The Migrant Crisis Troll-Free Thread.

[leicsmac]

There is nothing childish in describing the sort of things I've witnessed on YouTube this last few days as "evil". Indeed, if I could have found a stronger word I'd have used it.

Black or white doesn't come into it in any sense. Evil is evil and needs no excusing by anyone.

 

How can black or white not come into it when you're using such absolutist, one-or-other terms?

 

Like I said, you're confusing people doing evil acts with being inherently so, I think.

 

Sorry but that is nonsense.

 

The sympathisers of groups like IS who believe it is their right to behead children, enslave people, rape women and throw gays off buildings are evil and we shouldn't insult people for saying so.

 

They're sociopathic, deluded people carrying out evil acts, who think it is their right to treat other people as things.

 

What they are not is inherently evil, because there is no such thing. They were twisted into this way by others, back in a sequence that stretches back centuries.

 

My issue was with Thrac suggesting that some of such people were inherently evil, which I stand by saying is childish and simplistic. Of course if the point is clarified and he didn't actually mean that, then I will of course reconcile.

[Thracian]

How can black or white not come into it when you're using such absolutist, one-or-other terms?

 

Like I said, you're confusing people doing evil acts with being inherently so, I think.

 

 

They're sociopathic, deluded people carrying out evil acts, who think it is their right to treat other people as things.

 

What they are not is inherently evil, because there is no such thing. They were twisted into this way by others, back in a sequence that stretches back centuries.

 

My issue was with Thrac suggesting that some of such people were inherently evil, which I stand by saying is childish and simplistic. Of course if the point is clarified and he didn't actually mean that, then I will of course reconcile.

Clearly you're not happy with my idea about what we should do concerning refugees!

You seem to have married different ideas. Rephrase the questions by all means but I'll try to answer what you seem to be getting at.

Do I think some people are inherently evil?

Yes - they want an excuse to be evil and would always be evil whatever their nationality/upbringing/circumstances. It's in their nature and is often first seen in their cruelty to small animals.

They are found across the world - all colours and creeds. Often easily recognised but too often overlooked til they do something serious. America's got lots of them. They typically shoot kids in schools for whatever pathetic reason. Mentally unbalanced, no question, but evil just the same.

Others no. But they become evil out of fear, desperation, an inner need to make an impression, to be someone or to to fit in. They're weak and vulnerable - but no less evil than the rest because they will commit any evil for popularity or togetherness.

They know what they're doing but just don't have the bottle to walk away. They influence people, the problem gets worse and they are used mercilessly to commit even more evil.

Put the two things side by side and I wouldn't dream of risking 10 "evils" coming into this country through giving the same residential benefit to 1000 nice guys or girls, because the 10 can easily become many more as families grow and the risk is totally indefensible or even irresponsible if you adher to the kind of law applied to Morrisons (in another thread) which I think is perfectly reasonable.

There was even a teacher recently in Walsall who was found guilty of failing to tell the authorities her husband was preparing to join Isis. Yes, I can understand a wife supporting her husband whatever. Doesn't make it right though.

I'm just glad I took my youngest out of school altogether. I wonder what Morrison's would have got for that appointment! Over to the Education Authority, or are there different rules for them?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/24/trainee-teacher-from-walsall-is-found-guilty-of-terror-offence

And what about the rape gangs? It's not just Rotherham (as if that's not bad enough) but all over the country in different towns and cities. All over Europe too.

How many's enough leicsmac? Just key in "Muslim rape gangs in the UK", read up for yourself and imagine how much collective evil it all represents. Or don't you actually think that abusing vulnerable young kids is evil?

Do none of the evil ones have minds of their own that will ask them to turn away from such abhorrent behaviour and do right by their families and others they bring shame on?

As guests or invited citizens of the UK, those rapists have put two proverbial fingers into the face of our nation. So why would I chose to risk or condone more? And for what purpose?

Instead I really believe those who agreed/recommended their citizenship should be answerable for their decisions and quickly.

You accept any explanation you chose but I'll make no Wenger-style excuses for any of them or apologies for calling them evil...as you would if any kids of your own were ever involved.

PS: Impossible as it seems, the unforgivable evils mentioned here are still way short of the "evil" I mentioned earlier and which was as sad a commentary on humanity as I've ever come across even on reading the History of the Third Reich.

[leicsmac]

I disagree with your idea regarding inherent evil because it reeks of predestination, a concept which I find totally abhorrent. Free will - even if that is the freedom to choose between two horrible choices - is an absolute. There is no such thing as fate - we choose our own paths.

 

The rest of your post regarding using such a concept to generalise immigrant populations...well, you're welcome to your opinion, I disagree, we're clearly not going reach a common ground so I see no reason to discuss that further.

[Thracian]

It's probably more the case that nobody knows what to do... Given helping people in need will actually be considered a negative by some people due to an unknown 1-2% element that may well be contained within the migrants.

It would certainly be better to do something, even if it was essentially process their applications in a timely manor and send those that do not qualify for asylum back to a suitabally supplied camp closer to Syria boarder.

This would provide a suitable balance in terms of taking the immediate situation seriously enough and with compassion, whilst also sending a message that we are quite strict in our acceptance criteria.

You talk about 1-2% so flippantly - almost as if it's insignificant. It's not. Your 1-2% (even if it doesn't underestimate the risk) would represent 100-200 people in every 20,000 - an absolutely appalling proposition y you'd never accept if it related to construction workers getting killed or injured on a building site or anywhere else.

Those who mean us wrong are laughing at our naivity. Nor are they "unknown" in terms of their aims - simply unidentified - yet you would seem to advocate accepting that risk.

Strange that for someone so versed in the law. Lawyers seem to be forever attacking the risks to which people were subjected to by irresponsible employers, local authorities, manufacturers etc.

To me it's entirely irresponsible to continue allowing potentially dangerous - even life-threatening people into this country or, indeed, Europe as a whole. There is plenty of space for them - and money to look after them - in Arab countries. And that's where the responsibility lies too - among their "brothers".

[DJ Barry Hammond]

You talk about 1-2% so flippantly - almost as if it's insignificant. It's not. Your 1-2% (even if it doesn't underestimate the risk) would represent 100-200 people in every 20,000 - an absolutely appalling proposition y you'd never accept if it related to construction workers getting killed or injured on a building site or anywhere else.Those who mean us wrong are laughing at our naivity. Nor are they "unknown" in terms of their aims - simply unidentified - yet you would seem to advocate accepting that risk.Strange that for someone so versed in the law. Lawyers seem to be forever attacking the risks to which people were subjected to by irresponsible employers, local authorities, manufacturers etc.To me it's entirely irresponsible to continue allowing potentially dangerous - even life-threatening people into this country or, indeed, Europe as a whole. There is plenty of space for them - and money to look after them - in Arab countries. And that's where the responsibility lies too - among their "brothers".

Even if the percentage was 10-15%, you are advocating ignoring a greater percentage of those in need? Could this not have the unintended consequence of fueling the propaganda of the evil minority to increase that percentage fighting against the western way of life even further. Does that position in fact betray what the western way of life was supposed to be about in the first place?

This whole situation is essentially a battle of hearts and minds and it seems the evil side have made some traction into the minds of the supposed good. Something that was so evident after the Paris attacks a lot of those directly affected seemed to suggest they didn't see the purpose of yet more violence against others, yet the French and British governments proceeded with extending their air campaigns over Syria.

In fact the evil side scored another massive hit to our minds when the awful scenes on our TV screens of the crisis were countered by the claim that terrorist were lying within the thousands and thousands that were travelling for freedom, safety and a better life. there claims may be true, but the ultimate aim was no doubt to cause the ensuing chaos for the many innocent people that had the termerity to try and escape.

Sadly, we've fallen for this trap - with a growing right wing tendency in most countries, no government (except Germany) could be seen accepted refugees with open arms, politik had to be played careful and that's led to a concensus of inaction of the issue across the EU.

Yet, if there are terroists in the midst of these people, wouldn't it be better to get in there are sort the situation out quickly? Wouldn't we be more likely to find those intent on committing evil acts by processing applications then just simply doing nothing? Wouldn't those hell bent of evil just simply find another way than just simply sit in a refugee camp?

Until we actually do something, the level of threat can only be speculated and if the agencies involved do things properly you could find we are better protected against threats to our way of life?

[MPH]

I disagree with your idea regarding inherent evil because it reeks of predestination, a concept which I find totally abhorrent. Free will - even if that is the freedom to choose between two horrible choices - is an absolute. There is no such thing as fate - we choose our own paths.

 

The rest of your post regarding using such a concept to generalise immigrant populations...well, you're welcome to your opinion, I disagree, we're clearly not going reach a common ground so I see no reason to discuss that further.

 

 

 

So Just out of interest, are you saying " there are no absolutes"?

[Buce]

So Just out of interest, are you saying " there are no absolutes"?

Free will...........is an absolute.

[leicsmac]

So Just out of interest, are you saying " there are no absolutes"?

 

Free will, and the six dimensionless physical constants are the only black and white truly objective things in this Universe. Beyond that, everything is subjective and the only predestination is that which humans force upon each other. 

 

But that's just my opinion (and is itself purely subjective), and this is a thread regarding migrants trying to get into Europe, so I guess I should leave it there.

[MPH]

Free will, and the six dimensionless physical constants are the only black and white truly objective things in this Universe. Beyond that, everything is subjective and the only predestination is that which humans force upon each other. 

 

But that's just my opinion (and is itself purely subjective), and this is a thread regarding migrants trying to get into Europe, so I guess I should leave it there.

 

haha valid point

 

 

 

However, i like to live a little on the dangerous side so.....

 

 

 

 

 

[Thracian]

Haha - there is enough debate here to write a dozen books.

Matt makes a valid point about immigration and its consequences by saying that if he'd had his way, much of it wouldn't have happened and I'd make the same comment. Indeed so many of the consequences seemed obvious and there's no way I'd have sanctioned the actions that led to them.

That said, I've explained my current feelings on the subject and nothing else that has been suggested has convinced me to soften my stance.

In fact that stance has got firmer and I could highlight any number of links which would add to the reasons why because the British media-together with the European media is at pains not to highlight the real extent of the problems and I can only surmise that their policy is down to the sort of deceptions that Tony Blair presided over in leading us so badly, and so unforgiveably, down the wrong road.

But I was asked specifically if I believed that evil was inherent. It's a good question. Inherent means permanent and, even after questioning my wife on the subject, she being as near to an inherently good person as I can imagine, I can't be 100% sure of the answer,

But, yes, I do tend to believe people are inherently good, evil or somewhere in between.

I also believe they can instinctively, accidently or stratetgically draw people towards them who act as antidotes to their evil - in a conscious or unconscious effort to minimalise their flaw, especially later in life when their power and energy starts to wane.

As I've touched on, evil can and often does manifest itself at a young age. Either in an individual's cruelty t animals or to their sister or someone else close to them like a friend. It's not necessarily anything to do with surroundings or upbringing. Dogs sense it far better than humans.

The evil ones learn from the cause and effect of their physical and/or mental unkindness and the ways in which, through cunning, they can avoid being discovered and punished until they are so evil they might actually want to be acknowledged as such.

They often go through stages - like serial criminals - forever testing the ground and the impact of their evil on their own emotions and by way of the reaction it creates.

Their evil often gets more dramatic, more attention seeking and has broader consequences, through from the torturing of animals to the mass murder of schoolkids.

My wife sees a natural but not universal difference between female and male, believing that women essentially give life and usually have an instinct to preserve it and not destroy it.

Men she considers as defenders who can easily become aggressors and can later come to revel in the excuse to instil fear in those they gain power over to the point where they are so corrupted it is like a drug to them.

But the instinct is within them from the start...how often has a mass murderer's evil tendencies first manifested themselves as a child or a schoolboy?

As I say, it's a massive subject and one I could elaborate on ad infinitum. But evil can almost always be seen and felt. Just as goodness can.

Sadly some people chose not to look or don't wish to acknowledge what they see when they do.

[MC Prussian]

Even if the percentage was 10-15%, you are advocating ignoring a greater percentage of those in need? Could this not have the unintended consequence of fueling the propaganda of the evil minority to increase that percentage fighting against the western way of life even further. Does that position in fact betray what the western way of life was supposed to be about in the first place?

This whole situation is essentially a battle of hearts and minds and it seems the evil side have made some traction into the minds of the supposed good. Something that was so evident after the Paris attacks a lot of those directly affected seemed to suggest they didn't see the purpose of yet more violence against others, yet the French and British governments proceeded with extending their air campaigns over Syria.

In fact the evil side scored another massive hit to our minds when the awful scenes on our TV screens of the crisis were countered by the claim that terrorist were lying within the thousands and thousands that were travelling for freedom, safety and a better life. there claims may be true, but the ultimate aim was no doubt to cause the ensuing chaos for the many innocent people that had the termerity to try and escape.

Sadly, we've fallen for this trap - with a growing right wing tendency in most countries, no government (except Germany) could be seen accepted refugees with open arms, politik had to be played careful and that's led to a concensus of inaction of the issue across the EU.

Yet, if there are terroists in the midst of these people, wouldn't it be better to get in there are sort the situation out quickly? Wouldn't we be more likely to find those intent on committing evil acts by processing applications then just simply doing nothing? Wouldn't those hell bent of evil just simply find another way than just simply sit in a refugee camp?

Until we actually do something, the level of threat can only be speculated and if the agencies involved do things properly you could find we are better protected against threats to our way of life?

 

Well, I have to disagree there. The realpolitik by Merkel has gained a lot of critics in Germany over the past few months, as right-wing and anti-immigration prostest groups and parties, such as the AfD and Pegida are becoming a real threat to the democratic discussion with their racist tendencies. The East of Germany is particularly affected in terms of hate of foreigners - not at least because unemployment rates there tend to be higher, adding to the fuel.

http://europe.newsweek.com/issue-immigration-determine-germany-turns-merkel-416365?rm=eu

 

Make no mistake, the immigration/refugee situation is an issue for all European countries, as they were either il-prepared to handle that amount of asylum seekers or travelers or terribly underestimated the scale of the mass migration.

 

The control mechanisms are only now beginning to take effect - until then, the EU has probably let in more than just a handful of terrorists masked as refugees.

[Thracian]

Well, I have to disagree there. The realpolitik by Merkel has gained a lot of critics in Germany over the past few months, as right-wing and anti-immigration prostest groups and parties, such as the AfD and Pegida are becoming a real threat to the democratic discussion with their racist tendencies. The East of Germany is particularly affected in terms of hate of foreigners - not at least because unemployment rates there tend to be higher, adding to the fuel.

http://europe.newsweek.com/issue-immigration-determine-germany-turns-merkel-416365?rm=eu

 

Make no mistake, the immigration/refugee situation is an issue for all European countries, as they were either il-prepared to handle that amount of asylum seekers or travelers or terribly underestimated the scale of the mass migration.

 

The control mechanisms are only now beginning to take effect - until then, the EU has probably let in more than just a handful of terrorists masked as refugees.

It is not actually about a "hatred of foreigners" at all but a determination by some not to be overwhelmed by religious zealots, due to the self-seeking pretend do-gooding of social engineers or people with their own interests and agenda at heart.

We've had similar here before and throughout much of Europe with the Inquisition and that was another manifestation of evil through a desire to control mercilessly through fear.

I have no doubts whatsoever where the real answer lies but getting our leaders and vociferous "interested parties to accept it, is quite another matter.

[MC Prussian]

It is not actually about a "hatred of foreigners" at all but a determination by some not to be overwhelmed by religious zealots, due to the self-seeking pretend do-gooding of social engineers or people with their own interests and agenda at heart.

We've had similar here before and throughout much of Europe with the Inquisition and that was another manifestation of evil through a desire to control mercilessly through fear.

I have no doubts whatsoever where the real answer lies but getting our leaders and vociferous "interested parties to accept it, is quite another matter.

First of all Thrac, I live closer to Germany and claim to know a bit more about the situation in the Eastern part of the country or the gang rape attempts during the New Year's celebration in Cologne, for instance.

I've seen countless reports, read various newspaper articles in addition to that and the conflict is both down to letting too many foreigners in at once as well as people living in rather abandoned and derelict regions of Germany with a low level of education and evident dislike for everything non-German.

It is thus no wonder that right-wing politicians and Neo-Nazis are most active over there, creating a dangerous mix of prejudice, hate, fear and homophobia.

 

And don't conjure this Inquisition claptrap. Sometimes, you do make me wonder where you manage to draw your comparisons from. 

The Inquisition was an instrument of fear installed by the (Catholic) Church, trying to maintain order and respect towards the institution within its own boundaries or congregation.

Nothing like the situation we're facing today.

 

Your last sentence makes no sense at all.

[Thracian]

First of all Thrac, I live closer to Germany and claim to know a bit more about the situation in the Eastern part of the country or the gang rape attempts during the New Year's celebration in Cologne, for instance.

I've seen countless reports, read various newspaper articles in addition to that and the conflict is both down to letting too many foreigners in at once as well as people living in rather abandoned and derelict regions of Germany with a low level of education and evident dislike for everything non-German.

It is thus no wonder that right-wing politicians and Neo-Nazis are most active over there, creating a dangerous mix of prejudice, hate, fear and homophobia.

 

And don't conjure this Inquisition claptrap. Sometimes, you do make me wonder where you manage to draw your comparisons from. 

The Inquisition was an instrument of fear installed by the (Catholic) Church, trying to maintain order and respect towards the institution within its own boundaries or congregation.

Nothing like the situation we're facing today.

 

Your last sentence makes no sense at all.

a) I'd let the people you call ignorant because they, presumably disagree with your outlook, speak for themselves. I worked in Switzerland, Scandinavia, France, Italy and spent time in Germany on many occasions and don't recall any pronounced "hatred of foreigners" any more than I do here.

What I do think is that once far more open attitudes towards incomers are now changing but not out of hatred per se but out of concern for the effect the numbers are having on their country/communities - and so they should be concerned, in fact far more concerned than some seem to appreciate.

There's a reason the authorities downplay the many horrors that could and should be reported more widely and it's because they are afraid to admit that the lunacy of social engineering is causing untold damage and miseryb) My reference to the Inquisition was in relation to people being overwhelmed by religious zealots - whether local, national or international had nothing to do with it. It was terrifying for those at the receiving end and totally indefensible as all religious zealotry is, or would you disagree?

c) If you're not aware on how many people chose not to look or not to acknowledge before their own eyes you should study people more carefully. It is a massive reason for broken relationships for a start and countless other things. A man might be obviously an alcoholic or obviously violent but people close their eyes so firmly they ever marry such people in ignorance. And yet the signs are almost always there to be seen or recognised. It's the same with thieves or control freaks. Yet people chose to ignore the signs to their own all but inevitable cost in the end.

[MC Prussian]

Thrac, when we're talking about a contemporary issue, your memories of working abroad decades ago don't come into play, they're pretty much void. Besides, we were talking about a specific issue in a specific country - it seems to me you're not even reading other posts thoroughly, but simply apply the same copy and paste that I've seen in other threads.

 

The world has changed a lot since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the situation in Eastern Germany has gone a bit bonkers in terms of racism and unemployment ever since.

 

The Inquisition has nothing to do with mass migration, it was a vicious religious tool by tools who feared the loss of influence and had a particular dislike for the human being around them.

I still don't see where you're coming from here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who fails to see the connection.

 

Again, I have no clue what you mean with your last paragraph and what relevance it has to the topic per se.

[Thracian]

Thrac, when we're talking about a contemporary issue, your memories of working abroad decades ago don't come into play, they're pretty much void. Besides, we were talking about a specific issue in a specific country - it seems to me you're not even reading other posts thoroughly, but simply apply the same copy and paste that I've seen in other threads.

 

The world has changed a lot since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the situation in Eastern Germany has gone a bit bonkers in terms of racism and unemployment ever since.

 

The Inquisition has nothing to do with mass migration, it was a vicious religious tool by tools who feared the loss of influence and had a particular dislike for the human being around them.

I still don't see where you're coming from here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who fails to see the connection.

 

Again, I have no clue what you mean with your last paragraph and what relevance it has to the topic per se.

You're just the same with Inler. You pound away and just don't credit anything but your own outlook. It's appropriate that Rincey seems such a pal because he's just the same.

The "world" hasn't so much changed (as in having naturally evolved) but has instead been pounded to various levels of destruction or vulnerability on a tide of flawed ideology.

But no explaining of mine - or anyone else - will make the slightest impression on either of you. Or, I imagine, others like you. The consequences of Blair and beyond are already there to be seen. The consequences of further stupidity may well be even worse...or even totally out of control...as it has been for people referred to hear... http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/03/10/new-report-details-genocide-committed-by-islamic-state-against-christians/?

And, unlike you, I actually hope I'm wrong. Sadly I don't think I've been far wrong on the subject so far - not since I first called Blair a liar over his WMD ballshit and his blatant deception of the British people over that and over mass immigration.

[MC Prussian]

I'm sorry Thrac, but this discussion is going way off-topic, not at least thanks to your constant ramblings about the end of the world (see your last post above for further reference), your romanticizations, your simplifications, your black vs white, good vs. evil installations, your pointless reminiscences in various other political threads, your assumptions about me or your fake impacts of political events or figures on me or my lifestyle. Which is both pompous and presumptuous.

 

The World is much more complex than you want people (and yourself) to believe because there are so many elements involved in change. And it has changed a lot since the 1960ies, the 1970ies, the 1980ies or the 1990ies. It changes every day because it won't stop spinning. But who am I trying to distort or correct that view? You keep on lambasting Lefties and continue to claim you're "independent" or "balanced", when we all know you follow your own personal right-wing agenda.

 

Having said that, I think we ought to get back on topic.

[Thracian]

The world is complex - how remarkable to find something I can agree with you about - hence my inclination to be primarily concerned about what happens here in the UK rather than pretending I could even minutely affect the mistakes being made outside Europe or even relating to mainland Europe given the machinations that seem to roll on regardless of consequences or desirablility.

I make no assumptions about you - except to believe you won't change your thinking due to anything I say - but your comment on the subject should really be applied to yourself and your assumptiousness.

The world and its problems affecting the West don't need still more complications - or oratory smokescreens. They need solutions and my own approach would be to start right here and work outwards rather than expecting to deal with issues which are primarily other people's responsibilities.

As one who gives about a fifth of my spendable income to those in need - and has done for about five years now - I find it quite insulting that you'd see me as "right wing". There are things I broadly support in both Left and Right spheres of thinking and things I'm opposed to. Hence my oft-voiced dislike of party politics.

But, because I might offer help to the needy doesn't mean I sympathise with their attitudes in dealing with their predicament or reasons for being in such a position. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't and I feel 100% frustrated at their seemingly constant failure to work at improving their lot.

Sometimes though the only practical answer to a problem (local or international) is a perceived "imperfect" from the start but I wouldn't let any theoretical ideology stop me believing the best option was worth taking ifit served a positive purpose and the others did not.

In considering your opinions it greatly concerns me that you seem to have so little understanding of my outlook that it makes me doubt you'd likely be right on something else. And being so closely closeted with Rincey's views (given his level of support for your input) only makes me more wary.

But hope springs eternal. Maybe we will share a view on something important in times to come. Right now you've probably done as much to strengthen my desire to be out of the EU than any of the politicians.

[Thracian]

By the way "MC" what was it you implied about the relative insignificance of the threat mingling with refugees...?

Well, here's at least some indication of the threat levels - not 1% or 2% of the notional 20,000 mentioned but some 22,000 of the total and that's not counting anyone still under the radar assuming the info referred to is accurate and genuine, any friends/family who might chose to support their cause in any way or anyone being radicalised as we speak, not just here but anywhere else.

And you have the gall to such I'm over-dramatising.

If I'd wanted to dramatise I'd publish the link to the video I mentioned and a whole lot of other things not referred to over here in anything I've read or listened to.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/germany-obtains-list-of-22000-foreigners-suspected-of-fighting-for-is/article29131523/

[MC Prussian]

The world is complex - how remarkable to find something I can agree with you about - hence my inclination to be primarily concerned about what happens here in the UK rather than pretending I could even minutely affect the mistakes being made outside Europe or even relating to mainland Europe given the machinations that seem to roll on regardless of consequences or desirablility.

I make no assumptions about you - except to believe you won't change your thinking due to anything I say - but your comment on the subject should really be applied to yourself and your assumptiousness.

The world and its problems affecting the West don't need still more complications - or oratory smokescreens. They need solutions and my own approach would be to start right here and work outwards rather than expecting to deal with issues which are primarily other people's responsibilities.

As one who gives about a fifth of my spendable income to those in need - and has done for about five years now - I find it quite insulting that you'd see me as "right wing". There are things I broadly support in both Left and Right spheres of thinking and things I'm opposed to. Hence my oft-voiced dislike of party politics.

But, because I might offer help to the needy doesn't mean I sympathise with their attitudes in dealing with their predicament or reasons for being in such a position. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't and I feel 100% frustrated at their seemingly constant failure to work at improving their lot.

Sometimes though the only practical answer to a problem (local or international) is a perceived "imperfect" from the start but I wouldn't let any theoretical ideology stop me believing the best option was worth taking ifit served a positive purpose and the others did not.

In considering your opinions it greatly concerns me that you seem to have so little understanding of my outlook that it makes me doubt you'd likely be right on something else. And being so closely closeted with Rincey's views (given his level of support for your input) only makes me more wary.

But hope springs eternal. Maybe we will share a view on something important in times to come. Right now you've probably done as much to strengthen my desire to be out of the EU than any of the politicians.

 

Thrac, this is exactly what I've been talking about. Your rambling on and on and on in a worthwhile thread about mass migration, its beginnings and its problems and construct a smokescreen of your own by simply polluting this thread with a massive output in writing that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

 

You have an excellent way of sweet-talking political situation without adding anything of value. First, you claim to know people abroad better because of your working experience decades ago (which is laughable but somewhat sweet and romantic, if not naïve, I might add) and now you back up by stating you don't care about mass migration issues in Germany (for instance) and would rather focus on the UK. You're such a tease.

 

We're getting nowhere with an attitude like that. How are you helping the migrants personally? Are you helping them at all? Would you welcome them at your home? Would you provide food and shelter if need be? Would you teach them your language? Would you look after them? Who are "those in need" you're referring to? The homeless? The poor? The British?

 

No one can know how much you earn in order to make a fair comparison or assessment of your situation unless you make it public. If it is a pension than a fifth of what spendable income there actually is (talking fluffy is fun, isn't it?), it isn't doing much of a difference at all. And how do you make sure it actually gets to the people in need? Again, who are these "people in need" really? Pensioners? Veterans? Home-grown migrants?

 

Get. To. The. Point.

 

And please spare me or others your desperate attempts at prose.

In considering your opinions it greatly concerns me that you seem to have so little understanding of my outlook

You make it sound so nice - lots of wrapping, but no content!

Then what is your outlook on mass migration? Cut down on the fancy words and finally show who you really are. Take a stance or take a seat, please.

[Guest MattP]

I can't be bothered to write a long post but I have to say I'm astounded at how some people can shrug off so easily that we might be importing people who want to do us harm just because "we're helping more" or it's "only a small percentage" - even if it's 1% (conservative estimate by most charities) that would mean Germany would be taking in around 15,000 Jihadi's. We must have lost control of our minds to be so liberal about it, you can tell we've had 70 years of peace to be so complacent about national security.

 

Look at the carnage just a handful have brought to Paris on two occasions.

[Buce]

I can't be bothered to write a long post but I have to say I'm astounded at how some people can shrug off so easily that we might be importing people who want to do us harm just because "we're helping more" or it's "only a small percentage" - even if it's 1% (conservative estimate by most charities) that would mean Germany would be taking in around 15,000 Jihadi's. We must have lost control of our minds to be so liberal about it, you can tell we've had 70 years of peace to be so complacent about national security.

Look at the carnage just a handful have brought to Paris on two occasions.

Were they not 'home grown' terrorists?

[Thracian]

Thrac, this is exactly what I've been talking about. Your rambling on and on and on in a worthwhile thread about mass migration, its beginnings and its problems and construct a smokescreen of your own by simply polluting this thread with a massive output in writing that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

 

You have an excellent way of sweet-talking political situation without adding anything of value. First, you claim to know people abroad better because of your working experience decades ago (which is laughable but somewhat sweet and romantic, if not naïve, I might add) and now you back up by stating you don't care about mass migration issues in Germany (for instance) and would rather focus on the UK. You're such a tease.

 

We're getting nowhere with an attitude like that. How are you helping the migrants personally? Are you helping them at all? Would you welcome them at your home? Would you provide food and shelter if need be? Would you teach them your language? Would you look after them? Who are "those in need" you're referring to? The homeless? The poor? The British?

 

No one can know how much you earn in order to make a fair comparison or assessment of your situation unless you make it public. If it is a pension than a fifth of what spendable income there actually is (talking fluffy is fun, isn't it?), it isn't doing much of a difference at all. And how do you make sure it actually gets to the people in need? Again, who are these "people in need" really? Pensioners? Veterans? Home-grown migrants?

 

Get. To. The. Point.

 

And please spare me or others your desperate attempts at prose.

You make it sound so nice - lots of wrapping, but no content!

Then what is your outlook on mass migration? Cut down on the fancy words and finally show who you really are. Take a stance or take a seat, please.

You really are extraordinary when it comes to ignoring what you don't chose to acknowledge. That and other factors makes me suspect you're a Muslim. Or am I mistaken?

And how ironic that you accuse me of writing too much, put words in my sentences that aren't there or implied,then ask me to repeat myself!

Virtually all your questions have already been answered in one thread or another - and in detail up to the point where individual identities are protected...including what I would do about migrants.

But, to offer specifics to your enquiries (which actually have nothing to do with migrants).

Yes, I have helped several individual Muslims and their families (plus destitute Brits and a Nigerian family) - in various ways - over a period of about five years. Cost? More than enough!

I've also helped Muslim and Chinese students learn English (over a considerable period) provided access to study facilities for a foreign student, support for a destitute family living in a garage in Sousse, Tunisia and funded a reportedly life-saving operation for a Tunisian mother plus other medical expenses for people overseas (and a few etceteras).

Almost all the people where there's direct contact (Tunisian, Chinese, Kashmiri and Jordanian) know they are welcome to stay with me or my family at any time. It would be a joy to see them. Others I've never met or spoken with. Food and shelter is a given should they want it. Two have visited on various occasions so I hope that's sufficiently unambiguous.

It doesn't mean I wouldn't be extremely firm and cautious about all immigration, particularly from places whose citizens might not identify with our country and its wellbeing. For those who would fit my criteria, they'd be welcome if our services and infrastructure could cope and/or I was convinced they'd be an asset.

My help's been specific. I don't contribute anything to appeals or suchlike. However I'd fully support any UK levy for helping provide food/shelter/medical assistance etc for displaced people in Arabic countries willing to provide resettlement facilities.

You insult me regarding my continental connections.

My youngest son will likely marry his long-time Polish girlfriend and speaks her language perfectly adequately. I've long looked on her as my daughter and all my close family is to and fro from the continent on a regular basis, one grandson being currently at university in Madrid with his father there visiting him as we speak.

So I'm hardly detached from that world just because I no longer find foreign travel particularly appealing.

However, while willing for us to be considered an ally of Europe (as it stands) and a largely co-operative but independent trading partner, I am firmly against the EU and have no wish for our nation to be federalised under any umbrella.

[Guest MattP]

Were they not 'home grown' terrorists?

 

All but one I think. the point still stands though, we seem to be growing enough of our own Islamists without deciding to export thousands more from the Middle East.

[Thracian]

Were they not 'home grown' terrorists?

But not many times removed where their families are concerned, any more than the rape gangs be they "French", "Scandinavian" or "British" just because of passports!

And if the people mentioned were radicalised in France, that only points to the cataclysmic error of their policies, the EU's, and ours by the same argument and by association.