the Iraqi people a chance at some form of democracy that wasn't 1984 style baathist hell. If you haven't seen the video of Sadam sitting idly by with his cigar while people are pulled out of a baathist party meeting for fate unknown or read about the mass graves or the chemical weapons used on kurds, then you're playing into this trendy new hipster ideal of the west is all bad.

[FN2TypeR]

Dindoit said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Facial recognition software has aged all of that first bunch shown in the media from 22-38, says it all.

Disgraceful. The UK (or rather our leaders) make mugs of us all yet again.

You'll notice they using this "facial recognition software"

17, my arse. Pull his teeth out!!!

Pretty accurate in fairness.

[Esseesse]

blindswelledrat said:

MrBrightSi said:

Open your doors first then, if you want to virtue signal and show us all how open and caring you are, i hope you've made the 20 "syrian" "children" A packed lunch by now.
.

It's such a lame argument this one. Since when does our tax system work in a way that individuals have to do the work of a central government?
"You want roads, go out and build them yourself"
"Oh, you want your kids educated. I don't see you getting a teaching qualification"
"You want our criminals kept in prison. Let's see how you like them in your garden shed"
Wanting the government to do something does not equate to you wanting to do it yourself and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.

Your attitudes are typical left, believing that the state should be the ultimate provider. I suppose you've never heard of private education?

I believe in times gone by there were schemes for helping refugees where individuals could come forward to act as a guarantor and provide somewhere for them.

Those that argue for the government to take in refugees are virtue signalling as there is no requirement for them to go out of their way to be virtuous. What is virtuous about wanting to use the power of the state to force this burden on other people?

Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 20th October 16:48

[blindswelledrat]

MrBrightSi said:

If we had followed through with getting rid of Sadam in the 90's this whole insurgency would of been a lot less intense. The argument that he was one of these benign dictators that the middle east needed is wrong.

It makes me sick that people still default to this "MUH OIL IT WAS FUR MUH OIL" argument, i think it's insulting to the people who gave their lives for giving the Iraqi people a chance at some form of democracy that wasn't 1984 style baathist hell. If you haven't seen the video of Sadam sitting idly by with his cigar while people are pulled out of a baathist party meeting for fate unknown or read about the mass graves or the chemical weapons used on kurds, then you're playing into this trendy new hipster ideal of the west is all bad.

"MUH OIL IT WAS FUR MUH OIL". Agreed. A bit of me dies every time someone excitedly says that as though they have some big clever insight into world affairs.

Why do you assume the insurgency would have been less if we did it in the 90's? I thought that the majority of it was internal sectarian stuff caused by the vacuum of power rather than the intricacies of when he was toppled, although I accept I am no expert on these things

[blindswelledrat]

Esseesse said:

blindswelledrat said:

MrBrightSi said:

Open your doors first then, if you want to virtue signal and show us all how open and caring you are, i hope you've made the 20 "syrian" "children" A packed lunch by now.
.

It's such a lame argument this one. Since when does our tax system work in a way that individuals have to do the work of a central government?
"You want roads, go out and build them yourself"
"Oh, you want your kids educated. I don't see you getting a teaching qualification"
"You want our criminals kept in prison. Let's see how you like them in your garden shed"
Wanting the government to do something does not equate to you wanting to do it yourself and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.

Your attitudes are typical of the left in that you believe in the state being the provider. I suppose you've never heard of private education?
I believe in times gone by there were schemes for helping refugees where individuals could come forward to act as a guarantor and provide somewhere for them.
Those that argue for the government to take in refugees are virtue signalling as there is no requirement for them to go out of their way to be virtuous.

Sigh. THis can be so draining.
You appear to be saying that if I wasn't left wing I wouldn't expect the government to build my roads, hospitals, schools, prisons,collect my bins etc?
Do you honestly think that blurting out "B.b...but.....PRIVATE SCHOOLS" somehow contradicts me?
Don't be so fking stupid. Regardless of how right wing you are, it is patently obvious that it is not just useful to centralise certain services but essential. TO try, by some logic bordering on lunacy, to suggest that it proves someone is left wing because they don't want to take on a government service themselves doesn't even warrant a response, and yet I couldn't help myself

[Esseesse]

blindswelledrat said:

Sigh. THis can be so draining.
You appear to be saying that if I wasn't left wing I wouldn't expect the government to build my roads, hospitals, schools, prisons,collect my bins etc?
Do you honestly think that blurting out "B.b...but.....PRIVATE SCHOOLS" somehow contradicts me?
Don't be so fking stupid. Regardless of how right wing you are, it is patently obvious that it is not just useful to centralise certain services but essential. TO try, by some logic bordering on lunacy, to suggest that it proves someone is left wing because they don't want to take on a government service themselves doesn't even warrant a response, and yet I couldn't help myself

You're right, 'left' is a term to open to interpretation and argument. Statist might be better.

[Oakey]

MrBrightSi said:

We entered Iraq in the 90's after they annexed a neighbor and then went on to invade saudi arabia. We had the backing of the Arab league, i mean hell even Syria had armed forces helping.

If we had followed through with getting rid of Sadam in the 90's this whole insurgency would of been a lot less intense. The argument that he was one of these benign dictators that the middle east needed is wrong.

The west turned low-energy when we had the images of the fleeing iraqi army getting it's arse handed to it. Then when it came to the messed up 2nd time around, we'd already established the anti-western rhetoric that has become so cool and fashionable now that you could never justify anything beneficial as it was just more "imperialism from the west."

It makes me sick that people still default to this "MUH OIL IT WAS FUR MUH OIL" argument, i think it's insulting to the people who gave their lives for giving the Iraqi people a chance at some form of democracy that wasn't 1984 style baathist hell. If you haven't seen the video of Sadam sitting idly by with his cigar while people are pulled out of a baathist party meeting for fate unknown or read about the mass graves or the chemical weapons used on kurds, then you're playing into this trendy new hipster ideal of the west is all bad.

Point of order. The half of the Baathist party he had removed as traitors didn't meet a 'fate unknown'... I believe he had the remaining half of the party demonstrate their loyalty to him by having them execute the other half.

[blindswelledrat]

Esseesse said:

blindswelledrat said:

Sigh. THis can be so draining.
You appear to be saying that if I wasn't left wing I wouldn't expect the government to build my roads, hospitals, schools, prisons,collect my bins etc?
Do you honestly think that blurting out "B.b...but.....PRIVATE SCHOOLS" somehow contradicts me?
Don't be so fking stupid. Regardless of how right wing you are, it is patently obvious that it is not just useful to centralise certain services but essential. TO try, by some logic bordering on lunacy, to suggest that it proves someone is left wing because they don't want to take on a government service themselves doesn't even warrant a response, and yet I couldn't help myself

You're right, 'left' is a term to open to interpretation and argument. Statist might be better.

Or better still, 'normal' like 99.999999% of the UK regardless of political leanings. WHilst you are rushing around collecting your own bins, processing your sewerage, repairing the roads outside your house, we are all looking at in interesting dilemma as to how to treat your mental illness when you refuse to use centralised services.

[Esseesse]

blindswelledrat said:

Esseesse said:

blindswelledrat said:

Sigh. THis can be so draining.
You appear to be saying that if I wasn't left wing I wouldn't expect the government to build my roads, hospitals, schools, prisons,collect my bins etc?
Do you honestly think that blurting out "B.b...but.....PRIVATE SCHOOLS" somehow contradicts me?
Don't be so fking stupid. Regardless of how right wing you are, it is patently obvious that it is not just useful to centralise certain services but essential. TO try, by some logic bordering on lunacy, to suggest that it proves someone is left wing because they don't want to take on a government service themselves doesn't even warrant a response, and yet I couldn't help myself

You're right, 'left' is a term to open to interpretation and argument. Statist might be better.

Or better still, 'normal' like 99.999999% of the UK regardless of political leanings. WHilst you are rushing around collecting your own bins, processing your sewerage, repairing the roads outside your house, we are all looking at in interesting dilemma as to how to treat your mental illness when you refuse to use centralised services.

Why would I do that? I'm already paying for these services.

I've made no arguments about roads etc either. I don't see how the arguments for government run infrastructure transfer to government run programmes for helping migrants. I'm guessing that you're worried that if you allowed people the freedom to choose then we might decide against importing 27 year old 'children'.

Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 20th October 17:10

[Justayellowbadge]

BSR said:

Wanting the government to do something does not equate to you wanting to do it yourself and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.

Agreed.

However, the parallel in the examples you mention would more be 'you want roads/schools etc, are you willing to pay tax to make it happen?'

Arguing that you want something to occur and that the govt must pay for it is as illogical as your examples unless it has already been given a mandate by the people.