How many Syrian children are coming here?
Discussion
poo at Paul's said:
chrispmartha said:
Yes you're correct PH is very liberal and 'PC'.
(In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
Yes, we both know that, which is why we get comments like S 3 Fella's, but there are still the predictable handwringers who throw the "R" word about with gay abandon, the misuse of which just dilutes it to a meaningless nonsense!! (In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
That's all I've got to say about that.
FredClogs said:
There are no "races" there are just species, societal constructs and aholes. I use racist as a description of the later. No it doesn't make much sense but language is also just a societal protocol that adapts and changes. If you say people from other geographical locations are "rapey" you're racist, its a racist thing to say.
That's all I've got to say about that.
Good, jog along now.That's all I've got to say about that.
FredClogs said:
There are no "races" there are just species, societal constructs and aholes. I use racist as a description of the later. No it doesn't make much sense but language is also just a societal protocol that adapts and changes. If you say people from other geographical locations are "rapey" you're racist, its a racist thing to say.
That's all I've got to say about that.
Do you acknowledge that there is a sexual crime epidemic ongoing in Sweden? Mainly perpetuated by the middle eastern immigrants that have flooded in there? And that its being actively ignored and covered up by the media?That's all I've got to say about that.
danllama said:
Do you acknowledge that there is a sexual crime epidemic ongoing in Sweden? Mainly perpetuated by the middle eastern immigrants that have flooded in there? And that its being actively ignored and covered up by the media?
Don't waste your "breath", he'll just call you a "racist" for the mere suggestion. Nothing to see there, etc etc Lunar Tick said:
The argument often advanced in favour of large-scale immigration is that we need the taxes from all these extra migrants to help pay for the care of our older citizens. But what happens when the next generation (including the migrants) get old? A larger population of older people will mean that we have to import even more migrants to take care of them. Then that generation will require even larger numbers of migrants to help plug the gap for their care. This inevitably leads to a spiral of population growth, which is never ending. In many respects, it resembles nothing less than a giant Ponzi scheme, which will eventually come crashing down. The answer surely is to help train our current population with the skills and technical knowledge needed to become more efficient at work and therefore wealthier, which means greater GDP per capita
Yep, that's just about it. Neatly put. Ain't going to happen though. It would be a noble aim but would require a total change in mindset across the entire country and across the political divide. Would take about a generation. You could partially short cut it by raising the minimum wage in the short term. But that's just too easy. The point is that I wish to take dividends from my investments and those dividends are held up by a massive influx of cheap, skilled labour. The way this country is configured demands an endless supply. Put simply, the shareholders demand immigration as a short term measure to keep dividends high. They also demand access to the single market. For these reasons, Brexit will be fudge - they will keep coming. danllama said:
Do you acknowledge that there is a sexual crime epidemic ongoing in Sweden? Mainly perpetuated by the middle eastern immigrants that have flooded in there? And that its being actively ignored and covered up by the media?
Not at the level claimed by some though. It's been grossly overinflated by some of the media.It's true that crime rates amongst lower economic group immigrants tend to be higher than the average for the country. It's also the case that the majority of sexual crimes committed by immigrants in Sweden are against other immigrants, not locals. Something also omitted from many reports about the problems there...
A lot of the reports were based on a Gatestone Institute report, which plays down a major factor in the massive increase in reports of rape since 1975 - that the way sexual assaults are classified. Far more are now recorded as rape when in other countries would be sexual assaults. They also count multiple incidents by the same accused as separate cases, which doesn't happen in other countries.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-rap... makes interesting reading on the claims.
FredClogs said:
poo at Paul's said:
chrispmartha said:
Yes you're correct PH is very liberal and 'PC'.
(In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
Yes, we both know that, which is why we get comments like S 3 Fella's, but there are still the predictable handwringers who throw the "R" word about with gay abandon, the misuse of which just dilutes it to a meaningless nonsense!! (In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
That's all I've got to say about that.
pork911 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
I wonder sometimes if the Home Office isn't deliberately making a mess of things like this to turn the public off the idea.
All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
(Genuine question, I've only seen one picture) how likely is it that a British editor would publish pictures of purported child orphan refugees being taken into the country where they looked clearly or even just possibly under 18?All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
The reality is now a lot of people are turned off the idea of taking more because the first few weren't all Syrian or looking much like children at all. How hard was it to find 14 kids from Syria in that camp who had relatives here and who should have automatically been taken ? Seems its harder than some parts of the press were making out.
W124 said:
964Cup said:
Heavens this is so depressing.
Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
Well put. It's true that our economy needs immigration if it is to continue to function. We haven't let hundreds of thousands of people in out of some altruistic folly. We need them. It's cold, but it's true. Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
We need migration.
Yes we need the educated migrants,
No we don't want any scroungers
Have enough already
Welcome to doctors, dentists, technicians, skilled trades persons, all the rest of the no hopers, why should we take them?
Seems to me we have enough no hopers on our dole list at the moment.
Deptford Draylons said:
pork911 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
I wonder sometimes if the Home Office isn't deliberately making a mess of things like this to turn the public off the idea.
All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
(Genuine question, I've only seen one picture) how likely is it that a British editor would publish pictures of purported child orphan refugees being taken into the country where they looked clearly or even just possibly under 18?All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
The reality is now a lot of people are turned off the idea of taking more because the first few weren't all Syrian or looking much like children at all. How hard was it to find 14 kids from Syria in that camp who had relatives here and who should have automatically been taken ? Seems its harder than some parts of the press were making out.
Deptford Draylons said:
pork911 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
I wonder sometimes if the Home Office isn't deliberately making a mess of things like this to turn the public off the idea.
All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
(Genuine question, I've only seen one picture) how likely is it that a British editor would publish pictures of purported child orphan refugees being taken into the country where they looked clearly or even just possibly under 18?All they had to do was find 14 Syrian kids who were so young , homeless and helpless, no right thinking person could possibly object.
What turned up was a bunch people, most of who don't seem to be Syrian or kids, but a mixed bunch including a Dr Spock lookalike. This then gets splashed over the front pages of the papers, public opinion crashes, soft touch/dumb mug Britain only then encourages more people to come and lie about there age and the town of Calais probably wishes the UK wouldn't keep making itself a magnet for chancers.
The reality is now a lot of people are turned off the idea of taking more because the first few weren't all Syrian or looking much like children at all. How hard was it to find 14 kids from Syria in that camp who had relatives here and who should have automatically been taken ? Seems its harder than some parts of the press were making out.
Anyway, back to the OP, strong irony :- http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Just to put some numbers to my previous post.
http://corambaaf.org.uk/res/statengland
There are 70,000 children under the care of local councils in the UK.
Let bring in some more to add to the list..
http://corambaaf.org.uk/res/statengland
There are 70,000 children under the care of local councils in the UK.
Let bring in some more to add to the list..
rscott said:
FredClogs said:
poo at Paul's said:
chrispmartha said:
Yes you're correct PH is very liberal and 'PC'.
(In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
Yes, we both know that, which is why we get comments like S 3 Fella's, but there are still the predictable handwringers who throw the "R" word about with gay abandon, the misuse of which just dilutes it to a meaningless nonsense!! (In fact it's probably one of the most intolerant and right wing forums going)
That's all I've got to say about that.
iSore said:
I am sure most of us were bought trainers by our parents that weren't cool and we wanted to "send them back".W124 said:
Lunar Tick said:
The argument often advanced in favour of large-scale immigration is that we need the taxes from all these extra migrants to help pay for the care of our older citizens. But what happens when the next generation (including the migrants) get old? A larger population of older people will mean that we have to import even more migrants to take care of them. Then that generation will require even larger numbers of migrants to help plug the gap for their care. This inevitably leads to a spiral of population growth, which is never ending. In many respects, it resembles nothing less than a giant Ponzi scheme, which will eventually come crashing down. The answer surely is to help train our current population with the skills and technical knowledge needed to become more efficient at work and therefore wealthier, which means greater GDP per capita
Yep, that's just about it. Neatly put. Ain't going to happen though. It would be a noble aim but would require a total change in mindset across the entire country and across the political divide. Would take about a generation. You could partially short cut it by raising the minimum wage in the short term. But that's just too easy. The point is that I wish to take dividends from my investments and those dividends are held up by a massive influx of cheap, skilled labour. The way this country is configured demands an endless supply. Put simply, the shareholders demand immigration as a short term measure to keep dividends high. They also demand access to the single market. For these reasons, Brexit will be fudge - they will keep coming. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff