Should UK accept thousands of refugees because 423,000 people signed a Petition?

a reply to: PutinTheGreat

When the empire did it to Hindustan through oppression and violence it was called civilisation. When they did it to the Native Americans it was called discovery and adventure. When they did it to Africa it was spreading a loving religion.

Now, when a few brown people turn up on the Brit's doorstep without killing anyone it's the imminent destruction of the glorious empire and the genocide of the white man. Go figure.

Since when do petitions change anything?
Seems they only do when it fits in with the agenda.

No. Charity begins at home.

We need to take care of our own first before pooling money into people we barely know anything about.

originally posted by: Flighty
Since when do petitions change anything?
Seems they only do when it fits in with the agenda.

In the UK you can set up a petition on the government website if it gets something like 100,000 signatures the government have to respond, if it gets 250,000 signatures it then goes to a parliamentary petition board who decide if the petition should be discussed in parliament.

That is the process.

a reply to: HeathenJessie

Looks like you & your family no doubt are the type that will accept the benefits of any system but not the drawbacks.

The armed forces DON'T just get sent in for conflicts they also get sent in on humanitarian missions.

I would like to see what YOU would say if you & your family's life depended on the armed forces and they happened to know your beliefs , in that situation if I was them YOU would be on your own , yet I have know doubt they would still risk their life for an a55 like you.

a reply to: Boeing777

Australia is taking 12,000 from persecuted minorities.
With the main focus being on women , children and families.

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: Flighty
Since when do petitions change anything?
Seems they only do when it fits in with the agenda.

In the UK you can set up a petition on the government website if it gets something like 100,000 signatures the government have to respond, if it gets 250,000 signatures it then goes to a parliamentary petition board who decide if the petition should be discussed in parliament.

That is the process.

Well that's great news. Thanks for clarification. Wish they had clout where I live.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: anxiouswens

If only 106,000 said no and 423,000 said yes how is the minority winning?

Or did I read your post wrong?

It's about 423,000 non ethnic British, so it's a meaningless number. The invasion of Europe is being carried out without a whimper. These so called refugees aren't even Syrian - they look like Indians and Afghanis etc. and they're mainly men. Why is that? Where are they going to get women, these men? Does anyone think anymore or do they just do exactly whatever MSM TV tells them to do?

a reply to: Macdon


For a single man with absolutely no prospects, the trek and citizenship alone would be worth it's weight in gold. It not only raises his status but also that of his families with potential in laws and makes him suitable husband material with prospects whereas before he would have very limited opportunities.

Of course, they have their "fun" before all that happens so I guess its a case of western girls beware and going into relationships with eyes wide open and being realistic. These men aren't notorious for visiting alternative sex establishments due to their religion, but infidels apparently are halal and ok for the cause and all as comfort girls until they marry their muslim brides.

They aren't into integration which they've pretty much made well known over the years of western migration, so I think everyone should get educated, especially the females who are going to copping the brunt of it all, at least then they can make educated choices with realistic expectations of whether or not to get involved.

a reply to: anxiouswens

I posted this on one other Threaed but it seems that threaed has died as nobody replied but I wanted to see what anyone thought:

I'm sorry but why should we take in all these Refugee's?

Most couples as far as i can see have between 5 and 8 kids in tow... why should a hard-working person be funding them to have all these kids?

They should stop having so many than i and others may be more sympathetic.

Also, where is all this money going which is apparently supposed to be helping these 'Refugee's' where they are?

Something tells me it's not being spent on what it was meant for.. and again why should people who live far away and nothing to do with this war be asked to pay for all these kids that they keep having??

I saw cameron on skynews talking with one family which is coming to the UK... they have 8 kids! Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that huge family??

People here will not be happy with that.