If someone wanted to enter house, take belongings Should you be forced to let in?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Like I said, if the UK refused there is nothing I could do except spout my disagreement, and that will likely be the case sooner or later.

Nope, you could also advocate, as I am, that if international conventions of refugees are to be changed allowing anyone to choose the safe country they wish to claim asylum in, then it must be an agreement with all the other English speaking nations.

Why do you wish to argue that the UK should act alone and be swamped instead of reasoning that all English speaking nations do the same?

a reply to: grainofsand

Why do you wish to argue that the UK should act alone and be swamped instead of reasoning that all English speaking nations do the same?

This is actually a good point, it is the responsibility of all NATO partners to assist with this. Including Middle Eastern nations like Turkey and Iran.

There should be more coalition work done among those countries not in NATO or living in the region sure. I agree 100%. But we need to manage some of that load as well. After all, we did create the circumstances that led to this issue in the first place.

~Tenth

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Like I said, if the UK refused there is nothing I could do except spout my disagreement, and that will likely be the case sooner or later.

Nope, you could also advocate, as I am, that if international conventions of refugees are to be changed allowing anyone to choose the safe country they wish to claim asylum in, then it must be an agreement with all the other English speaking nations.

Why do you wish to argue that the UK should act alone and be swamped instead of reasoning that all English speaking nations do the same?

*Edit*
And again, where exactly would you house 2,3,4+ million people if the only English speaking nation these folk can choose is the UK?

a reply to: grainofsand

I don't wish that, nor do I think it shouldn't or couldn't be a shared venture...

There is a third option that I'm just sharing my opinion on current status.
Nothing more or less...

But I'd prefer we all chipped in.

a reply to: grainofsand

I don't think we take advantage of the wide open spaces our country has, even for homegrown homeless people.

There is plenty of space, London doesn't have to be the be all and end all of housing projects.


That applies to homegrown people as well, not just refugees.


Some people would rather green fields and pastures that are used for sod all except to look pretty...
And there is plenty of places like that.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree wholeheartedly. It is a fact that the majority of these folk speak English as a second language so obviously would prefer to claim asylum in an English speaking nation. If the UK acts alone and agrees to accept asylum applications from people already in safe nations then we would be absolutely swamped. That is so obvious it is almost painful.

If all other English speaking nations agreed in a tariff system then I would be happy for the UK to take it's share, but the UK acting unilaterally would be madness.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Oh behave Charlie, are you really saying you want the UK to take ALL the English speaking asylum seekers?!
Do you not realise how ridiculous that sounds? How many millions? 1, 2, 10 million?

...yep, just blue sky thinking based on emotion alone. I am glad such thoughts are not found in Westminster.
You'd cripple our country rather than advocate a fair scheme agreed with all the other English speaking nations, madness.

a reply to: crostkev

You're misrepresenting the facts.

Just because Muhammad is the most common name doesn't mean Muslims are taking over.

Useless arguing with anyone who believes that.


1 in 4 boy names are Muhammad means there is 75% more people than just Muslims giving birth to boys.

That's not obfuscation, it's basic Mathematics.

a reply to: grainofsand

No I didn't say that don't put words in my mouth.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: crostkev

You're misrepresenting the facts.

Just because Muhammad is the most common name doesn't mean Muslims are taking over.

Useless arguing with anyone who believes that.


1 in 4 boy names are Muhammad means there is 75% more people than just Muslims giving birth to boys.

That's not obfuscation, it's basic Mathematics.

basic Mathematics :- Muslim child reproduction rate 5.3 other 1.6
Q. how long before Muslim % will outstrip all other demographics? after all it's " basic Mathematics"

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: grainofsand

No I didn't say that don't put words in my mouth.

But you advocate that the UK should act unilaterally and say to the people of Syria and Libya that if they wish to choose their safe nation then all they need to do is make it to any safe nation and we'll take those who speak English...the majority of them.

What you say amounts to opening our doors to the majority of asylum seekers from those nations.
I say that unless the other English speaking nations agree to the same then your plan would be madness.

a reply to: grainofsand

I told you on page 1 I don't really advocate for anything.

I just have my current opinion based on the current status of the situation.

a reply to: tothetenthpower
Are you suggesting the Islamic leadership have no plan to see there religious doctrine come to fruition?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: grainofsand

I told you on page 1 I don't really advocate for anything.

I just have my current opinion based on the current status of the situation.

So just bleating without any rational or logical plan then? Okay, I'll leave you to it. Debate based solely on emotion doesn't really interest me.

originally posted by: crostkev
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Are you suggesting the Islamic leadership have no plan to see there religious doctrine come to fruition?

The majority of practicing Muslims are moderate and wish to see their doctrine fulfilled about as much as moderate Christians would like to see the end times come about.

It's a moot point. I'm not going to attribute the whims of religious extremists to an entire group of people.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower
I don't see the moderate standing up for secular ideology in county's all ready with religious leadership they all believe in the Koran and the second half of it calls for just what I'm saying.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: yuppa

Yes there ar epoor ones with them but a majority of them are not poor they were just to scared to stand up for themselves

Nice way to deny your own rhetoric, comrade.

use the entire quote or dont quote me. its dishonest and you know it.

originally posted by: crostkev
a reply to: tothetenthpower
I don't see the moderate standing up for secular ideology in county's all ready with religious leadership they all believe in the Koran and the second half of it calls for just what I'm saying.

And where is your proof of this?

They are there, they are speaking but the media isn't interesting in interviewing those people.

If Muslims all want to take over and have sharia law, then riddle me this.

Indonesia is a country with 255 MILLION people. 87% of them are Muslim.

Why is it that they don't have sharia law? Or all these TERRIBLE things that apparently only Muslims bring to countries they live in?

Sure they have their issues, it's no paradise, but they should be the poster child of sharia law and Muslims gone wild.

But they aren't...cause the MAJORITY of Muslims are moderate and would never stand for it.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: yuppa

NOPE no reason at all. They should had kept their countries in check to begin with and they paid the price when they didnt.

Are you really kidding me?

Keep their countrie's in check? WE ARE THE ONES THAT DESTROYED THEM.

For our own interests. Entirely.

And you blame them!?

A set up?!

HAHA. You really think that ALL those people are some how in cahoots with each other, for some nefarious plan put in place by....who?

Really!?

That's amazing.

~Tenth

You missed the reason Why i said they are responsible. Their governments were th eproblem. they could had changed their own governments before they were attacked. SO yes it IS their fault their country got hit. Because they didnt have the personal responsibility to fix it. Youre still being played and are doing exactly what they want you to do.