George Ferguson (Merged many times)

[screech]

Pathetic absolutely pathetic, all you do is try to label people who don't agree with you and you never answer anything.

So i'll try to make it easy for you, most people are concerned about immigration and migrants not because they are 'stupid' like you label them but because "Most people like me just want to make sure that we are taking 'real' refugees and that they are properly vetted and properly monitored".

You on the other hand seem to prefer the Merkel approach, open the gates and see what happens.

 

It's quite sad that you can't have a converstaion about letting in hundreds of thousands of unknown/unchecked people into Europe without being branded an idiot.

[marshy]

It's quite sad that you can't have a converstaion about letting in hundreds of thousands of unknown/unchecked people into Europe without being branded an idiot.

As Farage has said, ''Who's the extremist here ?''

[Barrs Court Red]

Well it well it looks like Russia and China are going to solve the refugee crisis for us and are bombing the rebel groups into oblivion.

Ii wonder if they'll target the YPG - that really would kick off an international shit storm.

[screech]

Well it well it looks like Russia and China are going to solve the refugee crisis for us and are bombing the rebel groups into oblivion.

Ii wonder if they'll target the YPG - that really would kick off an international shit storm.

They'll have to keep one of the larger groups of fighters on side to do the ground work. 

http://www.basnews.com/en/news/2015/10/01/ypg-we-are-ready-to-cooperate-with-russia/

[IAmNick]

Pathetic absolutely pathetic, all you do is try to label people who don't agree with you and you never answer anything.

So i'll try to make it easy for you, most people are concerned about immigration and migrants not because they are 'stupid' like you label them but because "Most people like me just want to make sure that we are taking 'real' refugees and that they are properly vetted and properly monitored".

You on the other hand seem to prefer the Merkel approach, open the gates and see what happens.

 

But what else do you do. If you say "No you can't come" do you think they will stop fleeing? We're lucky to be on an island in that regard. Will they go "oh no we can't go there any more" and stay in Syria or wherever? Of course not. People will flee disaster, opression, barrel bombs, beheadings, and all the other horrific stuff regardless. If your entire town (and country) is bombed to sh*t and your way of life destroyed you're not going to be reading the paper and feeling glum nobody will take you, and just sitting at home waiting to meet your maker. You'd do the same thing you or I or anyone would do - get to the nearest place you can with your kids you think is safe as fast as you can.

The economy WE trashed and have been impressively awful at fixing now has the perfect scapegoat - and as usual it's the poorest/most defenseless people it's being blamed on. Maybe rather than contributing to these crisis in the first place then sitting on our hands doing bugger all until the situation reached breaking point we should have intervened and tried to help sooner. Maybe if all the other countries (not just us, or Germany) stepped up to the plate and did their bit it'd be more manageable.

What do we do, build a wall around Europe? All we're going to do is begin to foster resentment in these people, they wont just go away. Don't forget, half the crisis in the middle east was caused by us (the west) in the first place. If you have a good idea for vetting and monitoring hundreds of thousands of refugees risking their lives to flee civil war then please do share it. I completely agree there needs to be monitoring of people, of course, but this is a crisis, and something needs doing now - people I hear saying there needs to be "monitoring" is in my experience just a nicer way of saying they don't want them (not meaning you by the way!).

Isolated? Don't be daft, it's happening here in Italy as well.  Do you really want me to go to town and list with sources images and video the trouble these illegal economic migrants are causing?

As for me living in Italy - I work in the UK, my kids are there and I'm there frequently.  Yes I could shut-up shop, kick back and sip red wine for the rest of my days, but when my grandchildren ask me "What did you do to stop our country and the rest of Europe being trashed by hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants opposed to our way of life?" at least I'll be able to look them in the eye and say I did my best ...

... unlike some people - who stuck their heads in the sand, made everything worse and criticised those who were trying.

 

I find it slightly ironic you are accusing others of sticking their heads in the sand, making things worse and criticising people who are trying. Surely that's exactly what you're advocating we, and the rest of Europe do? Effectively building a great wall around Europe is exactly that, surely?

Perhaps your grandchildren will say "When those poor bast*rds had their lives totally destroyed and were just looking for somewhere to live in safety did you/our country try and help them?". Think back in history during times of war and opression and we remember counties for being heroic in helping people overcome their struggles, and we (quite rightly) are dismissive of ones who turned their heads and ignored a crisis, and people in need.

I'm proud to live in a country who treats their most vulnerable people - like the poor, the disabled, the elderly well. We're lucky to live here, and when people need our help I feel proud to belong to a country who tries to help them, and will hopefully feel proud telling my kids our country (and others like us) did our part to save these people where we could, not turn them away. There are lots of times we look back in history with pride at our country having helped people out across the world in times of need.

These are just normal people after all. The idea of hundreds of thousands of people "opposed to our way of life" is ridiculous and frankly quite offensive and completely dehumanises the situation. I'd like to see what you're basing that off - and 2 or 3 isolated stories in the mail/telegraph don't count. The fact you see a handful of isolated stories in the right wing press (and yes, some of them will be "bad" people just as you'll find anywhere in the world) and attribute that to every one of them is quite damning in my mind. Have you ever actually met a refugee? Or even many immigrants? I've met many in my job, and they are on the whole good people - not even remotely "opposed to our way of life".

[IAmNick]

Now people are stupid because they have different concerns.

Watch this space, 80% of the migrants in Germany are reckoned to be single males, Merkel's opening of pandora's box is going to backfire big style.

 

 

Are they? Where did you even read this?

Official UN statistics (the best data we have available) say 50.3% of refugees are female. 52.1% of them are under 17. 38.3% are under 12.

Truly a terrible "swarm of people" (as our glorious leader would say) hell bent on destroying our way of life.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But what else do you do. If you say "No you can't come" do you think they will stop fleeing? We're lucky to be on an island in that regard. Will they go "oh no we can't go there any more" and stay in Syria or wherever? Of course not. People will flee disaster, opression, barrel bombs, beheadings, and all the other horrific stuff regardless. If your entire town (and country) is bombed to sh*t and your way of life destroyed you're not going to be reading the paper and feeling glum nobody will take you, and just sitting at home waiting to meet your maker. You'd do the same thing you or I or anyone would do - get to the nearest place you can with your kids you think is safe as fast as you can.

The economy WE trashed and have been impressively awful at fixing now has the perfect scapegoat - and as usual it's the poorest/most defenseless people it's being blamed on. Maybe rather than contributing to these crisis in the first place then sitting on our hands doing bugger all until the situation reached breaking point we should have intervened and tried to help sooner. Maybe if all the other countries (not just us, or Germany) stepped up to the plate and did their bit it'd be more manageable.

What do we do, build a wall around Europe? All we're going to do is begin to foster resentment in these people, they wont just go away. Don't forget, half the crisis in the middle east was caused by us (the west) in the first place. If you have a good idea for vetting and monitoring hundreds of thousands of refugees risking their lives to flee civil war then please do share it. I completely agree there needs to be monitoring of people, of course, but this is a crisis, and something needs doing now - people I hear saying there needs to be "monitoring" is in my experience just a nicer way of saying they don't want them (not meaning you by the way!).

I find it slightly ironic you are accusing others of sticking their heads in the sand, making things worse and criticising people who are trying. Surely that's exactly what you're advocating we, and the rest of Europe do? Effectively building a great wall around Europe is exactly that, surely?

Perhaps your grandchildren will say "When those poor bast*rds had their lives totally destroyed and were just looking for somewhere to live in safety did you/our country try and help them?". Think back in history during times of war and opression and we remember counties for being heroic in helping people overcome their struggles, and we (quite rightly) are dismissive of ones who turned their heads and ignored a crisis, and people in need.

I'm proud to live in a country who treats their most vulnerable people - like the poor, the disabled, the elderly well. We're lucky to live here, and when people need our help I feel proud to belong to a country who tries to help them, and will hopefully feel proud telling my kids our country (and others like us) did our part to save these people where we could, not turn them away. There are lots of times we look back in history with pride at our country having helped people out across the world in times of need.

These are just normal people after all. The idea of hundreds of thousands of people "opposed to our way of life" is ridiculous and frankly quite offensive and completely dehumanises the situation. I'd like to see what you're basing that off - and 2 or 3 isolated stories in the mail/telegraph don't count. The fact you see a handful of isolated stories in the right wing press (and yes, some of them will be "bad" people just as you'll find anywhere in the world) and attribute that to every one of them is quite damning in my mind. Have you ever actually met a refugee? Or even many immigrants? I've met many in my job, and they are on the whole good people - not even remotely "opposed to our way of life".

I will try for a third time this is the important bit and I don't think it's too much to ask do you?.

most people are concerned about immigration and migrants not because they are 'stupid' like you label them but because "Most people like me just want to make sure that we are taking 'real' refugees and that they are properly vetted and properly monitored".

[IAmNick]

Nick do indeed think back to wars of the past and look, where possible, at footage of refugees. What do you see? A huge mix of traumatised, starving bedragled women, children and old people - there are men but most are fighting or dead.  What do you see in the footage of the current 'refugees' from Pakistan and Afghanistan and Syria (or the multitude of countries in Africa)?  Go, look for yourself.  Ignore the propaganda - look at the video and photos. Look at the boats crossing the Med.  The vast majority are healthy youngish men.  

Of course I've met refugees, they are wandering through Italy. I've seen groups of them. I was literally standing in front of five Africans who were recently off the boat, I was helping-out at an event in the hills and they were brought to help us and after one look in their eye, and given that I had Italian women with me, I said either take them away or we're leaving.. These dudes were not, I repeat not, refugees.

Sure let's take some real refugees. Cameron has agreed to take 20K. Good for him.  Their applications need to be processed in Turkey or Jordan or Lebanon.  And no way should Europe take illegal economic migrants. Especially people that have deep-rooted antipathy to our culture.

A refugee would flop exhausted as soon as they reached a safe place, especially it is was a family with kids or the elderly.  They would stay there waiting for the chance to go home. Wouldn't you? In fact that's exactly what refugees should do by UN law.  But these people move on, not just out of reach of the war, but on, through Turkey, through the poor countries of the eastern edge of Europe and to where?  To the places with the largest welfare states. Even many of those in Italy want to head to Germany or the UK.

Add yes, I say build walls, build fences, send the army to defend the borders, because the first responsibility of a government is to protect the life and liberty of the people they serve, not allow society to be overwhelmed by tens of thousands of illegal economic migrants.  So, three cheers for the Hungarian government for protecting the life, liberty and welfare of their people.  They have balls - they saw what was happening and dealt with it.  Three cheers for Russia because again, they don't take this kind of b***shit and will protect themselves.

'Ridiculous', 'frankly quite offensive', 'damning' - these are your emotions, not mine. I don't judge you for that, we've all got our way of looking at things, but if you think an additional 800,000 muslims economic migrants will effortlessly blend into German culture then I'm sorry, you're mistaken.

And as for 'they are lovely people'. I am sure they are, but check-out the rape stats for Sweden and Norway. Check-out the no-go zones in France.

 

Firstly, you're right in what you're saying, that there is a clear distinction between an asylum seeker/refugee and an economic migrant - I'm specifically talking about refugees here (primarily from Syria). Economic migrants do of course need to be treated differently, but this topic was specifically about refugees, don't forget. The propaganda does of course come from both sides. Nobody is mentioning freely taking ILLEGAL economic migrants. You seem to be repeatedly talking about both again as if they are the same thing.

When I look at footage I do see starving and bedraggled looking people (of all ages and genders) so maybe I'm just looking in different places than you - see the stats I posted above about the demographic of refugees. Try typing "Syrian refugees" into google image search otherwise - mostly women and children. Because as I posted above, most of them are in fact, women and children. Cameron agreed to take 20k of 10.5 million or so who are displaced, absolutely pathetic in my opinion. I agree with you in essence that they need to be processed probably somewhere like Turkey, but then I think they should be moved on towards other European countries - personally I feel if ALL of Europe shared the burden things would be better for us all, no country should have to do more than its means and the load should be spread fairly. The issue is that people are moving and here NOW, if we had 5 years warning (some would say we did...) maybe something could have been done to prepare with real checks in place, a proper plan for where people should go and how many should go there. But nothing was done as everyone sat on their hands until it was too late. What do you do once your wall is up and 10 MILLION people are camped on the other side of it? Let them all starve to death? What do the army do? They'll all just go around it anyway so you're just passing the buck.

On your welfare state claim, of the Syrian refugees there are currently around 2 million in turkey. 600,000 in Jordan and 1.5 million in Lebanon. Far from what most of us would call the most "generous" states. I'm not sure where you think these people are research the EU (and by extension the UK) benefits system because it sure as hell isn't in their destroyed house or while walking across the countryside with all their possessions strapped to their backs and a basic grasp of English.

Most in Europe have gone to Germany and Sweeden. You assume it's because of the welfare state? It's because they are the most welcoming ones - Germany we all know about, Sweeden have offered blanket asylum to all Syrians who applied after arriving there. In fact, Germany and Sweeden offer asylum seekers around the same amount (monitarily) as we do in England. France, home of the overflowing port of Calais, offers people almost twice as much, for reference. So it's clearly not for the benefits they mostly can't even claim.

I can sympathise to some degree with you being in Italy, especially if you're on the southern coast. The situation there is totally different and again, almost impossible to manage. I wouldn't want to live in a small seaside town with a newly doubled population of strangers of course, and I'm sure you know more about the situation there than I do whether I agree with what you say or not!

Again, you call them 800,000 muslim economic migrants. The Syrians are refugees. Not economic migrants.

I looked for stories about the things you mentioned, but all were etiher about children being abused by their trafficers on route to Europe, or from sites such as "whiteresister.com", "israelnationalnews.com" or "therightscoop.com", which don't seem very balanced sources of information...

Thanks for a decent debate by the way, I don't think you (or EMB) are "stupid" as he put it, and I'm sorry that I probably appear sanctimonious.

And yes, three cheers for Russia, a bastion of democracy, fairness, and human rights for us all to aspire to.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Firstly, you're right in what you're saying, that there is a clear distinction between an asylum seeker/refugee and an economic migrant - I'm specifically talking about refugees here (primarily from Syria). Economic migrants do of course need to be treated differently, but this topic was specifically about refugees, don't forget. The propaganda does of course come from both sides. Nobody is mentioning freely taking ILLEGAL economic migrants. You seem to be repeatedly talking about both again as if they are the same thing.

When I look at footage I do see starving and bedraggled looking people (of all ages and genders) so maybe I'm just looking in different places than you - see the stats I posted above about the demographic of refugees. Try typing "Syrian refugees" into google image search otherwise - mostly women and children. Because as I posted above, most of them are in fact, women and children. Cameron agreed to take 20k of 10.5 million or so who are displaced, absolutely pathetic in my opinion. I agree with you in essence that they need to be processed probably somewhere like Turkey, but then I think they should be moved on towards other European countries - personally I feel if ALL of Europe shared the burden things would be better for us all, no country should have to do more than its means and the load should be spread fairly. The issue is that people are moving and here NOW, if we had 5 years warning (some would say we did...) maybe something could have been done to prepare with real checks in place, a proper plan for where people should go and how many should go there. But nothing was done as everyone sat on their hands until it was too late. What do you do once your wall is up and 10 MILLION people are camped on the other side of it? Let them all starve to death? What do the army do? They'll all just go around it anyway so you're just passing the buck.

On your welfare state claim, of the Syrian refugees there are currently around 2 million in turkey. 600,000 in Jordan and 1.5 million in Lebanon. Far from what most of us would call the most "generous" states. I'm not sure where you think these people are research the EU (and by extension the UK) benefits system because it sure as hell isn't in their destroyed house or while walking across the countryside with all their possessions strapped to their backs and a basic grasp of English.

Most in Europe have gone to Germany and Sweeden. You assume it's because of the welfare state? It's because they are the most welcoming ones - Germany we all know about, Sweeden have offered blanket asylum to all Syrians who applied after arriving there. In fact, Germany and Sweeden offer asylum seekers around the same amount (monitarily) as we do in England. France, home of the overflowing port of Calais, offers people almost twice as much, for reference. So it's clearly not for the benefits they mostly can't even claim.

I can sympathise to some degree with you being in Italy, especially if you're on the southern coast. The situation there is totally different and again, almost impossible to manage. I wouldn't want to live in a small seaside town with a newly doubled population of strangers of course, and I'm sure you know more about the situation there than I do whether I agree with what you say or not!

Again, you call them 800,000 muslim economic migrants. The Syrians are refugees. Not economic migrants.

I looked for stories about the things you mentioned, but all were etiher about children being abused by their trafficers on route to Europe, or from sites such as "whiteresister.com", "israelnationalnews.com" or "therightscoop.com", which don't seem very balanced sources of information...

Thanks for a decent debate by the way, I don't think you (or EMB) are "stupid" as he put it, and I'm sorry that I probably appear sanctimonious.

And yes, three cheers for Russia, a bastion of democracy, fairness, and human rights for us all to aspire to.

The problem really is whose figures do you believe?, some figures claim that 4 out of 5 migrants in Europe are not Syrian, some claim that in some camps there are 80% young males, I believe the truth is somewhere in between as usual, which is why the UK is right to make sure that we are getting genuine refugees and their eventual migration to the UK safeguards British people and that is as it should be, sadly 12 years too late.

 

[IAmNick]

We're going to have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

Actually five years ago there were plenty of shouting about this (I was one of them) but anyone who said we would eventually be over-run were ridiculed as racist.  Then Rotherham broke and the cracks in the consensus started to appear.

As for Russia - I spent 9 days there in April, not that far from the border with Ukraine.  I met Ukrainian refugees there.  I love Russia and it's people and I want to go back sometime and yes Putin has totalitarian leanings but not one person I spoke to had anything bad to say about him.  You could however buy t-shirts with an image of a rifle sight cross-hairs superimposed on the face of Obama.  Putin loves his people and is willing to defend them and I respect him for that. I also admire him for standing-up to the USA.

Remember what happened to Rome when thousands of Hun barbarians (if I remember well, or was it Goths), anyway, they were economic migrants, came drifting down through Italy?  They were one of the major forces that caused the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.  Did the Visigoths integrate? No! They destroyed Rome and brought it down to their level.  And then the lights went out over Europe.  Learn from History.  The harder choices are further along the road.

 

 

Hah, yeah you're probably right mate we'll just agree to disagree! Can't say I'd be likely to insult Putin if I lived in Russia either though based off what I've read 

Think one thing we can both agree on though is that nobody has all the answers, and there is no easy solution to this problem - now or for the next however many years, but something has to be done.

[chipdawg]

 

Remember what happened to Rome when thousands of Hun barbarians (if I remember well, or was it Goths), anyway, they were economic migrants, came drifting down through Italy?  They were one of the major forces that caused the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.  Did the Visigoths integrate? No! They destroyed Rome and brought it down to their level.  And then the lights went out over Europe.  Learn from History.  The harder choices are further along the road.

 

 

it depends which sacking of Rome you refer to. 410 was the Visigoths, 455 was the Vandals. I love your characterisation of the Visigoths and Vandals as 'economic migrants' though. The Visigoth king, Alaric, was actually a general in the roman army (think Maximus in the film Gladiator who was a Spaniard) and actually attempted to negotiate a surrender prior to sacking the city. Prior to this Alaric had actually been fighting fellow 'Germans' on the northern frontier on behalf of Rome (hence his army would have looked and fought in a very 'Roman' manner), but ended up uniting the tribes as he was disgusted at the high taxation and general disdain Rome had for his kind. Alaric's influence was such that he actually arranged the appointment of the Emperor at the time, hoping to create a political solution, but to no avail. Interestingly enough, Rome was not the capital of the Roman Empire at that point; it's had moved to Ravenna about 10 years before

So 'economic migrants' is not how I would describe the Visigoths

[chipdawg]

Yep Rome had become a multi-cultural society at every level and that's kind of my point - look what happened.  My memory of the history is a bit sketchy though I must admit. I don't live that far from Ravenna, the mosaics are incredible and well worth a visit, though Dante Aligheri's tomb  is a bit underwhelming.  

 

Part of the problem was that the Western Roman Empire was very multicultural, but Rome was not- other than the slaves they kept. They felt that they could hide behind a city wall while they pillaged far off lands for wealth and the superiority of their culture would protect them and it didn't

Me and the wife have been hoping to visit Italy for years, but never managed it. We were talking about going this summer, but the only time we could have gone was mid-August and were advised it was a bad time to visit (beaches are rammed, the interior is deserted is what we were told). Definitely on the list though

[chipdawg]

Yep August is not a good time. I was in Ravenna in August and it was over 40C.  Italy is definitely worth a visit. I spent a whole week in Florence once. The only cities I would avoid as a tourist are Milan and Naples (it's beautiful and chaotic it's the only city in Italy I felt like I could be mugged - Pompeii is truly incredible).  I live in the Emilia Romagna region between Ravenna and Rimini - Bologna is 45 minutes away and is really beautiful. It's nice here at Christmas.

I could probably cope with some winter sun! We might look to go next September or in the spring the year after. So many places to visit and insufficient funds/leave to do so!

[Kid in the Riot]

Yep August is not a good time. I was in Ravenna in August and it was over 40C.  Italy is definitely worth a visit. I spent a whole week in Florence once. The only cities I would avoid as a tourist are Milan and Naples (it's beautiful and chaotic it's the only city in Italy I felt like I could be mugged - Pompeii is truly incredible).  I live in the Emilia Romagna region between Ravenna and Rimini - Bologna is 45 minutes away and is really beautiful. It's nice here at Christmas.

Was in Rimini before the San Marino game the other week. Weekend, lovely weather yet the place was deserted - how come? Agree on Bologna lovely place, though Florence is one of my favourite cities in Europe - a living museum.

[marshy]

Are they? Where did you even read this?

Official UN statistics (the best data we have available) say 50.3% of refugees are female. 52.1% of them are under 17. 38.3% are under 12.

Truly a terrible "swarm of people" (as our glorious leader would say) hell bent on destroying our way of life.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Your figure relates to Syrians registered in countries surrounding Syria, i.e.Iraq,Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc. They are genuine refugees in other words. It simply confirms that the vast majority of mostly young men we see pouring into N.Europe on a daily basis are in fact economic migrants, as has been obvious all along.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Your figure relates to Syrians registered in countries surrounding Syria, i.e.Iraq,Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc. They are genuine refugees in other words. It simply confirms that the vast majority of mostly young men we see pouring into N.Europe on a daily basis are in fact economic migrants, as has been obvious all along.

Exactly and the reason the Cameron is going to take our intake from those camps.

[IAmNick]

Your figure relates to Syrians registered in countries surrounding Syria, i.e.Iraq,Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc. They are genuine refugees in other words. It simply confirms that the vast majority of mostly young men we see pouring into N.Europe on a daily basis are in fact economic migrants, as has been obvious all along.

The figures do relate to them yeah, because those are the only ones I can find - it doesn't confirm what you've said at all however, you're just assuming that, however "obvious" it may seem to you. I'm not sure why most refugees being of a certain demographic in one place would "confirm" that they are of another demographic somewhere else. I can't see anything official saying that at all in fact apart from the usual mail/express nonsense.

Are you saying most of the refugees arriving in Germany are young men? Or most of the young men aren't really refugees and in fact economic migrants posing as refugees? Or both?

[IAmNick]

Syrian men are leaving women behind in Syria according to these interviews:  

https://www.facebook.com/100004435574890/videos/535330869958094/?pnref=story

QED: the majority of Syrian (cough) 'refugees' are men.

I mean yeah but unfortunately I don't get my news/facts from things like facebook videos from a page whose top posts right now are about how ISIS is about to be wiped out in hours from the express, and "Bradfordistan".

[marshy]

The figures do relate to them yeah, because those are the only ones I can find - it doesn't confirm what you've said at all however, you're just assuming that, however "obvious" it may seem to you. I'm not sure why most refugees being of a certain demographic in one place would "confirm" that they are of another demographic somewhere else. I can't see anything official saying that at all in fact apart from the usual mail/express nonsense.

Are you saying most of the refugees arriving in Germany are young men? Or most of the young men aren't really refugees and in fact economic migrants posing as refugees? Or both?

You asserted that slightly over 50% of refugees are women. The evidence of my own eyes watching the TV reports and in fact the commentary of on-the-spot reporters including those from the BBC (not just 'Mail/Express nonsense' as you put it) is telling me that the vast majority of those on the move are fit healthy young men. Therefore they cannot all be refugees as refugees tend to be displaced from their homes, men and women, in roughly equal numbers. They have travelled from and through safe countries, failing to apply for asylum, in search of better opportunities. This gives them the status of economic migrants not refugees.

So, to answer your questions in paragraph 2, although I thought it was fairly clear before, 'Yes' and 'Yes', unless of course Merkel is secretly flying in the women out of the gaze of the world's press.

Incidentally I think Merkel's policy is an absolute disgrace. 'We will take 800 000 'refugees' but you have to get here yourself. I have even heard on TV aid workers in the German shelters saying that these migrants are needed to inject fresh blood into the German economy.

I sincerely hope that when we get round to taking our 20 000 genuine refugees, male, female, young and old alike, from the camps that we organize the whole thing properly and provide the necessary transport. It will be shameful if we don't.

[IAmNick]

You asserted that slightly over 50% of refugees are women. The evidence of my own eyes watching the TV reports and in fact the commentary of on-the-spot reporters including those from the BBC (not just 'Mail/Express nonsense' as you put it) is telling me that the vast majority of those on the move are fit healthy young men. Therefore they cannot all be refugees as refugees tend to be displaced from their homes, men and women, in roughly equal numbers. They have travelled from and through safe countries, failing to apply for asylum, in search of better opportunities. This gives them the status of economic migrants not refugees.

So, to answer your questions in paragraph 2, although I thought it was fairly clear before, 'Yes' and 'Yes', unless of course Merkel is secretly flying in the women out of the gaze of the world's press.

Incidentally I think Merkel's policy is an absolute disgrace. 'We will take 800 000 'refugees' but you have to get here yourself. I have even heard on TV aid workers in the German shelters saying that these migrants are needed to inject fresh blood into the German economy.

I sincerely hope that when we get round to taking our 20 000 genuine refugees, male, female, young and old alike, from the camps that we organize the whole thing properly and provide the necessary transport. It will be shameful if we don't.

All that tells us (if it's true, which I don't know if it is or not) is that young men are the ones who have made the longest journey quickest, which isn't really surprising. By your logic the only countries who have legitimate asylum seekers are those bordering Syria - I believe there is some precedent for that but the sheer scale of this current crisis makes that kind of ridiculous. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't agree with you, it's not surprising that some people are in fact heading where they think their life will be better if they are granted asylum, that doesn't make them not asylum seekers though? I think if I was displaced from Syria I'd rather head to Germany than southern Turkey.

I've read some things about the asylum seekers re: Germany's ageing population, though I don't know the full story.

I hope we take genuine refugees too - I'm not disputing that (and I don't think anyone is), but the idea of us sitting here saying people aren't real asylum seekers based off some arbitrary rule we drew up leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth. The idea that these people are rubbing their hands with glee at their country and entire lives up to this point being destroyed beyond recognition, and no doubt friends and family being killed, just so they can sneak into Germany etc. for £40 a week on benefits and five years living in tents with 50,000 other people just seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I feel like as usual we want to just sit on our hands and do FA when the going is tough, while enjoying all the benefits the EU (or whatever it is) had to offer in the past. I kind of feel like at least Germany are having a go at doing something (whether it's right or wrong) - because something does have to be done, whereas all we can do is pass judgement and repeat the same old rhetoric about the British way of a live and a swarm of guys one dodgy youtube video away from being in ISIS.

That's a bit of a ad hominem argument there Nick. It's irrelevant what channel this news was delivered through.  Those are Syrian women complaining that all their men have run off to Europe.  Even without all the other evidence (video, photos, eye witness statements) it should be pretty obvious that a large majority of the so-called refugees are male and of working age.  

The channel news is delivered through is not irrelevant - I could find you news on the earth being flat, or rovers being better than city if I wanted but we all know that's a load of BS.

[IAmNick]

Not by international law, no.  It makes them economic migrants.

You're using strawmen arguments in your last paragraph. This info has nothing to do with a flat earth or rovers (except that rovers were economic migrants when they took over the Mem).  The content of the video clearly shows Syrian women complaining of being left behind by their men. 

As I'm sure you know:  An asylum seeker is someone who has fled armed conflict/persecution and is asking for protection because they can't return home, and is waiting for a decision based on that. A refugee is a "legit" asylum seeker whose request has been accepted. 

Economic migrants (which incidentally is not itself an official classification as far as I know so they aren't "made" that in international law) are people who left their home country to live elsewhere for work and to seek a better professional life.

There is no legal obligation under international law requiring refugees to seek asylum in any particular country, including the first one you come across. Surely otherwise us (and most of Europe) would just blanket turn down every single asylum application because someone has always travelled through a different country to get here, if that was the international law?

"Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons." and "Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government."

The Syrians (men and women) left due to war and persecution - the fact some have then moved to a country which has said "You can come here if you are a refugee" does not make them an economic migrant, and they clearly can't safely return home. Some of the people crossing the med in boats are certainly economic migrants - and maybe some of the people heading up through Turkey etc. from the rest of the middle east are, but not the Syrians in my opinion, whether they are young men or not.

re: the video. I haven't said the crisis is karma or anything like that. I'm not saying we should be punished because of how we have contributed to f*cking up the middle east (which we did contribute to). It's kind of amusing he is saying we shouldn't be punished for how our leaders acted even if we didn't agree - but surely by that logic neither should the Syrian citizens? Why does he assume they were implicit in what their country has done, while we were innocent bystanders. We may (or may not) "owe" the migrants anything but so what? I don't weigh up everything I do based off my own personal gain, or whether I "owe" the beggar on the street, my mate I buy a pint, or Massoud I buy the big issue on North Street from anything.

That's not a straw man. I responded to exactly what you said: "It's irrelevant what channel this news was delivered through". I simply pointed out that the channel all news is delivered through IS important. What if they had 200 interviews, and only picked the ones they agreed with for example? There is a reason some news outlets are respected, and on the whole random facebook pages whose other stories ALL fit the exact same political agenda are generally not.

[IAmNick]

To be honest as you said before, we're never going to agree on this, and realistically the truth is probably somewhere between what we both currently believe!

[screech]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-europe-migrants-germany-idUSKCN0S02N220151006

 

Interesting read. Reporting estimates of 70% male?? (Note, this is not the Daily Mail)

Are Germany in danger of disappearing up their own arse in search for forgiveness of past sins?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-europe-migrants-germany-idUSKCN0S02N220151006

 

Interesting read. Reporting estimates of 70% male?? (Note, this is not the Daily Mail)

Are Germany in danger of disappearing up their own arse in search for forgiveness of past sins?

Oh don't worry mate somebody will find something about this report that they don't like, probably all of it.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

Are you seriously going to start this up again Big Brother?

Discraceful post that shouldn't be associated with Bristol City FC. Blatent hate mongering bullshit. Hang your head in shame.

[Barrs Court Red]

remind me what you called members of the traveling community? Utter scum wasn't it?

 

Hypocrite.

[BS2 Red]

You are against sexual crimes against women but you only seem to be bothered by those with foreign sounding names?  Why not post about cases like these? 

Earlier, a jury convicted former actor Denham, 49, from Wiltshire - previously known as Benjamin Harrop - of conspiracy to sexually assault a child under 13.

Stansfield, 34, from Hampshire, was found guilty of conspiracy to rape a child under 13. Denham was cleared of the same charge.

Five others pleaded guilty to offences including rape of a child and conspiracy to rape at an earlier hearing. They are:

• Robin Hollyson, 30, from Bedfordshire
• Christopher Knight, 35, from Manchester
• David Harsley, 51, from Hull
• Matthew Lisk, 32, from East Sussex
• Adam Toms, 33, from Somerset

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32413502

 

Charlie Jones, 28, of Honeycrock Lane in Salfords, Redhill, denies 14 counts of rape, four counts of assault by penetration with an object, one count of criminal damage to property, one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of sexual assault.

John Jones, of Denton Close, Redhill, denies three counts of rape and one of attempted rape.

Stacey Bastin, of Harrowsley Green Lane in Horley, denies one count of rape.

James Wilson, of Portland Drive, Merstham, denies two counts of rape.

Shane Eastwood, of Clayton Road in Chessington, denies two counts of rape and one of assault by penetration.

Ross Noye, of Jengers Mead in Billingshurst, West Sussex, denies four counts of rape, one count of theft, two counts of sexual assault and two of assault by penetration.

Joseph Noye, of Midhurst Road in Petworth, West Sussex, denies one count of rape and four counts of sexual assault. He has a charge of criminal damage.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/woman-repeatedly-raped-seven-men-10156295

 

I could search out more but I find the whole think sickening. My point is that such vile and unforgivable crimes are not only carried out by Asian or African gangs, there are plenty of "white" gangs that do the same thing.  The problem is humans, not the colour of somebodies skin or the country they happened to be born in. 

[Kid in the Riot]

It is sickening and I completely agree with you that violent sexual crime is carried-out by people from all ethnic groups.  I didn't mention race, but this type of crime is carried-out by a larger proportion of some ethnic groups than others.  This is part of wider issues which were deliberately ignored in places like Rotherham, Rochdale, Blackburn, Preston and so on.  The political decision to not confront this head-on led to those thousands of girls being raped and some being murdered (e.g. Page Chivers, Charlene Downes, Laura Wilson, Victoria Agoglia).  And it hasn't stopped - it's a massive European wide issue and has become worse as the tide of immigration from Islamic cultures has risen. There is still stigma attached to any discussion about it and often people are accused of being racist just for stating the obvious.  I'm not going to keep quiet about it - I would feel like I was condoning it.  

 

You and your buddy's who were displaying England flags with 'Muslim peados off our streets' at the weekend do appear to be condoning sexual crimes carried out by non-Muslims and it is disturbing.

I would suggest you need to provide evidence that a higher proportion of Muslims v any other ethnic group are peados pronto.  Would assume you have the data to hand to make such statements.

[chipdawg]

It is sickening and I completely agree with you that violent sexual crime is carried-out by people from all ethnic groups.  I didn't mention race, but this type of crime is carried-out by a larger proportion of some ethnic groups than others.  This is part of wider issues which were deliberately ignored in places like Rotherham, Rochdale, Blackburn, Preston and so on.  The political decision to not confront this head-on led to those thousands of girls being raped and some being murdered (e.g. Page Chivers, Charlene Downes, Laura Wilson, Victoria Agoglia).  And it hasn't stopped - it's a massive European wide issue and has become worse as the tide of immigration from Islamic cultures has risen. There is still stigma attached to any discussion about it and often people are accused of being racist just for stating the obvious.  I'm not going to keep quiet about it - I would feel like I was condoning it.  

 

No one has ever been convicted of Charlene Downes' murder and Page Chivers was murdered by a 60 year old white English blokecalled Robert. I'm sure you knew that and it wasn't your intention, but your post reads a little like you're linking their deaths to Islam andimmigration 

Could you post a source to indicate which ethnic groups have a greater predisposition to sexual crimes and paedophillia? I'm sure it'd be a fascinating read

[chipdawg]

 

I did that work in the past, I don't have time to do it again.  Let's cut to the chase with a question (and this isn't a personal to either of you btw, there's no need to get personal with this debate and I'm sure you're all decent people): Given that British girls are being raped by immigrants from Islamic countries, at what number of rapes would you say 'enough' to further immigration from those countries?  Would 1,000 girls raped be enough for you? They managed to break the 2000 barrier a few years ago. 

Crime, especially rape, but other crime, is just one issue of many that people are feeling. Last night I watched a video clip of a Pegida march in Germany.  It was great to see so many ordinary people on the march, rather than the type I think KITR was referring to when he said "you and your buddies".  And the rage ... you could almost smell it and it will boil over at some stage.

So back to my question: at what point in terms of sexually violent crime, would you say "enough is enough"?

No sexually violent crime is acceptable, regardless of where the person comes from or which religion they follow

I don't think it could be denied that immigrants in the UK have carried out despicable crimes in this country. I personally would argue that if you want to make every immigrant or every Muslim accountable for the actions of a horrible few, then we must apply the same logic to all groups we can label. You and I- white, British- have a hell of a lot to answer for. Aside from the crimes of empire and the slave trade, should we take responsibility for every crime committed by a white British bloke? Again, we've got a lot of saying sorry to do. That's a not to say that unfettered immigration should be allowed or wouldn't be without problems btw

Extrapolating your claim of 2000 British women raped by immigrants from Islamic countries (which you've failed to back up with a source. I suspect those stats are impossible to compile), let's look at the figures. Rapecrisis.org estimate there to be approximately 85,000 rapes of women in he UK per year. So by your worst case scenario, that's 2.35%. Obviously those 2.35% are just as serious as any other rape, but it doesn't indicate that there is an overwhelming problem with rape in Muslim immigrant populations, using your statistics. If we make an assumption that the 2000 rapes figure involved less than 2000 perpetrators and was in fact violent sexual crimes committed by people of non-native origin, given that the UK Muslim population is roughly 4.8% (at the 2011 census, maybe closer to 6% now), you could argue that we might expect a much higher number of rapes to have been committed by Muslims, if we presume your figures to be correct

So in fact, I would be much more concerned about my wife, sister, daughter, being attacked by a white, British male than an Asian, Muslim immigrant

One thing that I would add which I'm sure you'd agree with, is that in the investigation of some of the more high profile cases there have been involving Muslims (we can't add 'immigrants' because I believe a number of those involved in Oldham, Rotherham, etc. were British born), the ethnicity and background of the perpetrators seems to have hindered and delayed action being taken because of some bizarre sense of political correctness and that is completely unacceptable. Everyone that comes to these shores is bound by the rule of law in the UK and that should be paramount