The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ok, I’ll keep my tone neutral for this topic and just ask a question:
Anyone see the refugees making a gang-bust entrance to the Channel Tunnel on the news? 150 charging down the tunnel and towards England.
Quote from the MP for Dover “The French are treating them deliberately badly and positioning the camp so near as to all but send them over themselves”
My question, as raised by the MP is this:
Why, if you flee your homeland from oppression and brutality, do you then travel 400-500 miles across Europe to England, when surely as soon as you have left your country, you are safe?
The MP called it “Asylum shopping, not asylum seeking. They are already in a free and sympathetic country, why then push on to England?”
Why not stay in France, where you are not being a victim of whatever drove you from your home?
Why cross hundreds of miles of free, democratic countries to get to England.
If life is so harsh, surely anywhere is better than where you left?
I don’t get it.
Anyone see the refugees making a gang-bust entrance to the Channel Tunnel on the news? 150 charging down the tunnel and towards England.
Quote from the MP for Dover “The French are treating them deliberately badly and positioning the camp so near as to all but send them over themselves”
My question, as raised by the MP is this:
Why, if you flee your homeland from oppression and brutality, do you then travel 400-500 miles across Europe to England, when surely as soon as you have left your country, you are safe?
The MP called it “Asylum shopping, not asylum seeking. They are already in a free and sympathetic country, why then push on to England?”
Why not stay in France, where you are not being a victim of whatever drove you from your home?
Why cross hundreds of miles of free, democratic countries to get to England.
If life is so harsh, surely anywhere is better than where you left?
I don’t get it.
Page:
My point was for the genuine asylum seekers, why continue on through 100s of miles of perfectly decent, democratic societies that can look after them?
I'd be happy to be away from the fear that caused me to leave in the 1st place.
I dont doubt that some are genuine, but others are chancers.
Same with that plane from Afghanistan that got hijacked and diverted to Stansted.
The people on there demanded asylum, despite the fact that plane (if it had kept to it's scheduled destination) would never have come anywhere near the UK if it wasn't for the hijackers.
But, like you say, we have an equal number of people here that sponge and con the government, just becuase they're born here doesn't give them anymore right than someone that has run down the chunnel
I'd be happy to be away from the fear that caused me to leave in the 1st place.
I dont doubt that some are genuine, but others are chancers.
Same with that plane from Afghanistan that got hijacked and diverted to Stansted.
The people on there demanded asylum, despite the fact that plane (if it had kept to it's scheduled destination) would never have come anywhere near the UK if it wasn't for the hijackers.
But, like you say, we have an equal number of people here that sponge and con the government, just becuase they're born here doesn't give them anymore right than someone that has run down the chunnel
That's true Wookiee, but I don't expect Australia to fight fire with fire in that type of situation. Maybe I was a bit rash with that statement, but if they had of started to die it would have been a different kettle of fish, and their strong stance against immigrants international statement, which is effectively what that was all about would have backfired badly.
Your second point is why I think the EU/whoever should take more responsibility for it's member states, ensuring that these people have somewhere to go. I agree they shouldn't be able to demand entry to any country they choose, but until the situation changes what choice does the genuine asylum seeker/refugee have, to stay and die?
Your second point is why I think the EU/whoever should take more responsibility for it's member states, ensuring that these people have somewhere to go. I agree they shouldn't be able to demand entry to any country they choose, but until the situation changes what choice does the genuine asylum seeker/refugee have, to stay and die?
Hooplah wrote:
> The Aussie response
> to the ship full of refugees was a little extreme, having a strong
> immigration policy doesn't have to mean borderline human right's
> transgression
Personally, though, I don't see anything that Australia has done as a human rights transgression.
The refugees may have the right to a safer/better life, but they don't have an automatic right to enter any country they choose.
These people were on a boat which sank; the captain of the Tampa did them a favour by picking them up - and I grant you that that *was* the right thing to do. They should then have been taken by rights to the *nearest safe port*.
Instead, they effectively hijacked the ship - threatening to jump overboard unless they were taken to Australia. That is the point, in my opinion, where they surrendered any rights they may have had.
> The Aussie response
> to the ship full of refugees was a little extreme, having a strong
> immigration policy doesn't have to mean borderline human right's
> transgression
Personally, though, I don't see anything that Australia has done as a human rights transgression.
The refugees may have the right to a safer/better life, but they don't have an automatic right to enter any country they choose.
These people were on a boat which sank; the captain of the Tampa did them a favour by picking them up - and I grant you that that *was* the right thing to do. They should then have been taken by rights to the *nearest safe port*.
Instead, they effectively hijacked the ship - threatening to jump overboard unless they were taken to Australia. That is the point, in my opinion, where they surrendered any rights they may have had.
This is quite a tough issue to resolve though, the difficulty being how to sort out as genuine asylum seeker from people trying to get into a better country just because they feel they can.
If someone is forced to leave their country, for whatever reason it should be the international community that deals with these problems, rather than the first, second or third country they walk into. England is considered a soft touch by these people, which has been said here, and it's why they come here. T
he Aussie response to the ship full of refugees was a little extreme, having a strong immigration policy doesn't have to mean borderline human right's transgression, which is what it can come down to by leaving them to rot on a ship.
I agree that England has it's own problems, but on the general scale of things we are pretty well sorted here. It could be better, but my home town isn't under Mortar attack right now so I suppose I shouldn't complain that much about things. There are plenty of people in this country scamming the government/me out of money every day with benefit fraud and so on, and these people haven't come from a country where they maybe shot because of their beliefs.
As I stated, the EU or another international body should be taking a stronger stance on what to do with these refugees; If they have a valid reason for their flight from tyranny, then something should be done about seeing that they are given a chance to start their lives free from persecution. If they don't have one and are just trying to get somewhere better, then back they should go.
I understand why people are annoyed by this handing out of houses and money to these people, but look at it this way:
Person one: You're a refugee, you've fled from your home country because it is no longer safe for you there because of your political/religious beliefs. You come to England and are given a chance at life, I pay for you.
Person two: You are a moron. You commit crime and I pay for you. You get out and are given lodgings, I pay for you. You sign on and I pay for you, you have kids left right and centre and still I pay for you.
Which one of the two people above deserves my compassion and sympathy, as well as my money via the taxman?
The answer is both, no matter how undeserving one of the two exmaples might seem.
If someone is forced to leave their country, for whatever reason it should be the international community that deals with these problems, rather than the first, second or third country they walk into. England is considered a soft touch by these people, which has been said here, and it's why they come here. T
he Aussie response to the ship full of refugees was a little extreme, having a strong immigration policy doesn't have to mean borderline human right's transgression, which is what it can come down to by leaving them to rot on a ship.
I agree that England has it's own problems, but on the general scale of things we are pretty well sorted here. It could be better, but my home town isn't under Mortar attack right now so I suppose I shouldn't complain that much about things. There are plenty of people in this country scamming the government/me out of money every day with benefit fraud and so on, and these people haven't come from a country where they maybe shot because of their beliefs.
As I stated, the EU or another international body should be taking a stronger stance on what to do with these refugees; If they have a valid reason for their flight from tyranny, then something should be done about seeing that they are given a chance to start their lives free from persecution. If they don't have one and are just trying to get somewhere better, then back they should go.
I understand why people are annoyed by this handing out of houses and money to these people, but look at it this way:
Person one: You're a refugee, you've fled from your home country because it is no longer safe for you there because of your political/religious beliefs. You come to England and are given a chance at life, I pay for you.
Person two: You are a moron. You commit crime and I pay for you. You get out and are given lodgings, I pay for you. You sign on and I pay for you, you have kids left right and centre and still I pay for you.
Which one of the two people above deserves my compassion and sympathy, as well as my money via the taxman?
The answer is both, no matter how undeserving one of the two exmaples might seem.
Goatboy wrote:
> Does seem a bit strange they charged right through a number of free,
> democratic societies on their way to England.
It does at first, but when you consider what a soft touch we are and the free handouts we get, no it doesn't.
Free homes, free money, free everything - and usually ahead of UK citizens who have waited a long time and paid taxes etc. towards it.
My aunt was a social worker dealing with them in Northampton, until recently when she had a breakdown as a direct result of dealing with it.
It makes me sick that our governments fall over themselves to set these people up when our own get nothing.
I'm sorry if I sound like some right-wing extremist; I'm not, but this is a very sensitive subject with me. I'd never wish harm on these people, but the whole situation is just plain wrong in my opinion. The fact is, it's not the asylum seekers/immigration that causes resentment, but the way our government seem to class UK residents as 2nd-class citizens.
As I read somewhere recently, it seems the biggest crime you can commit at the moment is to be white, English working-class.
Charity begins at home - let's sort out our own people and problems before we start worrying about everyone else's.
I apologise if I've offended anyone, but that is not my intention.
> Does seem a bit strange they charged right through a number of free,
> democratic societies on their way to England.
It does at first, but when you consider what a soft touch we are and the free handouts we get, no it doesn't.
Free homes, free money, free everything - and usually ahead of UK citizens who have waited a long time and paid taxes etc. towards it.
My aunt was a social worker dealing with them in Northampton, until recently when she had a breakdown as a direct result of dealing with it.
It makes me sick that our governments fall over themselves to set these people up when our own get nothing.
I'm sorry if I sound like some right-wing extremist; I'm not, but this is a very sensitive subject with me. I'd never wish harm on these people, but the whole situation is just plain wrong in my opinion. The fact is, it's not the asylum seekers/immigration that causes resentment, but the way our government seem to class UK residents as 2nd-class citizens.
As I read somewhere recently, it seems the biggest crime you can commit at the moment is to be white, English working-class.
Charity begins at home - let's sort out our own people and problems before we start worrying about everyone else's.
I apologise if I've offended anyone, but that is not my intention.
Does seem a bit strange they charged right through a number of free, democratic societies on their way to England.
That's all I'm saying.
That's all I'm saying.
Your Honour wrote:
> I agree with you there Wookiee.
Thank you.
While I do sympathise with a lot of the refugee situations, I don't know why *we* have to keep taking them.
There are plenty of countried in Europe who could, but it's more convenient for them to just wave them through and dump them on us. We are the dumping ground of the world at the moment when it comes to this sort of thing.
And if we don't take them, we're threatened by Europe.
It's about time we regained our sense of national pride, stood up to the rest of the world and said "No!"
> I agree with you there Wookiee.
Thank you.
While I do sympathise with a lot of the refugee situations, I don't know why *we* have to keep taking them.
There are plenty of countried in Europe who could, but it's more convenient for them to just wave them through and dump them on us. We are the dumping ground of the world at the moment when it comes to this sort of thing.
And if we don't take them, we're threatened by Europe.
It's about time we regained our sense of national pride, stood up to the rest of the world and said "No!"
I agree with you there Wookiee.
Hooplah wrote:
> Other countries treat them badly, check Australia for most recent
> details.
Personally I admire the Aussies, and wish that our government had the balls and backbone to do the same.
> Other countries treat them badly, check Australia for most recent
> details.
Personally I admire the Aussies, and wish that our government had the balls and backbone to do the same.
Nah, not Switzerland, they give us pointy chocolate and little rubbish knives
Mind you, I could take their army on myself if they use those thing.
Mind you, I could take their army on myself if they use those thing.
Page: