It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

These Arab "Muslim" gulf countries are a fuc*ing joke. They're happy to fund terrorism, bomb Yemen(the poorest country in the region) and spread their stupid backward salafi, hadith sunna crap and come up to and greet you, call you brother but when you're in need they turn their backs.




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

But the thing is, its not unthinkable for Britain to accept partial responsibility for the after effect of war and weapons sales. Can you imagine the States making such a statement? It would be political suicide for them.

And Australia, if you arrive by any way other than birth canal its acceptable to be sent to a 'containment' center.

You are 100% correct, of course, I'm just mentioning that while you should teach a naughty child to share, if the child is that naughty then they wont care anyway.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

Only 3% of the UK is developed.

The rest is empty space.


I say this not just to highlight how much we can afford to help refugees...

But also our own here at home who are homeless while 97% of the country is unused shrubbery.

Developing even 5% more (still less than 10% overall) would fix the UK and be one of the greatest economic boosts we could use to our advantage.


That's still leave 92% untouched so the antiquated can still look at fields on the train and motorways.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

And us, who also fund terrorism and weapons sales to areas with less than a gleaming human rights record, are we a joke?
spreading freedom and democracy and acting like we are affable and lovely people protecting the citizens of poor backwards countries, then when said citizens are in need, turn our backs? What does that make us?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirsWater's the problem - not space.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Charlie, I know your point but I like the countryside



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Boeing777

Only 3% of the UK is developed.

The rest is empty space.


I say this not just to highlight how much we can afford to help refugees...

But also our own here at home who are homeless while 97% of the country is unused shrubbery.

Developing even 5% more (still less than 10% overall) would fix the UK and be one of the greatest economic boosts we could use to our advantage.


That's still leave 92% untouched so the antiquated can still look at fields on the train and motorways.

Agree.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Your questions are exactly what the politicians and the "do gooders" should be asking, but they don't. Why would anyone choose to go and live in a society that goes against everything they believe in? Surely any practising muslims would prefer to live in a muslim country. But then a lot of the middle eastern countries refuse to take any refugees. Now why could that be? Their governments have the foresight to see the dangers maybe.

If these people are genuine refugees once they have arrived at Greece or Italy why are they not happy to then seek asylum in those countries. Why when they were offered help in Hungary and told they could go to a camp where they would be registered did they not want to do this? I have a child and completely understand why someone would be petrified living in Syria, but would I as a Christian then travel to a muslim country to seek asylum. Absolutely not. If I arrived in Italy, Greece, Hungary I would be so happy to be safe and alive I would do everything in my power to show how grateful I was and to abide by whatever rules and regulations. This is where I lose all sympathy. They are refusing food in a lot of cases and have no problems in being extremely vocal about what they want and where they want to go. This to me differentiates between a refugee and a migrant. People stop being refugees desperate of help when they start demanding and being difficult.

Just on the news today it is showing trouble breaking out in both Macedonia and Hungary with Police. In my opinion there will be civil war shortly in Europe if something isn't done about this.

I do for once agree with Cameron taking the refugees from camps in Syria. I as a resident of the UK do not want demanding migrants. I do not want criminal here refusing to say where they come from or to give any history. I also worry about what will happen once Merkel has given 800,000 migrants asylum as they will then be free to travel throughout Europe (in other words they could all come over to the UK)!

I am a person who has signed the Petition against any more immigration because I have had enough. I am sick to death of hearing about austerity. Our NHS, schools, police, welfare everything is bursting at the seams but then we seem able to pluck huge amounts of money out of thin air when it comes to people not born in this country.

I am also frightened about what will happen when some atrocity does happen on UK soil. I go on a lot of different forums and there are many people just biting at the bit. It will take one small thing to tip the apple cart and then I believe all hell will let loose. The politicians say they have listened to British people's concerns about immigration at the GE and yet they obviously haven't taken a blind bit of notice if they can do such a huge U-turn just with 400,000 signatures and as some people have pointed out the people who have signed the petition could be mainly immigrants.

I think before Cameron offered help to thousands he should have really given the British people a vote and not just gone with a small percentage of the population. Quite interesting to see that in Oxford his constituency there are no refugees!Parliament opens today so it will be interesting to see what is said there.

Finally I don't understand the rhetoric about Europe cannot just turn its back on these people. Why is it Europe's responsibility? Surely it is Middle Eastern countries responsibility!
a reply to: Sublimecraft



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Over the years I have read reports from Europe, mostly bad, of robberies and rapes, mostly rapes, especially in Sweden, mostly committed by non Swedish males, in what are known as 'police no go area's' much the same in the suburbs of Paris (France ), Germany is not any better, these people who scream to let the migrants in, do they live in gated communities? with private police forces on patrol? Is their food and clothing and what ever else delivered to their doors? do they ever venture past the steel gates into the real world?
Jesus Christ, you have robbed Europeans of all sense.


You do realise those reports were just a load of rubbish?

Things like this, you mean?



To put it into context (this is from a Birmingham news site - so I hope it loads for those outside the UK)


This is the 30-second clip which sent Birmingham social media into a frenzy on Sunday night.

The video - posted on YouTube on Saturday - appears to show a commentator on the US Fox News network claim Birmingham is a 'totally Muslim city' and a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims.

He states: "And in Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." The clip appears to have been filmed by a viewer watching the channel on playback on their TV.

The speaker continues: "And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn't dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.

"So there's a situation that Western Europe is not dealing with." Twitter users reacted with astonishment at the bizarre claims



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
To clear up a misconception in the thread, refugees cannot vote here in the UK.


So the idea that it's political pandering for votes is a bulls# narrative.

Its not a matter of here and now. It is the plan for the future as it is here in the US.Keep the power.....



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: anxiouswens

Here's a question for you. Why should the people in the UK be consulted at all?
The "citizens" of the US aren't consulted on how many refugees are resettled into the US. Its handled by regulatory bodies and NGO's. It happens under cover of darkness and a MSM blackout of information other than misleading information. To understand how this works, although its a bit dated, see:
refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com...


That's 'cause the U.S. is a corporatocracy controlled by lobbyists and NGOs...

This is the UK where our elected officials must answer to us, the public.

Because you don't get a say, we shouldn't?

No thanks Uncle Sam.

We are not Great Britain because we do what you would prefer.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

So do I Learningman, my friend...
It's beautiful and one of our star attractions as an Island.


But as I said, just 5% more would still leave us more than 90% countryside.

& there is no limit to the economic enhancement of further development.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

Not denying that we also took part in creating this mess but this refugee crisis could be fixed if these greedy hypocrite gulf countries opened their borders to these refugees, helped them out and wiped out ISIS. They could easily do this.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

These Arab "Muslim" gulf countries are a fuc*ing joke. They're happy to fund terrorism, bomb Yemen(the poorest country in the region) and spread their stupid backward salafi, hadith sunna crap and come up to and greet you, call you brother but when you're in need they turn their backs.


Yes indeed, which is why I don't begrudge fleeing the region as a whole rather than hoping for Wahhabist psychos to protect you from their own proxy mercenaries.

Jordan seem to be the only ones who were fighting ISIS, and they scaled back once the pilot was murdered.
Sadly.

The only real candidate is Lebanon, and they're busy defending their Syrian border from ISIS too.


I don't want free for all... But we have to own our mistakes and repair the best we can.

If that means refugees for now, I'm for it.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Then again where I live the homeless fellas seem to enjoy it too cause they dont get kicked in by kids when they are in the woods. Aaaaand now im sad again.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Robert Reynolds

That's an absolutely fair point to make Robert.

& I appreciate that rebuttal immensely.


Let me think about that for a while and hopefully I'll get back to you with a worthy answer.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Boeing777

Only 3% of the UK is developed.

The rest is empty space.


I say this not just to highlight how much we can afford to help refugees...

But also our own here at home who are homeless while 97% of the country is unused shrubbery.

Developing even 5% more (still less than 10% overall) would fix the UK and be one of the greatest economic boosts we could use to our advantage.


That's still leave 92% untouched so the antiquated can still look at fields on the train and motorways.


Wow! I never realized that. They got ya'll packed in pretty tight then? Who owns all that property?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Boeing777

Yeah fair enough mate I reacted more to people I know who say the same stuff, I see your point. Thats the problem though isnt it, world over. If only issues were black and white like when I was a lad, with a clearly defined good and bad side :')



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

The Crown
With her 6.6 billion acres, Elizabeth II is far and away the world's largest landowner, with the closest runner-up (King Abdullah) holding control over a mere 547 million, or about 12% of the lands owned by Her Majesty, The Queen.

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 11/01/2011 by BennyOj because: Added Link



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Good ole Queeny
but no I actually don't know, I suppose I should find out!

A quick google says that about 0.6% of the populace own 50% of rural land, but that's from a rag so disreputable I wouldnt trust it.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 7/9/2015 by Learningman because: new info




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join