Red Doors make Asylum Seekers Targets of Racist Thugs

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho


A majority of these "refugees" are men of fighting age.

Yes they are.....

They are cowards.

Yes they are .....

If someone invaded my homeland, I would die before tucking tail and running to another country let alone making outrages demands and terrorizing the locals.

The women are courageous ?

indianexpress.com...

a reply to: anxiouswens
There is good case to be made that net migration to the UK is too high. However asylum seekers are a tiny proportion of this and are people in the moat dire if circumstances. If we cant help at least some of these people then we might as well pack in any claim to be a civilized nation.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho


A majority of these "refugees" are men of fighting age.

Yes they are.....

They are cowards.

Yes they are .....

If someone invaded my homeland, I would die before tucking tail and running to another country let alone making outrages demands and terrorizing the locals.

The women are courageous ?

indianexpress.com...

Excellent another keyboard ninja happy for other people to die fighting. Have you any evidence for your claims?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: SprocketUK
All these migrants moaning about the colour of the front door of their free houses...I bet the 8000 odd homeless ex servicemen wouldn't mind a front door of any damn colour.

I bet they would be grateful to just be given the same treatment as a migrant!!

They already recieve better and have done for several years - that's just unfounded daily mail nonsense.

As part of the Armed Forces Covenant , there are certain Department for Work and Pensions’ initiatives that help current and former members of the Armed Forces and their familie s in accessing Jobcentre Plus services. A selection of these initiatives is detailed below.

www.gov.uk...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Whatever happened to claiming asylum in the first safe country?

Until the only homeless natives in this country are incurable addicts with personality disorders that mean they can't settle, no one who wasn't born here should be getting any kind of house.

What like the two million Syrian refuges in Turkey? We take a tiny proportion of refuges compared to most countries.

How many are in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, UAE and Qatar?

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Whatever happened to claiming asylum in the first safe country?

Until the only homeless natives in this country are incurable addicts with personality disorders that mean they can't settle, no one who wasn't born here should be getting any kind of house.

What like the two million Syrian refuges in Turkey? We take a tiny proportion of refuges compared to most countries.

How many are in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, UAE and Qatar?

Saudi has hosted about 2.5 million over the last 5 years however as they are not signatories to the convention they are not included in UN figures which it is why often claimed incorrectly they haven't taken any.(guessing that why you asked).
The vast vast majority of refugees remain in neighboring countries.

originally posted by: anxiouswens
But ask any homeless person or young mother living in damp and rancid properties with their children where they would prefer to be and I bet they would snatch your hand to live in an house with a red doot. Perhaps the asylum seekers shoulld swap if the properties and the way of life isnt sufficient but it is as good as it gets and far better than a lot of poor British people have got. Perhaps they think they should be entitled to live in a leafy suburb well forget it Welcome to the UK!!a reply to: ScepticScot

They'd only be infested with the same molds with added issues.

I rent a mould infested house that I can't afford to move out of - I don't blame asylum seekers - I blame the government for this week voting against a bill that would have made it law that all properties in the UK pass the minimum conditiond determined to be suitable for human occupation and decades of not building enough properties.

Tackle the root of the probem, not the scapegoat.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Saudi has hosted about 2.5 million over the last 5 years

Well, in fact the gracious Saudi's have managed just over 200 refugees! That's a bit less than the 2.5M you cite. Is thie a decimal point problem?

Source

This is of course off-topic, but I thought I would help by clarifying.

a reply to: paraphi
m.huffpost.com...
No just that the UN doesn't count them as i said above.

a reply to: destination now

Seems to me that something unfortunate is happening and a coincidence is being seen to be the root. It could be. I really dont know.

FOR ONCE, this is nothing some paint cant fix.

a reply to: paraphi
And some more m.euronews.com...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: paraphi
And some more m.euronews.com...

The gist of that article is that the 2.5 mill is a fudge, made up of those passing through and wealthy Syrian already resident.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
No just that the UN doesn't count them as i said above.

Everyone says the Gulf States have done sod all, except Saudi. The statistics don't stack up. Do the research and alter your position.

The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Amnesty Dec 2014

It's sad this has become a "numbers game". Thank Frau Merkel for that -- once she got Germany in way over their heads. None of the EU can afford to support all these people much longer without an economic crisis.

The only countries who can afford them are the Gulf States. Besides, the refugees don't want to go to Saudi. They fear it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Excellent another keyboard ninja happy for other people to die fighting. Have you any evidence for your claims?

About as many as you have for yours? lol. Besides, read your first sentence. I think you've blundered. Who is wanting who to fight their war?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: ScepticScot

Excellent another keyboard ninja happy for other people to die fighting. Have you any evidence for your claims?

About as many as you have for yours? lol. Besides, read your first sentence. I think you've blundered. Who is wanting who to fight their war?

The claim made was that the majority if refugees were military age men running away and leaving their families. Traditionally the one making the claim is supposed to provide the evidence.
There are a number of posters sitting comfortably at their computer expressing outrage that that unarmed, untrained men with no leadership are staying behind to fight.
This leads to a number of questions the first would be who exactly are we wanting then to fight for? This isn't their war, its a civil war between fractions that largely seem as bad as each other.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
No just that the UN doesn't count them as i said above.

Everyone says the Gulf States have done sod all, except Saudi. The statistics don't stack up. Do the research and alter your position.

The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Amnesty Dec 2014

Saudi does not count refugees the same way, there is controversy over how many they have taken and if they have done enough but the idea they have taken zero is fairly obviously absurd.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
The myth that they have taken zero is fairly attractive to a wide spectrum of the media and commentators either to suggest the UK is doing more (we aren't) or as a stick to beat Saudi over their human rights record (which is appalling).
Either way it does nothing to alter the original answer the question asked which is why aren't the asylum seekers in the first safe country they reach. The answer remains that the overwhelming majority are.
However conditions in the camps in these countries are increasingly bad due to being overwhelmed by the sheer number of asylum seekers.
There seems to a number of posters who think they would go all Chuck Norris and stay behind and fight yet are outraged that people try and get their families to safety away from the war zone or refuge camps.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Yeah but the majority single males of fighting age who have entered the EU are not getting their families to safety, they've clearly abandoned them.
...or are you saying the German government figures are lies now?

a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry missed your reply until just now.
I agree that bigoted attacks are abhorrent, but they are everyday occurrences in # hole housing estates all over the UK white or black, disabled or gay.
There is no evidence that the landlord painted the doors to identify asylum seekers as opposed to just using the same paint for all the properties.

...and yeah, if I felt so scared that the colour of my door made me a target then I'd paint it myself, even on a fiver a day.
Such a bleeding heart aren't ya, not surprising from a Scot though, your whole nation sucks on the socialist teat lol

a reply to: grainofsand
The spilt of refugees from syria/iraq is roughly 50/50 gender split. The number of refuges moving on from the camps to the EU is predominantly male but there are a number of reasons for this not less us the perilous journey over the Mediterranean.
All of which is moot anyway unless you think males over 18 have no right to be afraid for their lives despite being most likely to he targets for violence or conscription.
If you think they should be staying to fight then who do you think they should be fighting for?