Really?

 

Yes, maybe they let her back on, presumably Facebook appreciates the traffic

In fact it seems she was banned for 24 hrs

 

Presumably you would have signed a similar one in the 50's 60's and 70's

 

Face**** say no more .......

 

Quite possibly, I don't know - it would've depended on the situation at the time, and obviously I wasn't around during those periods, so I can't say for sure.

I'm assuming your opinion is different to mine here, and I respect that - I think it's great that we live in a democracy and are free to express our own views.

 

EFA ....

 

Ah, I see! In addition, LOL @ that, because it seems like a ridiculous action by Facebook. What was the point, eh!

 

 

https://onetoday.google.com/page/refugeerelief?c=GB


fill yer boots petem

 

When will that thing just die.....

 

I think that by and large the "situation" is the same and by and large the same arguments are used against any form of immigration, then as they are now.

Cultural change
Take our jobs (and women)
Can't afford it
Increased crime

ultimately it rests on whether you see a culture/nation (whatever) enhanced by immigration or not

whether, on balance the immigration the UK has received in the last 50 (or even 150) years has been good or bad

(based on the inevitable assumption that there will always be good and bad)

if ones view is that it has been a disaster - what is the comparative evidence regarding the rest of the world

do "closed cultures" fair better culturally / economically than more open ones

that is why I was interested in Hitchin's point earlier on in this thread

 

As soon as they started fighting police that did it for me, send em packing home. If they want to fight, go fight to keep their own country.

 

I don't.
What the country needed in the years after WW2 was mainly young low-skilled workers to replace those that had died. Rebuilding was the focus and the country needed grunts.

There is only a shortage of younger workers now when you relate them to the number of old folks hanging about due to advances in medicine and technology that makes life easier. The real problem is there are too many old people not contributing.
As far as workers go, what we need are skilled workers now (whether they be immigrants or otherwise). What we absolutely don't need are grunts, there are plenty here already.

 

UK needs more multiculture imo, I find this funny

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/probe-...food-1-7465231

 

yes it is the reason I put situation in ""

of course there are differences

the point I am making is that the "anti" arguments are always the same

take the opposition to the minimum wage in the 90's

hit growth
too expensive - blah blah blah

now it is pretty much universally seen as a positive step (accept for the neo liberal economic free market loony fringes)

but any increase in the minimum wage

same old same old arguments that were proved basically groundless before

 

These people aren't being imported to boost or otherwise our economy, they are refugees

 

So how would you go about ensuring our intake is predominantly skilled?

I am of the impression that the majority of those migrating en masse to Europe now are not skilled. Therefore I don't want them.

 

What if they're refugees?

 

well I heard a report on the radio that a lot of them are both educated and skilled

doctors, architects, builders, plumbers - taxi drivers :-) etc etc

I suspect in 50 years we will be complaining

"why is it thet Germany got all the really skilled refugees"

 

That should bring Alcazar out. 'the media are making it all up' etc

 

Massive grey area, with some people far more predisposed (for whatever their reasons) to accept a claimant is genuine than others.
In this case it should be guilty until proven innocent as far as I am concerned. Although as a pragmatic, I'd take a lot less convincing if the individual had some skills we need (a structural engineer for example).
Praise be the meritocracy.

 

So you are saying we should take a random cross-section based on the assumption that they will be as equally unskilled as skilled?

 

It is nearly always 'guilty' until proven otherwise , believe me

Look at the backlog

 

Given the apparent complete absence by the powers that be of any accounting or reporting of who these migrants actually are, I don't find it at all unusual that people might voice this type of concern. Quite honestly, I'd find it very surprising if they didn't.

 

I don't believe you've answered the question, Mr Maguire. I'll put it a slightly different way: if they're genuine refugees, what do you think and feel about the UK offering shelter?

 

Are you confusing the 'powers that be' with the media?

What exactly do you mean by 'who they are'?

Are you expecting a pen-pic of every single migrant presented on the 6 o'clock news?

 

OK, we move forward and have separated the chancers from those in real danger. I would accept an appropriate number on the basis of temporary protection until such time as they can be returned to their country of origin. I don't believe any country should have to accept any permanently unless they choose to do so.
The problem as I see it is that you will have enormous difficulty proving your refugees are genuine (because so many aren't) and whatever the outcome, only those migrants with skills are without burden.

The whole situation is a clusterf@ck however you look at it, but one thing is for sure - you make it anything other than difficult and there'll be a lot more coming.

 

I think 'difficult' is already covered

 

No, I'm not confusing anything. The media are filling in the blanks with anything and everything they feel like precisely because there's no clear information (if any at all) being put out by the actual authorities.

I'm talking about demographic breakdown by age, sex, occupation, etc.

I'd certainly expect pictures to be taken along with fingerprints during the registration process at entry into the EU, but no, I have zero interest in personally seeing either.

 

Germany?