£4million given towards settling migrants in Manchester

Most of these things have been done under the UN have they not?

Dont get me wrong I am no defender of some diabolical actions perpetrated by our government either labour or Tory.

Some fine examples such as

The Falklands war, Thatcher ignored intelligence knowing she needed a good old war to get the nation onside before an election she was doomed to lose, her love in with Pinochet who was as bad as any other South American dictator at the time, Blair and his love of Kigami a man as complicit in the horrors of the Rwanda genocide as anyone....along with the whole of the UN. As you know the list is long, but this constant rubbish about the middle east has to stop. All of those nations are devious dangerous countries run by backward medieval systems and we along with most other nations have blood on our hands from backing and arming one or another of them.

That all said the actions taken by Bush and Blair amongst others in Iraq which many condemn were only needed because of the failure once again of the UN and the rulers of those countries involved to resolve thier issues without causing endless conflicts. The current meltdown in the middle east is down to the UN and indeed Saddam Hussein more than any others, but of course that is just the tip of the iceberg...

Non of this changes the fact that this country is full our services are over stretched and unfit for purpose we cannot support those indeginous and otherwise who already reside here, to continue too take more is insanity no matter what is happening or no matter how extreme that may be.
 
Most of these things have been done under the UN have they not?

Dont get me wrong I am no defender of some diabolical actions perpetrated by our government either labour or Tory.

Some fine examples such as

The Falklands war, Thatcher ignored intelligence knowing she needed a good old war to get the nation onside before an election she was doomed to lose, her love in with Pinochet who was as bad as any other South American dictator at the time, Blair and his love of Kigami a man as complicit in the horrors of the Rwanda genocide as anyone....along with the whole of the UN. As you know the list is long, but this constant rubbish about the middle east has to stop. All of those nations are devious dangerous countries run by backward medieval systems and we along with most other nations have blood on our hands from backing and arming one or another of them.

That all said the actions taken by Bush and Blair amongst others in Iraq which many condemn were only needed because of the failure once again of the UN and the rulers of those countries involved to resolve thier issues without causing endless conflicts. The current meltdown in the middle east is down to the UN and indeed Saddam Hussein more than any others, but of course that is just the tip of the iceberg...

Non of this changes the fact that this country is full our services are over stretched and unfit for purpose we cannot support those indeginous and otherwise who already reside here, to continue too take more is insanity no matter what is happening or no matter how extreme that may be.

Thats because we live in a giant Ponzi scheme and have expectations that the demographics can't possibly meet. But if we are full and services are suffering what would you say about for example Jordan or Lebanon? The truth is we aren't full it's just people don't want any cut it anything as it is all about us and if we fuck the future of the world and the rest of the world is fucked many just don't care.

Spend the next generations inheritance spend the money of the world anything as long as nothing effects out pursuit of wealth .

On a global scale what you are saying is the Moral equivalent of that whining couple in the Telegraph who had to struggle by on 150k a year
 
Last edited:
I sympathise with both Jordan and Lebanon...infact I had the great honour to meet and chat to the late King Hussein of Jordan, a quite brilliant man....bloody good pilot too.

However this does not alter the fact that you have to look after your own and help others from a position of strength, I lost my Dad to cancer through medical negligence under funding and delays in diagnosis and treatment, i am far from alone......again until things like that are no longer happening in this country we can not and should not let a single one more in. If your kitchen is on fire you dont open the living room door and let the flames in there too do you? You tackle the blaze at source this is no different.
 
I sympathise with both Jordan and Lebanon...infact I had the great honour to meet and chat to the late King Hussein of Jordan, a quite brilliant man....bloody good pilot too.

However this does not alter the fact that you have to look after your own and help others from a position of strength, I lost my Dad to cancer through medical negligence under funding and delays in diagnosis and treatment, i am far from alone......again until things like that are no longer happening in this country we can not and should not let a single one more in. If your kitchen is on fire you dont open the living room door and let the flames in there too do you? You tackle the blaze at source this is no different.
That is where we differ I don't disagree that we need to support services but we don't do this by leaving refugees to drown at seas it be massacred by ISIS in our name we do it by questioning whether we need to recycle 80 inch TVs every 2 years whether people who are worth 1 billion really need to be worth 3 billion and as long as we put personal luxuries ahead of or parents health or a refugees life it's never going to be solved.

So whilst I can agree with part of what you say I have deep moral trouble with how it's acheived. I have had close relatives die (thankfully not my folks) and things could have been done better but sacrificing the lives of children or their parents in the Middle East is not how I would have wanted them saved.
 
Tend to agree but I guess to many their first world problems are so much worse than death is to a third world child.
I'm not avin a pop at you bear ,I'm just thinking its sat night and I'm not gonna go on ,but read again about some of them from this morning
My point was too blunt sorry bout that
P,s It wasn't meant to marry up with the double statement last post by me I've ad a few am hitting the feathers now g,night y,all
 
I'm not avin a pop at you bear ,I'm just thinking its sat night and I'm not gonna go on ,but read again about some of them from this morning
My point was too blunt sorry bout that
P,s It wasn't meant to marry up with the double statement last post by me I've ad a few am hitting the feathers now g,night y,all
You can have a pop at someone's views without having a go at them. You don't need to apologise that you think imminent drowning Is a bigger issue than the difficulties of a housing website
 
Last edited:
Never mind the immigration, I want to know what totallywired did at West Brom away.
 
There isn't an easy answer,i want in the first instance to stop kids drowning,3 more yesterday,they need their mums to be with them they can't come in on their own,thats what i meant
But not their dads, right? You are actually proposing separating children from their fathers. That is the most appalling thing I have read in a good while. I wonder how I would feel if we were being bombed to fuck, and my family was facing certain death. And my wife and kids were rehomed but I wasn't. I'm sure my 3 year old and my 1 year old would be just fine with that, eh?
 
Last edited:
But not their dads, right? You are actually proposing separating children from their fathers. That is the most appalling thing I have read in a good while. I wonder how I would feel if we were being bombed to fuck, and my family was facing certain death. And my wife and kids were rehomed but I wasn't. I'm sure my 3 year old and my 1 year old would be just fine with that, eh?

I would be made up if my family was promised safety if it meant I had to stay. Any dad would be fine with that. Not saying that is what we should do btw because we shouldn't.
 
I would be made up if my family was promised safety if it meant I had to stay. Any dad would be fine with that. Not saying that is what we should do btw because we shouldn't.
Bizarre response. Why would it mean you 'had to stay'? And you'd be 'made up' if your kids were being separated from you, perhaps to never see you again? I don't understand the logic that the responsibility should be burdened by the ordinary people who have been victimised by greedy nations such as the UK dropping bombs on them.
 
What people need to get their heads round is that migrants have always brought criminality to our shores. This is because migration is primarily undertaken by the poor and the dispossessed, some of whom will be highly aspirational, but others of which will operate on the fringes of society in order to survive. The opportunistic and the resourceful. The comfortably off, the unimaginative and the unambitious tend to stay at home, although migration as a result of conflict tends to alter that dynamic somewhat, for obvious reasons.

Criminal courts have had a hugely disproportionate number of defendants of Irish, West Indian and Pakistani backgrounds at various points since WW2, and today it's Eastern Europeans. If it wasn't people from these backgrounds, at the bottom of society, committing these crimes, then it would be indigenous Anglo-Saxons who occupied that place on the social ladder, burgling and committing street robberies. This phenomenon is as a result of the structure of our society - and nothing to do with race.

It is because our 'indigenous' population are either too comfortable, educated, inimical to getting their hands dirty - or crucially, old - that we are compelled to invite masses of people from poorer parts of the world to do our 'dirty work' for us - and there's a price to pay for that.

Peope want perfect solutions when none exist. Mass immigration needs to be managed; it cannot be quelled, or we will cease to function as a society.
 
What people need to get their heads round is that migrants have always brought criminality to our shores. This is because migration is primarily undertaken by the poor and the dispossessed, some of whom will be highly aspirational, but others of which will operate on the fringes of society in order to survive. The opportunistic and the resourceful. The comfortably off, the unimaginative and the unambitious tend to stay at home, although migration as a result of conflict tends to alter that dynamic somewhat, for obvious reasons.

Criminal courts have had a hugely disproportionate number of defendants of Irish, West Indian and Pakistani backgrounds at various points since WW2, and today it's Eastern Europeans. If it wasn't people from these backgrounds, at the bottom of society, committing these crimes, then it would be indigenous Anglo-Saxons who occupied that place on the social ladder, burgling and committing street robberies. This phenomenon is as a result of the structure of our society - and nothing to do with race.

It is because our 'indigenous' population are either too comfortable, educated, inimical to getting their hands dirty - or crucially, old - that we are compelled to invite masses of people from poorer parts of the world to do our 'dirty work' for us - and there's a price to pay for that.

Peope want perfect solutions when none exist. Mass immigration needs to be managed; it cannot be quelled, or we will cease to function as a society.
A refreshingly insightful post, based on an understanding of society and the wider issues, and not the kind of base ignorance and basic misunderstanding that we normally see in discussions on migration.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top