• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

This is a fine sentiment but how can you judge that until you process their claim?

I don't know the answers but the seems to me that cooperating with France is the only way to address this. The current policy of being as cruel as possible to deter anyone from coming is not humane.

They claim through the un. Who will then help them resettle in a 3rd country. Which the uk will take a share, usually children with family in the uk.
 
Making the UN some sort of clearing house for refugees would cause so many potential conflicts. I can't see how this is remotely a workable idea. Even your own suggestion to only limit refugees to those with relatives in the UK must be a breach of the UN Refugees Convention. Cherry-picking who you take based on some fairly arbitrary critieria is not how it works and is immoral. And if the UK took its fair share it would get far more than is coming now, I would think.
 
Last edited:
Making the UN some sort of clearing house for refugees would cause so many potential conflicts. I can't see how this is remotely a workable idea. Even your own suggestion to only limit refugees to those with relatives in the UK must be a breach of the UN Refugees Convention. Cherry-picking who you take based on some fairly arbitrary critieria is not how it works and is immoral. And if the UK took its fair share you'd be getting far more than is coming now, I would think.

Why do you think it was set up? It's been doing so for over 70 years.

I didn't say we limited to just children with family in the uk. I said we would prioritise them. If you had 2 afghan children. 1 with family in the uk and another with family in canada. We take the one with family in canada and canada took the one with family in the uk. Far better for the children to be reunited with their family if possible.
 
This is a fine sentiment but how can you judge that until you process their claim?

I don't know the answers but the seems to me that cooperating with France is the only way to address this. The current policy of being as cruel as possible to deter anyone from coming is not humane.

Because if they've travelled 1500 miles and paid smugglers, they are not the most needy. Those are starving in camps on the borders of Somalia and Yemen.

I think the UN need to run a global scheme from their camps, and we take a quota appropriate to our national wealth and population density.
 
Why do you think it was set up? It's been doing so for over 70 years.

I didn't say we limited to just children with family in the uk. I said we would prioritise them. If you had 2 afghan children. 1 with family in the uk and another with family in canada. We take the one with family in canada and canada took the one with family in the uk. Far better for the children to be reunited with their family if possible.
The UN does not decide where refugees go or where they claim asylum. That is their own decision.
 
The UN does not decide where refugees go or where they claim asylum. That is their decision.

Would be better if they did. Co-operate internationally on an algorithm to determine capacity of every participating country, crossed with factors such as languages of the claimants.

But the trade off of joining the UN scheme is that's the only route - all other claims are automatically dismissed.
 
Because if they've travelled 1500 miles and paid smugglers, they are not the most needy. Those are starving in camps on the borders of Somalia and Yemen.

I think the UN need to run a global scheme from their camps, and we take a quota appropriate to our national wealth and population density.
And how do you know they've travelled 1500 miles and paid smugglers unless you have talked to them? And who are you to judge their need.

That the UN sorts out the worldwide refugee problems is a utopian fantasy. It is not reality. This is going off on a silly tangent.
 
And how do you know they've travelled 1500 miles and paid smugglers unless you have talked to them? And who are you to judge their need.

That the UN sorts out the worldwide refugee problems is a utopian fantasy. It is not reality. This is going off on a silly tangent.

Well if you read that bbc article a 3rd of all of the illegal immigrants arriving by boat are albanians. Which is 1600 miles away from the uk. So he's not far off.
 
And how do you know they've travelled 1500 miles and paid smugglers unless you have talked to them? And who are you to judge their need.

That the UN sorts out the worldwide refugee problems is a utopian fantasy. It is not reality. This is going off on a silly tangent.

Because there's no war zone within 1500 miles of Dover.

And why not think big if you want to improve the world? Never try and mend a broken system - create a better system instead.
 
Well if you read that bbc article a 3rd of all of the illegal immigrants arriving by boat are albanians. Which is 1600 miles away from the uk. So he's not far off.

I was thinking Ukraine. After that Yemen and Somalia are twice as far.

Albania isn't at war. It's just a poorer country with an open border to the EU.
 
Because there's no war zone within 1500 miles of Dover.

And why not think big if you want to improve the world? Never try and mend a broken system - create a better system instead.
See this is my point. The UK will come up with a list of who they want and who they don't. So will the next country and so on. It is an unworkable fantasy system.
 
See this is my point. The UK will come up with a list of who they want and who they don't. So will the next country and so on. It is an unworkable fantasy system.
So what's your alternative?.... That the UK just takes everyone who happens to be able to get here by hook or by crook?
 
See this is my point. The UK will come up with a list of who they want and who they don't. So will the next country and so on. It is an unworkable fantasy system.

I'd see it more we take a quota - say 3-4% of those globally approved by the UN for resettlement. And those we receive are slightly weighted to those who already speak English (as opposed to those more from French or Spanish orientated parts of the world). But nothing more specific than that (other than standard security checks).
 
So what's your alternative?.... That the UK just takes everyone who happens to be able to get here by hook or by crook?
If you are asking if I can devise a worldwide system that is equitable for all refugees then I have no answer for you. If you mean the UK I've already made my suggestions above.
 
One final point, before I bug out. The fact that we are talking about this and not the actual issues the UK is facing means the rags have done their job effectively.

Can always change the topic. World wide recession, housing crisis, energy crisis, strictly... whatever you want. Ukraine and climate change have their own threads.
 
Can always change the topic. World wide recession, housing crisis, energy crisis, strictly... whatever you want. Ukraine and climate change have their own threads.
I think the single most important thing in the UK is the rate change and ramifications of that. I'll talk brick on anything though as I'm in here dodging work.
 
Back