The ST4 immigration/benefits/political ramblings thread.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yv

Yv

TPer Emerita
Suspended / Banned
Messages
25,725
Name
Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
Edit My Images
Yes
This thread is for @ST4 to post his daily links and opinions on anything related to immigration, those on benefits, political grumbling and anything else that we consider to be 'in the same spirit'

Here is the deal - he gets to post it and discuss/debate his views, the rest of you get to join in the actual discussion of the point, or you stay out. It is all in one place, it won't clutter up the rest of OOF.

if you want to post links to similar topics, suggest they also go in here.

if you want to just attack Steve, or anyone else, for posting in the first place your posts will be removed.

So dead simple, everyone should be able to grasp this concept - discuss or depart the thread.

Off you go, gerronwivit.
 
This is a good idea now I can easilly block and ignore this "person" easilly
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So forcing him into his own special area in order to express his views and opinions?
That could easily be misconstrued.........:D
Click to expand...

Quite. Indeed marginalization. However the forum moderator has made her decision and to play by the rules...

@Yv - why not make it easier, why not merge that thread AND the one from this AM into this one and we can all play in here. It would be a proper bear pit but I am ready :D
 
ST4 said:
Quite. Indeed marginalization. However the forum moderator has made her decision and to play by the rules...

@Yv - why not make it easier, why not merge that thread AND the one from this AM into this one and we can all play in here. It would be a proper bear pit but I am ready :D
Click to expand...

I would have done that, except it will then put posts from those threads above my opening post, which is a bit of a bloody nuisance quite frankly. The one you started this morning, might as well just add the link here as the discussion never actually got under way.
 
Yv said:
I would have done that, except it will then put posts from those threads above my opening post, which is a bit of a bloody nuisance quite frankly. The one you started this morning, might as well just add the link here as the discussion never actually got under way.
Click to expand...

May I ask if you'll have members with views opposite to mine have their own thread too?
 
So lets give this a go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31015075

Australia has done the following

ustralia's month-long detention of 157 asylum seekers at sea last year was legal, the High Court has found.

The court ruled the Sri Lankan group were not entitled to claim damages for false imprisonment.

An Australian customs ship intercepted their boat off Christmas Island, an Australian territory, on 29 June.

The Sri Lankans, who had left India 16 days before, were eventually taken to Nauru after efforts to return them to India failed.

In recent years, asylum seekers - mainly from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Iran - have travelled to Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean on boats from Indonesia, hoping to be accepted into Australia as refugees.

To deter their arrival, the Australian government processes them in offshore camps on Christmas Island, and in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Those found to be refugees will be resettled in PNG or Cambodia, not Australia.

The Australian government says its aim is to save lives by preventing people getting on dangerous boats but rights groups have criticised conditions in detention camps.

Boats have also been towed back to Indonesia and last year a separate group of Sri Lankans were intercepted at sea and handed over to the Sri Lankan navy.

I think this is a good thing ast hey gave them food, shelter, warmth and safety from a supposed oppressive regime. That is what asylum is for. In otherwords Australia kept them safe and in a place where they would be safe whilst the assessed whether the asylum claim was a genuine one.

By holding them in the boat, it means they can a) keep the safe b) ensure they don't go on the run within Australia in the event their claim is rejected c) it keeps it cheaper for the Australian tax payer
 
ST4 said:
May I ask if you'll have members with views opposite to mine have their own thread too?
Click to expand...
The difference is though steve, they're only posting their views in response to yours, whereas you're not:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
My other bone of contention is the lack of criminal background checks we do before letting people in

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/55...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Does the UK border agency just let folk in. A twice convicted robber, why would you want to let someone like that in. The sooner we move to a points based immigration system where you benefit to the country you are entering and financial viability has to be proven, the better.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
My other bone of contention is the lack of criminal background checks we do before letting people in

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/55...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Does the UK border agency just let folk in. A twice convicted robber, why would you want to let someone like that in. The sooner we move to a points based immigration system where you benefit to the country you are entering and financial viability has to be proven, the better.
Click to expand...
Now we have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep him locked up.
We should be allowed to send him home to serve his time in his own country.
 
In deference to the Australia thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31033369

He ordered the cafe manager to say that Australia was under attack from Islamic State militants and that Monis had planted radio-controlled bombs around the busy Sydney tourist precinct, Circular Quay, and Martin Place - none of which was true.

IMHO you can see why Australia wants to play it safe with keeping its asylum seekers out of circulation in the unlikely, but not impossible event, one of them is a militant nutter.
 
Are Steve's views bigoted?
I think they are good conversational peices. I don't necessarily agree with him but I'm not world overlord yet so enjoy hearing other peoples views. They give me a new prospective.
 
Peter69 said:
Are Steve's views bigoted?
I think they are good conversational peices. I don't necessarily agree with him but I'm not world overlord yet so enjoy hearing other peoples views. They give me a new prospective.
Click to expand...

Fear not, you can read about them and partake with them in this thread.

Let's discuss the Australian system. I've posted two events from the news in the last 24hrs.

ST4 said:
So lets give this a go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31015075

Australia has done the following

ustralia's month-long detention of 157 asylum seekers at sea last year was legal, the High Court has found.

The court ruled the Sri Lankan group were not entitled to claim damages for false imprisonment.

An Australian customs ship intercepted their boat off Christmas Island, an Australian territory, on 29 June.

The Sri Lankans, who had left India 16 days before, were eventually taken to Nauru after efforts to return them to India failed.

In recent years, asylum seekers - mainly from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Iran - have travelled to Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean on boats from Indonesia, hoping to be accepted into Australia as refugees.

To deter their arrival, the Australian government processes them in offshore camps on Christmas Island, and in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Those found to be refugees will be resettled in PNG or Cambodia, not Australia.

The Australian government says its aim is to save lives by preventing people getting on dangerous boats but rights groups have criticised conditions in detention camps.

Boats have also been towed back to Indonesia and last year a separate group of Sri Lankans were intercepted at sea and handed over to the Sri Lankan navy.

I think this is a good thing ast hey gave them food, shelter, warmth and safety from a supposed oppressive regime. That is what asylum is for. In otherwords Australia kept them safe and in a place where they would be safe whilst the assessed whether the asylum claim was a genuine one.

By holding them in the boat, it means they can a) keep the safe b) ensure they don't go on the run within Australia in the event their claim is rejected c) it keeps it cheaper for the Australian tax payer
Click to expand...

ST4 said:
In deference to the Australia thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31033369

He ordered the cafe manager to say that Australia was under attack from Islamic State militants and that Monis had planted radio-controlled bombs around the busy Sydney tourist precinct, Circular Quay, and Martin Place - none of which was true.

IMHO you can see why Australia wants to play it safe with keeping its asylum seekers out of circulation in the unlikely, but not impossible event, one of them is a militant nutter.
Click to expand...
 
Australian immigration: a true asylum seeker fleeing persecution, you would hage thought, would have no problems being processed in a timely manner before being given safety. Economic immigrants my have a problem with it.
I presume you are suggesting something similar in the UK or Europe?
 
Peter69 said:
Australian immigration: a true asylum seeker fleeing persecution, you would hage thought, would have no problems being processed in a timely manner before being given safety. Economic immigrants my have a problem with it.
I presume you are suggesting something similar in the UK or Europe?
Click to expand...

Something similar, no something the same for the UK.

Indeed the Italians do this, which is why many try to get in illegally and out of Italy over through France to the UK.

Asylum is actually a good law, it is to ensure those fleeing perscution have somewhere safe to go. Indeed Albert Einstein was an asylum seeker.

However, many claims are tenuous at best and asylum should be sought at the closest safe point. Many come here to seek Asylum but they've travelled far. Why do this, because of the economic benefits they see coming their way if accepted rather than "slum" it in Italy. They are also kept in camps etc so they cannot disappear if their claim is rejected, here they can, and quite often, do.

However the purpose of the act is to keep them safe and nothing more, and Australia is meeting that obligation.
 
Not sure how workable the records check is in the real world, but I think it would be pretty easy to have incomers sign an agreement agreeing to behave or be removed, then have some mechanism in place where it doesn't take several years and millions of pounds to eject bad eggs

I'm assuming a lot of immigrants come from countries with poor records library and would be very time consuming processing requests if at all possible

I also wouldn't bet on the human rights being cried at sending the poor murderer or rapist off where he might suffer but that's another debate, or can of worms depending on your outlook
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I feel the problem is larger.
Firstly each country is responsible for managing its boarders. Spain & Italy are easily reached from Africa so they shoulder a huge burden. The EU has a very small badly resourced border force. Would it not be better for the entire EU to found a larger, better resourced border agency?
Secondly, in my opinion the EU cross boarder benefit scheme appears wrong. If I go to Spain, its very hard for me to get benefits from the Spanish. I understand this as I have never paid in. Why aren't benefits in the EU based and paid for by the country of origin? So a Romanian coming here unemployed will get €5 (no idea what they get in Romania) a week. This would mean, for example, we would ask France to pay us to house all the immigrants that made it all the way through Europe to settle in Calis waiting to get to the UK. These are very obviously economic immigrants.

We also need to invest in better boarder controls. Our politicians worry more about queueing times then effecient processing. We don't even know who comes and goes.

On a positive immigration note, I am all for skilled immigration to the UK.
I am not a UKIP supporter at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You are right, Italy and Spain would shoulder the brunt of the problem if asylum seekers come from the south, but lets say there is a tyrany in Iceland, Norway etc, then they'd come here.

IMHO what should happen is if a boat of these illegals are found, they are not rescued to deter future lots from trying the same. Borders should be gaurded in a military fashion and those caught trying to circumvent the borders rather than put their hands up and say "Im seeking asylum" should be dealt with as such.

This sort of thing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30460929

Needs to stop. A real deterent such as men with guns would put a stop to illegals trying to get round border controls.

I actually get the benefits thing, but those here who've come here, done well and paid in for years, then fallen on hard times briefly could find themselves on a fiver a week rather than £70dd/week.

Me, I feel the EU has grown too much and the issues we have are a biproduct of trying to fiscally unify fiscally incompatible states. Hence we see what we see in Greece.
 
BruceMo said:
Not sure how workable the records check is in the real world, but I think it would be pretty easy to have incomers sign an agreement agreeing to behave or be removed, then have some mechanism in place where it doesn't take several years and millions of pounds to eject bad eggs

I'm assuming a lot of immigrants come from countries with poor records library and would be very time consuming processing requests if at all possible

I also wouldn't bet on the human rights being cried at sending the poor murderer or rapist off where he might suffer but that's another debate, or can of worms depending on your outlook
Click to expand...

If the BBC can unearth the criminal past of this person, the UK border agency surely must. Time consuming or not, the safety of British people is paramount. IMHO of course.
 
ST4 said:
Me, I feel the EU has grown too much and the issues we have are a biproduct of trying to fiscally unify fiscally incompatible states. Hence we see what we see in Greece.
Click to expand...
The lefties have taken Greece. This'll be interesting!!
 
BRASH said:
The lefties have taken Greece. This'll be interesting!!
Click to expand...

Two thoughts on this.

One don't spend what you don't have.
Two, you cannot draw blood from a stone.

They are bankrupt, they should get no more EU money loaned to them, and they cannot repay what they've borrowed and the far left has no real intention (knowing the fiscal ability of their country) to repay it.

Bankruptcy, explusion from the EU/Euro and Nato should beckon.
 
ST4 said:
Two thoughts on this.

One don't spend what you don't have.
Two, you cannot draw blood from a stone.

They are bankrupt, they should get no more EU money loaned to them, and they cannot repay what they've borrowed and the far left has no real intention (knowing the fiscal ability of their country) to repay it.

Bankruptcy, explusion from the EU/Euro and Nato should beckon.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but then they'd maybe all want to come over here and we'd soak em up like a sponge as usual:D
 
BRASH said:
Agreed, but then they'd maybe all want to come over here and we'd soak em up like a sponge as usual:D
Click to expand...

Not if we boot them out the EU (which is exactly what should be done, despite their protestations) then we do not have to.

Further once we are out of the EU, we can go for the points based system the US, Oz, NZ, SA all have.

Unless the pinko's say these are all racist countries...LOL :D
 
Ah wonderful. I was wondering where to stick the "news" from the BBC that Ebola is mutating, possibly into something better, maybe into something worse. Let me quote the only really relevant section from their report on the subject of it becoming airborne:

There is no evidence to suggest that is happening.
Click to expand...

More random speculation and scare mongering here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31019097 - it's almost like the BBC love snappy headlines with little factual basis.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Ah wonderful. I was wondering where to stick the "news" from the BBC that Ebola is mutating, possibly into something better, maybe into something worse. Let me quote the only really relevant section from their report on the subject of it becoming airborne:



More random speculation and scare mongering here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31019097 - it's almost like the BBC love snappy headlines with little factual basis.
Click to expand...

Yes but read this

"We know the virus is changing quite a lot," said human geneticist Dr Anavaj Sakuntabhai.

A virus can change itself to less deadly, but more contagious and that's something we are afraid of”

Dr Anavaj SakuntabhaiGeneticist
"That's important for diagnosing (new cases) and for treatment. We need to know how the virus (is changing) to keep up with our enemy."

It's not unusual for viruses to change over a period time. Ebola is an RNA virus - like HIV and influenza - which have a high rate of mutation. That makes the virus more able to adapt and raises the potential for it to become more contagious.

"We've now seen several cases that don't have any symptoms at all, asymptomatic cases," said Anavaj Sakuntabhai.

"These people may be the people who can spread the virus better, but we still don't know that yet. A virus can change itself to less deadly, but more contagious and that's something we are afraid of."

What it could evolve into could be something really nasty, and I believe safety should take the better part of valour. Whilst I concede there is an unknown to all this, and whilst hindsight is wonderful we don't have it yet.

Taking every possible precaution now, could stop it spreading and save lives.
 
Last edited:
ST4 on the naughty step ... outrageous!
 
gramps said:
ST4 on the naughty step ... outrageous!
Click to expand...
It's because the pinko's couldn't cope with is logical and reasoned debate issues without resorting to petty put downs, insults and sarcasm. They had to give him some sanctuary.:cool:
 
ST4 said:
Yes but read this

"We know the virus is changing quite a lot," said human geneticist Dr Anavaj Sakuntabhai.

A virus can change itself to less deadly, but more contagious and that's something we are afraid of”

Dr Anavaj SakuntabhaiGeneticist
"That's important for diagnosing (new cases) and for treatment. We need to know how the virus (is changing) to keep up with our enemy."

It's not unusual for viruses to change over a period time. Ebola is an RNA virus - like HIV and influenza - which have a high rate of mutation. That makes the virus more able to adapt and raises the potential for it to become more contagious.

"We've now seen several cases that don't have any symptoms at all, asymptomatic cases," said Anavaj Sakuntabhai.

"These people may be the people who can spread the virus better, but we still don't know that yet. A virus can change itself to less deadly, but more contagious and that's something we are afraid of."

What it could evolve into could be something really nasty, and I believe safety should take the better part of valour. Whilst I concede there is an unknown to all this, and whilst hindsight is wonderful we don't have it yet.

Taking every possible precaution now, could stop it spreading and save lives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read all that. It's sensible stuff - all viruses mutate and in general they probably get worse over time (it's a form of Darwinian selection). But we need to remember that ebola really isn't *that* dangerous if you follow simple precautions. The sky really isn't falling. We have smart people with clever metrics to spot if it is so that we'll be ready to take some action. But as often that gets lost in the headlines.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Yeah, I read all that. It's sensible stuff - all viruses mutate and in general they probably get worse over time (it's a form of Darwinian selection). But we need to remember that ebola really isn't *that* dangerous if you follow simple precautions. The sky really isn't falling. We have smart people with clever metrics to spot if it is so that we'll be ready to take some action. But as often that gets lost in the headlines.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree, particularly with the section in bold it should be remember that if it is transmitted, the symptoms can be dire, including death. If it was a head cold, I'd wholly agree - who cares?

But Ebola, if it is transmitted can be fatal or life changing. Its for that reason, in my view, we should be very pro-active in keeping out our countries. I'd also suggest quaranteening those coming in from Ebola hotspots, to ensure it is kept at bay.
 
Here's my take on immigration......it's a feckin joke.....we need a point system which will ensure the correct skilled migrants can come and make out country better not worse....no criminals, rapists or paedophiles.....we would have a policy like Australia where asylum seekers are housed safely until processed and then repatriated back to their own country after the threat has gone, like I said yesterday, the isle of sheppy....but we also need to sort out our other problems like the lazy s***s on long term benefit....maybe we could send them to the same island.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top