How many Syrian children are coming here?

[Dindoit]

BIANCO said:

People hate Tommy Robinson because they blindly follow and believe the left wing media.

I can't talk for people in general but I personally hate Tommy Robinson, or to give him his full name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, because he's a convicted fraduster and thug whose rampant racist and particularly Islamaphobic rants and activities have no place in civilised society. He's the photo negative of Anjum Choudray and deserves as much attention.

[Goaty Bill 2]

iSore said:

e21Mark said:

It's called "freedom of speech" and it's one of those things that comes with the freedom afforded by living here.

Aah, that old chestnut, 'freedom of speech'.

Rather like those Charlie Hebdo idiots who thought it was so right on and liberal to publish cartoons about the Prophet Muhammed.

Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should..........

Charlie Hebdo was/is(?) a vile publication in my opinion.
Does that make it okay to slaughter them?

Salman Rushdie
Charlie Hebdo
A Danish Cartoonist

I may disagree slightly with e21Mark on some points, however I fully endorse the concept and the reality of free speech.

The general failure of the west to publish the Danish cartoons was one of the greatest acts of shameful public cowardice this century.

[iSore]

del mar said:

How many of those who stand with banners calling for more refugees to be let in, children tend to be more expensive to look after than adults, would be complaining about;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38982643

Council tax rises and cuts to Services....

If Multi millionaires want to fund these people, then by all means let them.

Your working man with 3 kids, a 52 plate Mondeo and not a lot besides has a voice ignored by the leftie luvvies. As long as it doesn't affect Lucinda's ballet class or Joshuas ambition to become a face painter/singer/songwriter, the professional luvvie class don't give a st because they have no fking idea.

[rscott]

del mar said:

How many of those who stand with banners calling for more refugees to be let in, children tend to be more expensive to look after than adults, would be complaining about;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38982643

Council tax rises and cuts to Services....

If Multi millionaires want to fund these people, then by all means let them.

Strange - if you read that article, it makes it clear that the major cost increases are in the elderly care sector, not childcare. Ever noticed how many workers in care homes/home helps are non-British? They seem prepare to accept the poor wages in those roles.

[iSore]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Charlie Hebdo was/is(?) a vile publication in my opinion.
Does that make it okay to slaughter them?

Salman Rushdie
Charlie Hebdo
A Danish Cartoonist

I may disagree slightly with e21Mark on some points, however I fully endorse the concept and the reality of free speech.

The general failure of the west to publish the Danish cartoons was one of the greatest acts of shameful public cowardice this century.

Muslims take their religion very seriously. This is what folk do not grasp. We're living in a time when Islam is portrayed as the root cause of evil and some of them are, unsurprisingly, fighting back.

If these idiots were stupid enough to deliberately inflame a situation where a fanatically followed religion is involved, it's not really surprising.

Not publishing the Danish crap was the right thing to do. Leave these people and their sacred region alone FFS.

[e21Mark]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

e21Mark said:

So we treat all Muslims as Extremists/Terrorists "just in case"? Is that going to work both ways? Are all white, British folk to be treated as paid up members of the Anti Islam Alliance?

As for "the rich" or celebrities and their opinions, so what? Who cares if Lilly Allen wants to shout her opinions via ttter or whatever? You might not agree with her but It's called "freedom of speech" and it's one of those things that comes with the freedom afforded by living here. Freedom of speech means there is stuff we might not like or agree with, but we need to accept their right to say it.

How do we know what these people have or haven't done though anyway? I hear lots of rumour, lots of suspicion, but facts? Not so much.

You previously seem to agree that there should be some checks in place; to differentiate between radical Islamic terrorists, and honest refugees/ordinary Muslims.
That basic step has always been the case in any immigration policy of any country. It appears only in the last few years that a concerted effort has been made to convince us that it is racist to do so.

The reason people care about what celebrities say, when they disagree, is because those people have a much higher influence over other people's thinking and opinions that the likes of you and I (pardon me if I make the assumption that you are just such another member of the generally voiceless public as myself).

Lilly Allen et al have chosen to put their opinions into the public space, quite vociferously I might add, and as such it is only reasonable for the public to be able to comment or criticise.
That is free speech in action, unless I have misunderstood the concept completely.

If people should feel that these celebrities are claiming virtues they do not possess, then I think criticising that is reasonable also.
If they do not wish public criticism, then they shouldn't comment publicly, and they certainly shouldn't make statements they aren't prepared to live up to, at least not publicly.
ETA: If they are not claiming those virtues, they should openly correct themselves, and all would likely go quiet.

Any one of the celebrities named in that video (assuming reasonable accuracy in the statements of worth) could well afford to build a small apartment block on one of their estates and populate it with refugees.

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Monday 20th February 13:19

Personally I do agree that a) immigration requires some control and b) common sense dictates checks are made to try and stop those with links to terrorism. I've never felt this was deemed racist or unreasonable.

How much influence do you think they (the Z list celebrity as Tommy Robinson describes her) really have though? Yes it grabs a few sensationalist headlines but I would question it doing any more than that. My understanding is also that their suggestions are what we as a society should be doing, as opposed to as individuals, whether they could afford to build an apartment block or not. I imagine the tax JK Rowling has paid would build quite a few apartment buildings?

Edited by e21Mark on Monday 20th February 14:08

[Deptford Draylons]

iSore said:

Muslims take their religion very seriously. This is what folk do not grasp. We're living in a time when Islam is portrayed as the root cause of evil and some of them are, unsurprisingly, fighting back.

If these idiots were stupid enough to deliberately inflame a situation where a fanatically followed religion is involved, it's not really surprising.

Not publishing the Danish crap was the right thing to do. Leave these people and their sacred region alone FFS.

Congratulations, you've just rolled over and been silenced because a group of people have told you under a threat of violence they are more special and sensitive than others. Religion isn't sacred, and nor should it ever be.

[jjlynn27]

Mr Snrub said:

Please tell me which of those things I made up.

Sure;

JJ: "Did you actually think that I'd spend time watching the video of a confirmed nutjob conspiracy theorist?"
MS: "So you're able to say everything in a video is wrong without having watched it?
JJ: "No, you are making things up. What I said is that video made by conspiracy theory nutjobs are not worth watching."
You made up that I said that "everything in a video is wrong". I didn't. You made that up.

MS: "So you're just going to refuse to watch anything you might disagree with and insult everyone who has a different opinion than you."
JJ: "I watch many things that I disagree with. For example; Trump's press conferences."
As stated; I refuse to watch videos by Infowars and similar outlets. Anything =/= anything from Infowars. Not sure that I can make this any simpler.

I do think that people who quote anything from Infowars are simpletons (to put it very mildly). I often disagree with people on different issues and most of them are not morons at all. Far from it.

[jjlynn27]

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

The whole 'how many children are you personally going to house' is a question posed by idiots. Every single person that poses that question is an idiot. Without exception. There are places and procedures in place to deal with this.

They're saying "we should do this". The response is basically "if you think so then you go first". Simple.

If I say 'We should do more cancer ops', should I roll up my sleeves, grab a scalpel and a copy of 'Master cancer surgery in 3.5 easy lessons'?

[Dindoit]

jjlynn27 said:

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

The whole 'how many children are you personally going to house' is a question posed by idiots. Every single person that poses that question is an idiot. Without exception. There are places and procedures in place to deal with this.

They're saying "we should do this". The response is basically "if you think so then you go first". Simple.

If I say 'We should do more cancer ops', should I roll up my sleeves, grab a scalpel and a copy of 'Master cancer surgery in 3.5 easy lessons'?

All these PHers who want to "control immigration", I don't see them volunteering to work in Dover checking passports. Logic dictates they must simply be virtue signalling.

[del mar]

jjlynn27 said:

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

The whole 'how many children are you personally going to house' is a question posed by idiots. Every single person that poses that question is an idiot. Without exception. There are places and procedures in place to deal with this.

They're saying "we should do this". The response is basically "if you think so then you go first". Simple.

If I say 'We should do more cancer ops', should I roll up my sleeves, grab a scalpel and a copy of 'Master cancer surgery in 3.5 easy lessons'?

Of course not - I do not want you probing around inside my body with a Haynes Manual !!

I would like to think that you would have some comprehension of the cost / affordability and logistics of calling for more operations in the first place. The heart will always call for more operations, more care for the young and elderly etc, but the head should be making these decisions.

Do I want to treat more people in the UK with cancer or take in a load of refugees from say France ?

[iSore]

Deptford Draylons said:

Congratulations, you've just rolled over and been silenced because a group of people have told you under a threat of violence they are more special and sensitive than others. Religion isn't sacred, and nor should it ever be.

Thanks, congrats accepted.

I'd personally rather not go out of my way and annoy folk for a cheap laugh. I'm odd like that!

[Goaty Bill 2]

iSore said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Charlie Hebdo was/is(?) a vile publication in my opinion.
Does that make it okay to slaughter them?

Salman Rushdie
Charlie Hebdo
A Danish Cartoonist

I may disagree slightly with e21Mark on some points, however I fully endorse the concept and the reality of free speech.

The general failure of the west to publish the Danish cartoons was one of the greatest acts of shameful public cowardice this century.

Muslims take their religion very seriously. This is what folk do not grasp. We're living in a time when Islam is portrayed as the root cause of evil and some of them are, unsurprisingly, fighting back.

If these idiots were stupid enough to deliberately inflame a situation where a fanatically followed religion is involved, it's not really surprising.

Not publishing the Danish crap was the right thing to do. Leave these people and their sacred region alone FFS.

I deeply respect the seriousness with which my practising Muslim friends take their religion.
It does appear to be one of the attractions for many of the converts to Islam. A stark comparison to the rather flaccid modern incarnation of Christianity pushed by the CoE.

Salman Rushdie wrote a novel. People who never read it made decisions about what they thought he said.
I've only read reviews and commentary, but it's on my reading list.

The story behind the Danish Cartoonist is so completely innocent in it's original intent as to make the whole thing farcical, had it not been inflamed by conspiracy and had people not died as a result.
I've seen the original cartoons.

Charlie Hebdo is deeply offensive for the sake of it, I wouldn't wipe my bottom with it, but that is the price one pays for freedom.

Like Paul Joseph Watson making his videos.
Like listening to the drivel of Meryl Streep, or the obscene violent ramblings of Madonna. (Referring to their latest anti-Trump tirades).

I don't like Mr Watson, and find Mr. Trump a bit too 'rough around the edges' for my tastes.
That doesn't mean I disagree with everything they say, nor that censorship should be allowed.
Somehow censorship rarely stops bad people from putting their bad ideas into practice, but it will almost certainly stop the good people from speaking about it.

[del mar]

iSore said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Congratulations, you've just rolled over and been silenced because a group of people have told you under a threat of violence they are more special and sensitive than others. Religion isn't sacred, and nor should it ever be.

Thanks, congrats accepted.

I'd personally rather not go out of my way and annoy folk for a cheap laugh. I'm odd like that!

Did Rushdie "go out of his way for a cheap laugh" ?

or the Japanese translator ?

[andymadmak]

iSore said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Congratulations, you've just rolled over and been silenced because a group of people have told you under a threat of violence they are more special and sensitive than others. Religion isn't sacred, and nor should it ever be.

Thanks, congrats accepted.

I'd personally rather not go out of my way and annoy folk for a cheap laugh. I'm odd like that!

It's a slippery slope though isn't it? How about we expect some sort of proportionality of response from people who are offended?
Publishing a cartoon, no matter how crass, insensitive or boorish it might be does not in any way justify murder as a response. If people think that murder IS a proportionate response to a mocking cartoon, then perhaps they are not suited to living in a liberal western society?

[Deptford Draylons]

iSore said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Congratulations, you've just rolled over and been silenced because a group of people have told you under a threat of violence they are more special and sensitive than others. Religion isn't sacred, and nor should it ever be.

Thanks, congrats accepted.

I'd personally rather not go out of my way and annoy folk for a cheap laugh. I'm odd like that!

Out of interest, who else would you like to stay silent for their cheap laughs involving religion ?

[Mr Snrub]

jjlynn27 said:

Mr Snrub said:

Please tell me which of those things I made up.

Sure;

JJ: "Did you actually think that I'd spend time watching the video of a confirmed nutjob conspiracy theorist?"
MS: "So you're able to say everything in a video is wrong without having watched it?
JJ: "No, you are making things up. What I said is that video made by conspiracy theory nutjobs are not worth watching."
You made up that I said that "everything in a video is wrong". I didn't. You made that up.

MS: "So you're just going to refuse to watch anything you might disagree with and insult everyone who has a different opinion than you."
JJ: "I watch many things that I disagree with. For example; Trump's press conferences."
As stated; I refuse to watch videos by Infowars and similar outlets. Anything =/= anything from Infowars. Not sure that I can make this any simpler.

I do think that people who quote anything from Infowars are simpletons (to put it very mildly). I often disagree with people on different issues and most of them are not morons at all. Far from it.

So I didn't make anything up. You dismissed the video without having watched it, clearly you believe all the points it made to be wrong. I listed the main points it made for your convenience but the only counter thus far is everyone who thinks celebrities should take in refugees is an idiot.

[jjlynn27]

Mr Snrub said:

jjlynn27 said:

Mr Snrub said:

Please tell me which of those things I made up.

Sure;

JJ: "Did you actually think that I'd spend time watching the video of a confirmed nutjob conspiracy theorist?"
MS: "So you're able to say everything in a video is wrong without having watched it?
JJ: "No, you are making things up. What I said is that video made by conspiracy theory nutjobs are not worth watching."
You made up that I said that "everything in a video is wrong". I didn't. You made that up.

MS: "So you're just going to refuse to watch anything you might disagree with and insult everyone who has a different opinion than you."
JJ: "I watch many things that I disagree with. For example; Trump's press conferences."
As stated; I refuse to watch videos by Infowars and similar outlets. Anything =/= anything from Infowars. Not sure that I can make this any simpler.

I do think that people who quote anything from Infowars are simpletons (to put it very mildly). I often disagree with people on different issues and most of them are not morons at all. Far from it.

So I didn't make anything up.

Yes you did. As explained above.

Mr Snrub said:

You dismissed the video without having watched it,

I did.

Mr Snrub said:

clearly you believe all the points it made to be wrong.

Please don't try to figure out what I believe.
I do believe (if you really want to know) that ratio between useful/entertaining information and dimwit conspiracy theories doesn't warrant watching them. I'm not the target audience for his little rants.

[Hugo a Gogo]

simple and idiotic

why would they be in any position to personally take care of kids?

"we should stop drunk drivers" goes out and arrests people
"we should stop plastic bags of dog st being dumped" goes out threatening dog walkers
"we should stop Russia invading Ukraine" buys anti tank weapon...

[Goaty Bill 2]

e21Mark said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

You previously seem to agree that there should be some checks in place; to differentiate between radical Islamic terrorists, and honest refugees/ordinary Muslims.
That basic step has always been the case in any immigration policy of any country. It appears only in the last few years that a concerted effort has been made to convince us that it is racist to do so.

The reason people care about what celebrities say, when they disagree, is because those people have a much higher influence over other people's thinking and opinions that the likes of you and I (pardon me if I make the assumption that you are just such another member of the generally voiceless public as myself).

Lilly Allen et al have chosen to put their opinions into the public space, quite vociferously I might add, and as such it is only reasonable for the public to be able to comment or criticise.
That is free speech in action, unless I have misunderstood the concept completely.

If people should feel that these celebrities are claiming virtues they do not possess, then I think criticising that is reasonable also.
If they do not wish public criticism, then they shouldn't comment publicly, and they certainly shouldn't make statements they aren't prepared to live up to, at least not publicly.
ETA: If they are not claiming those virtues, they should openly correct themselves, and all would likely go quiet.

Any one of the celebrities named in that video (assuming reasonable accuracy in the statements of worth) could well afford to build a small apartment block on one of their estates and populate it with refugees.

Personally I do agree that a) immigration requires some control and b) common sense dictates checks are made to try and stop those with links to terrorism. I've never felt this was deemed racist or unreasonable.

How much influence do you think they (the Z list celebrity as Tommy Robinson describes her) really have though? Yes it grabs a few sensationalist headlines but I would question it doing any more than that. My understanding is also that their suggestions are what we as a society should be doing, as opposed to as individuals, whether they could afford to build an apartment block or not. I imagine the tax JK Rowling has paid would build quite a few apartment buildings?

So we are not so far apart, as I suspected, at least on the first point.

My apartment suggestion was weak I grant you, however Lilly Allen has been quoted as saying she would or wanted to take some (refugees).
I maintain she won't.

In any case, leadership must be by example rather than by lecturing to people as though we are all some "basket of deplorables", too stupid, or lacking in sufficient moral values to understand the 'real' problem.
The real problem in my opinion is having been lead down the garden path by Blair, and each successive government on matters of wars and immigration, people are unsurprisingly unwilling to trust people who tell them 'it needs to be done again'.