# Gary Lineker



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 22, 2016)

I'm beginning to warm to this guy.


----------



## guest100718 (Oct 22, 2016)

Spurs legend


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 22, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I'm beginning to warm to this guy.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt that you would if you met him.


----------



## guest100718 (Oct 22, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			I doubt that you would if you met him.
		
Click to expand...


zzzz


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 22, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			zzzz
		
Click to expand...

Try it , you might not like it.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 22, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			I doubt that you would if you met him.
		
Click to expand...

I have met him.
Not to impressed at the time.
I think he has matured.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 22, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have met him.
Not to impressed at the time.
I think he has matured.
		
Click to expand...

Have you met him recently?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 22, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Have you met him recently?
		
Click to expand...

About 15 years ago.


----------



## sawtooth (Oct 22, 2016)

I didn't mind him but now I think he is a tool.


----------



## richy (Oct 22, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			I didn't mind him but now I think he is a tool.
		
Click to expand...

What's he done?


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 22, 2016)

Overpaid mediocre TV presenter surviving on his past career reputation.  Oh! He also advertises Crisps.


----------



## Qwerty (Oct 22, 2016)

Why the thread though? What's he done?


----------



## Tongo (Oct 22, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Overpaid mediocre TV presenter *surviving on his past career reputation*.  Oh! He also advertises Crisps.
		
Click to expand...

Isnt that the case for any number of sports presenters / pundits?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 22, 2016)

Is this a reference to his comments on the migrants? Personally I think he should perhaps not speak out as he's not the most qualified to do so. As a footballer he was top drawer. As a TV presenter he's bland


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 22, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Overpaid mediocre TV presenter surviving on his past career reputation.  Oh! He also advertises Crisps.
		
Click to expand...

So what is difference between him and every other single sports presenter ?! Aren't they all there because of their past career ?


----------



## Beezerk (Oct 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So what is difference between him and every other single sports presenter ?! Aren't they all there because of their past career ?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah like Dan Walker &#128514;


----------



## pokerjoke (Oct 22, 2016)

No there are many sports presenters that do sports they have never competed in. I like Lineker myself


----------



## Tongo (Oct 22, 2016)

Not quite sure what people expect from a presenter of a football show. Song and dance? Its not supposed to be about him. But he is presenting Premier League football so maybe the bells, whistles and media hysteria should accompany the presenters as well. 

Criticism for criticism's sake methinks. Tis one of the modern curses, everything's up for being slagged off.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 22, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Is this a reference to his comments on the migrants? Personally I think he should perhaps not speak out as he's not the most qualified to do so. As a footballer he was top drawer. As a TV presenter he's bland
		
Click to expand...

So who is qualified to do so? He's entitled to an opinion like everyone else, difference between him and me or you is that media will pick up on what he says, 
His comments on the migrants have absolutely nothing to do with his proffession.


----------



## richy (Oct 22, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Is this a reference to his comments on the migrants? Personally I think he should perhaps not speak out as he's not the most qualified to do so. As a footballer he was top drawer. As a TV presenter he's bland
		
Click to expand...

What did he say about migrants?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 22, 2016)

richy said:



			What did he say about migrants?
		
Click to expand...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...ugee-comments-and-says-hes-getting-a-spanking


----------



## richy (Oct 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...ugee-comments-and-says-hes-getting-a-spanking

Click to expand...

Cheers

Am I missing something, what was bad about his tweets?


----------



## Tongo (Oct 22, 2016)

richy said:



			Cheers

Am I missing something, what was bad about his tweets?
		
Click to expand...

For the professionally offended, plenty. Apart from that, nothing.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 22, 2016)

I like the guy. A good mix of insight and humour. I don't agree with every opinion he spouts, but who would?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 22, 2016)

richy said:



			Cheers

Am I missing something, what was bad about his tweets?
		
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem was that he accused anyone that questioned the migrants ages of being racist. In general I agreed with most of what he (and Lily Allen) were tweeting but they were both guilty of playing the racism card against anyone that questioned them on it. Especially after the suggestion that Home Office statistics revealed that 2/3 of child migrants had lied about their age to claim to be under 18 when they weren't. But that doesn't excuse some of the abuse they both received.


----------



## palindromicbob (Oct 22, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Is this a reference to his comments on the migrants? *Personally I think he should perhaps not speak out as he's not the most qualified to do so.* As a footballer he was top drawer. As a TV presenter he's bland
		
Click to expand...

Am I the only one that sees the irony in Homer saying this


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 22, 2016)

As a presenter, I don't mind Gary Linekar one bit. In fact I think he is one of the best, even if a lot his of guest presenters seem to be old school clicky pals.
As a footballer, nothing but respect for what he achieved at both club and country level.
yes he is more than entitled to his opinion on anything and everything.
However, having Said all that, to have a pop at people because they are concerned because some of these child refugees are not children  and have a better Tash than me borders on pig ignorance. I have yet to speak to anyone who does not agree with child refugees leaving a hell hole called Syria to end up in another hell hole called Calais, and then coming to this country. It is the fact that once more people that are desperate to get to this country any way possible dress themselves up as kids. That is what people up and down the country are up in arms about.
Should he be sacked, for what giving an opinion based on ignorance. Not gonna and should not happen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 23, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Is this a reference to his comments on the migrants? *Personally I think he should perhaps not speak out as he's not the most qualified to do so.* As a footballer he was top drawer. As a TV presenter he's bland
		
Click to expand...

Each and every one of us is fully qualified to speak out on this matter on the grounds of our humanity and compassion.  No other qualifications required.


----------



## Stuart_C (Oct 23, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Each and every one of us is fully qualified to speak out on this matter on the grounds of our humanity and compassion.  No other qualifications required.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Regardless of his occupation.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 23, 2016)

richy said:



			Cheers

Am I missing something, what was bad about his tweets?
		
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with his tweets but you should see some of the disgraceful replies.

Some of you guy are clearly not getting 'The News Where You Are'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhL57cjN8xY


----------



## chrisd (Oct 23, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Each and every one of us is fully qualified to speak out on this matter on the grounds of our humanity and compassion.  No other qualifications required.
		
Click to expand...

Yes they are SILH, but living only about 5 miles from the Channel Tunnel and knowing several police and immigration staff who work on the French side, sometimes the humanity and compassion is misplaced, and I'm not saying that as a blanket statement but down here I hear stories that maybe aren't more widely known and suggest that our carefully selected choice of who we let in may be a more prudent policy


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 23, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Yes they are SILH, but living only about 5 miles from the Channel Tunnel and knowing several police and immigration staff who work on the French side, sometimes the humanity and compassion is misplaced, and I'm not saying that as a blanket statement but down here I hear stories that maybe aren't more widely known and suggest that our carefully selected choice of who we let in may be a more prudent policy
		
Click to expand...

I live up in the NE and see very little day to day impact of what you see and hear and I wouldn't let anyone else in, regardless of reasons, skin colour, age etc. That said I have no issue with anyone, TV pundit or layman feeling the complete opposite and making statements.


----------



## louise_a (Oct 23, 2016)

It seems to me that he made comments that The Sun didn't agree with and so they have laid into in.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 23, 2016)

louise_a said:



			It seems to me that he made comments that The Sun didn't agree with and so they have laid into in.
		
Click to expand...

:thup:

The UK Government (Parliament) made a commitment to take a number (unspecified) of these refugees back in May! But it's only now, when 'The Jungle' is being demolished, that they are really acting on that commitment! 

I don't think I would have used the same words that Lineker did, but that's his prerogative. The reaction of The Sun seems typical of how it deals with views different to its own!


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 23, 2016)

What I find quite ironic about these child refugees is that yesterday the latest 70 children have been brought into the country. However, because of the outcry of some of the ages of these " children ". The latest 70 were brought in and got off the coach which was screened off with scaffolding and screen sheeting.  
Er why was that, if these kids are kids, what's to hide?  This is why people are upset and have raised concerns, which is why Mr Linekar has given his opinion, which is why he has been slated, which is why we are talking about it on here.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 23, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			What I find quite ironic about these child refugees is that yesterday the latest 70 children have been brought into the country. However, because of the outcry of some of the ages of these " children ". The latest 70 were brought in and got off the coach which was screened off with scaffolding and screen sheeting.  
Er why was that, if these kids are kids, what's to hide?  This is why people are upset and have raised concerns, which is why Mr Linekar has given his opinion, which is why he has been slated, which is why we are talking about it on here.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Tash, are you suggesting we parade these kids in the media so we can discuss their age?
Maybe giving them anonimity gives them a fresh start and we don't have certain newspapers playing games with their lives.
I'm sure the people in charge are doing their very best to ensure they are all children.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 23, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Sorry Tash, are you suggesting we parade these kids in the media so we can discuss their age?
Maybe giving them anonimity gives them a fresh start and we don't have certain newspapers playing games with their lives.
I'm sure the people in charge are doing their very best to ensure they are all children.
		
Click to expand...

The issue with the scaffold for me, is that it wasn't up for the first lot, so why do the second lot apparently deserve more privacy than the first? Or is it more the government not wanting a backlash? There is no real way to determine their age with paperwork. Many throw away passports so even if caught when sneaking over they can't be proven to be from a country outside the Eu. 

Apparentky a dental test can can be carried out which can determine age, not saying it should be used. But there is a possibility. Having seen some of the kids, they look older than me and my mates down the pub. 

Unfortunately, working in customs clearance in Dover my views are somewhat tainted with stories u hear from most of the drivers we deal with (both English and European).


----------



## louise_a (Oct 23, 2016)

My friend works at a school with a wide ethnic mix of pupils, some of the boys have facial hair, it makes them look older, it doesn't mean they are.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 23, 2016)

louise_a said:



			My friend works at a school with a wide ethnic mix of pupils, some of the boys have facial hair, it makes them look older, it doesn't mean they are.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't base it on facial hair. I'm 33 and if I shave weekly it's a surprise.....

my thoughts were more on their overal size and stature. In my mind, having seen first hand some people's attempts to arrive here. Some of them certainly are over 17. I also, as with most of the arrivals seem to see a large majority or men (boys) compared to women.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 23, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			The issue with the scaffold for me, is that it wasn't up for the first lot, so why do the second lot apparently deserve more privacy than the first? Or is it more the government not wanting a backlash? There is no real way to determine their age with paperwork. Many throw away passports so even if caught when sneaking over they can't be proven to be from a country outside the Eu. 

Apparentky a dental test can can be carried out which can determine age, not saying it should be used. But there is a possibility. Having seen some of the kids, they look older than me and my mates down the pub. 

Unfortunately, working in customs clearance in Dover my views are somewhat tainted with stories u hear from most of the drivers we deal with (both English and European).
		
Click to expand...

The issue with the scaffolding has been brought in because of the reaction of the media to the first lot,
I've no doubt some will try and lie about their age and some will be caught and some will get through.
Size and stature is no guide there are plenty of kids who look way older and vice versa.
Posted previously I think we need to stop everyone regardless of circumstances coming in, but we are, so we have to trust the authorities to do their job.


----------



## SteveJay (Oct 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Nothing wrong with his tweets but you should see some of the disgraceful replies.

Some of you guy are clearly not getting 'The News Where You Are'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhL57cjN8xY

Click to expand...

Brilliant!!!!!


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 23, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			The issue with the scaffolding has been brought in because of the reaction of the media to the first lot,
I've no doubt some will try and lie about their age and some will be caught and some will get through.
Size and stature is no guide there are plenty of kids who look way older and vice versa.
Posted previously I think we need to stop everyone regardless of circumstances coming in, but we are, so we have to trust the authorities to do their job.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think the authorities are doing too well at their jobs ATM. 

I agree some kids look older than others. But the photos released seem to show a very high percentage of children that appear at least older than suggested. Now that could be more that the stronger survive and so are likely. But when I see them coming over or attempting too. I see lots of young male adults and very few women. 

Im in the camp of eniugh is enough. Simple asylum rules state that they have to seek it in first country they reach. As they aren't rowing all the to Dover direct. They shouldn't be coming over. 

Sort out our lazy, benefit claimants first (not all). Then we can allow migration to aid areas where workforce is needed. Nit just where English people, they're too good to work.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2016)

I just wish the authorities and others would be honest.  These people are not what would be termed Children, that congers up images of little kids, they are youths and young adults and it would have been better to have described them as such.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 23, 2016)

14 Children allowed to enter the UK on humanitarian grounds and many little Englanders go batpoo crazy.

Has it really come to that ?


----------



## chrisd (Oct 23, 2016)

A police friend who works Calais side told me just this week that when interviewing younger migrants they all, almost without exception, give their birthdate at interview as January 1st and whatever year takes them into minor status. Most of the immigrants lie about their country of origin and/or city or town, and whether they can read or write English which pretty much all the Syrian, Iraquis and the like can to some extent.

His parting words, why would anyone want us to let anyone they know absolutely nothing about into the country?


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 23, 2016)

I just find it strange that none of them seem to want to live in France or Scotland when asked where they want to go. Mind you, England has a lot of French and Scots living here so maybe that tells it all.


----------



## louise_a (Oct 23, 2016)

This is an interesting read

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...elieved-i-was-13-10-years-on-nothings-changed


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 23, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			The issue with the scaffolding has been brought in because of the reaction of the media to the first lot,
I've no doubt some will try and lie about their age and some will be caught and some will get through.
Size and stature is no guide there are plenty of kids who look way older and vice versa.
Posted previously I think we need to stop everyone regardless of circumstances coming in, but we are, so we have to trust the authorities to do their job.
		
Click to expand...

paul, there was no media reaction to the first lot, there was media reaction to 
" some of the first lot" not all, and rightly so. As has been stated, why hide the first lot and not the second. If it is suggested that I am against bringing child refugees into this country, then people do not know me. As a dad and gangag, I would go to the end of the world to protect any child. But some of these Children and the authorities are taking the Mick.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 23, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			paul, there was no media reaction to the first lot, there was media reaction to 
" some of the first lot" not all, and rightly so. As has been stated, why hide the first lot and not the second. If it is suggested that I am against bringing child refugees into this country, then people do not know me. As a dad and gangag, I would go to the end of the world to protect any child. But some of these Children and the authorities are taking the Mick.
		
Click to expand...

If they are under 18 they are a child mate, the link louise puts it way better than I ever could. I find the whole trial by media shocking.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 23, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			If they are under 18 they are a child mate, the link louise puts it way better than I ever could. I find the whole trial by media shocking.
		
Click to expand...

These people, kids or not have gone through a great deal and I fully sympathise with them. But, a few things in regards to their age and or definition of child. 

Many practice Islam, a religion where girls as young as 14 are seen fit to be married and bare child. For me, I'd use that as a definition and say anyone under 14 should have the priority when we accept them as they are children in their eyes. 

Secondly, you're walking past a river and see an 8 yr old and a 17 yr old struggling to swim. Who do you save first?

whilst any parent will always call their son/daughter there child. There comes a time when they aren't children. I didn't ask for much help from 16 and would have resented being treated as a child. Granted it benefits them to be defined as such in this instance.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 24, 2016)

http://newsthump.com/2016/10/21/bbc...-columns-weve-paid-them-to-write-say-the-sun/


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			14 Children allowed to enter the UK on humanitarian grounds and many little Englanders go batpoo crazy.

Has it really come to that ?
		
Click to expand...

I agree DfT.  I fear we the UK is turning into (if we not already are) a selfish, intolerant, self-entitled and insular country, using any excuse or tactic to avoid our humanitarian and moral responsibilities towards those in need - and to justify our behaviour and views. Paradoxically trying our very best to reject much of what made Britain 'great' whilst claiming that we do so to become 'great' again.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 24, 2016)

To me it's quite simple. The UK (whether some like it or not)  has agreed to take some children from the migrant camp in Calais. As the UK has agreed to take them because they are children it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to raise concerns if the migrants arriving do not appear to be children. Checks should be made. To ignore this would be to allow the system to be abused. 
To me, this matter does raise a number of questions. 
If these migrants are children, why have they not been taken care of by the French care system? In this regard are we as Brits being a bit hard on ourselves?
Even at this stage, where the camp is being destroyed, no-one has yet explained to me why so many want to come to the UK when they are already in a safe haven in France, so why?
Surely you stop becoming a refugee when you have reached a safe country? If so, then is this a row over where people want to live rather than saving them from danger? Surely, if they applied and were granted EU citizenship in France or indeed wherever they first landed, they could just walk into the UK under current rules?

As far as Lineker, Lily Allen et al are concerned, I think what upsets people is that whilst they are entitled to their opinion, they use their position as celebrities to ensure it carries more weight than others. They are not elected representatives. Lily Allen apologising for her country is the perfect example. She represents no-one other than herself. They will not be affected by immigration like others will be, so it's easy to take the moral high ground. If it all gets too much Lineker can always leave his English mansion and simply choose to live in his house behind the locked gates and security at Royal Westmorland in Barbados.


----------



## MegaSteve (Oct 24, 2016)

Can anyone explain why the younger girls, within the camp, who are probably more in need of help... Need to be [apparently] sought out to be offered the chance to come to our shores....


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 24, 2016)

Sweep said:



			To me it's quite simple. The UK (whether some like it or not)  has agreed to take some children from the migrant camp in Calais. As the UK has agreed to take them because they are children it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to raise concerns if the migrants arriving do not appear to be children. Checks should be made. To ignore this would be to allow the system to be abused. 
To me, this matter does raise a number of questions. 
If these migrants are children, why have they not been taken care of by the French care system? In this regard are we as Brits being a bit hard on ourselves?
Even at this stage, where the camp is being destroyed, no-one has yet explained to me why so many want to come to the UK when they are already in a safe haven in France, so why?
Surely you stop becoming a refugee when you have reached a safe country? If so, then is this a row over where people want to live rather than saving them from danger? Surely, if they applied and were granted EU citizenship in France or indeed wherever they first landed, they could just walk into the UK under current rules?

As far as Lineker, Lily Allen et al are concerned, I think what upsets people is that whilst they are entitled to their opinion, they use their position as celebrities to ensure it carries more weight than others. They are not elected representatives. Lily Allen apologising for her country is the perfect example. She represents no-one other than herself. They will not be affected by immigration like others will be, so it's easy to take the moral high ground. If it all gets too much Lineker can always leave his English mansion and simply choose to live in his house behind the locked gates and security at Royal Westmorland in Barbados.
		
Click to expand...

That kind of well written honesty has no place on this forum. Well written Sweep &#128077;


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 24, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			Can anyone explain why the younger girls, within the camp, who are probably more in need of help... Need to be [apparently] sought out to be offered the chance to come to our shores....
		
Click to expand...

Exactly would love to hear the answer to that one.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Exactly would love to hear the answer to that one.
		
Click to expand...

Because they are young girls and therefore wary about coming forward - especially if by doing so there is a risk they are separated from people they know in exchange for the unknown.  Not all the young children might have relatives in the UK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			That kind of well written honesty has no place on this forum. Well written Sweep &#128077;
		
Click to expand...

In my eyes it's not honest.  It pretends to be a reasonable argument when in fact it hides behind the fact that the UK is at the edge of Europe - and uses that as a 'reason' for us not having any, or at best minimal, responsibility for refugees or immigrants.  When we are in fact a member of the EU with joint ownership of issues, and we are a 'christian' (apparently) country whose reputation is based upon championing the rights of others, and caring for the dispossessed and endangered.


----------



## dewsweeper (Oct 24, 2016)

Not a very original idea I suppose but for me every overage immigrant that is accepted means possibly a child is left behind.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

dewsweeper said:



			Not a very original idea I suppose but for me every overage immigrant that is accepted means possibly a child is left behind.
		
Click to expand...

As no exact figure has been put on the number of children I don't see someone in the Borders Agency telling a 5 yr old "sorry kid - we've reached our number - now toddle off and don't bother us again"


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 24, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			That kind of well written honesty has no place on this forum. Well written Sweep &#128077;
		
Click to expand...

Wrong there Taffy boy, Lineker and Allen represent me, and I would HOPE, millions more.
Good honest voices being heard against the an ever increasing UK cesspit of press and far right.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 24, 2016)

To my cynical eyes Lilly Allen was all about pubilicity for herself and massaging her own ego. Linekers comments were more on the lines of easy folks, have a bit of humanity. He didn't write a newspaper article on it, didn't do a documentary on it, just made a few classic twitter comments. Nothing unreasonable in what he said.

With regards to those coming in. My understanding is they already have some relatives in the UK. That is requirement number 1. That rules out chunks of people in Calais. There are few girls at Calais as that would not be safe. Families in trouble zones send the strongest member of the family across with the aim to bring the rest of the family over later. Way too many horrible things can happen to young girls on their own so they take the calculated decision to send young males across. That is why the coaches have been bringing in single, teenage boys/men. Still a huge risk but the risks are lower. Inevitable that few girls would be stepping off the coaches. 

The rights and wrongs are another discussion entirely, okay another post, but that is how I see this particular situation.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 24, 2016)

The sun story is just click bait for the Brexiters and little Englanders . Know your audience . 

Don't overly have a problem with people with a bit of fame expressing an opinion or bringing certain stories to the publics attention, , unless people feel we have to have our news and slant on stories officially endorsed by Dacre or Murdoch every time. You can always ignore Lilly Allen if she upsets you so much . 

Also got a lot of time for Lineker , if you follow him on social media, watch the documentaries he does it read any of his newspaper columns you'll see he is very witty, informed and talks a lot of sense about the state of football . Also turns out  he had a bit of compassion about the way society is heading as well . Top bloke.


----------



## dewsweeper (Oct 24, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As no exact figure has been put on the number of children I don't see someone in the Borders Agency telling a 5 yr old "sorry kid - we've reached our number - now toddle off and don't bother us again"
		
Click to expand...

Not going to get into the long debate on here but I think you have missed my point, I made no mention of a 5yr old etcetc.
Just thought to make a point,
IE.  For every overage migrant a younger more vulnerable child will today be in the chaos that is Calais today.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

dewsweeper said:



			Not going to get into the long debate on here but I think you have missed my point, *I made no mention of a 5yr old *etcetc.
Just thought to make a point,
IE.  For every overage migrant a younger more vulnerable child will today be in the chaos that is Calais today.
		
Click to expand...

I know you didn't - but whilst you are correct in that if we can only process so many a day - then yes - an 'overage' child may well have respite from Calais before a child - but you would hope that this would only be very short term and all children will be accepted very soon.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			The sun story is just click bait for the Brexiters and little Englanders . Know your audience . 

Don't overly have a problem with people with a bit of fame expressing an opinion or bringing certain stories to the publics attention, , unless people feel we have to have our news and slant on stories officially endorsed by Dacre or Murdoch every time. You can always ignore Lilly Allen if she upsets you so much . 

Also got a lot of time for Lineker , if you follow him on social media, watch the documentaries he does it read any of his newspaper columns you'll see he is very witty, informed and talks a lot of sense about the state of football . Also turns out  he had a bit of compassion about the way society is heading as well . Top bloke.
		
Click to expand...

And if we get upset or angry and irritated at celebs doing their bit to raise attention to a cause, then we might as well scrap all those TV fundraising events (Comic Relief, Sports Relief etc).


----------



## Sweep (Oct 24, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			In my eyes it's not honest.  It pretends to be a reasonable argument when in fact it hides behind the fact that the UK is at the edge of Europe - and uses that as a 'reason' for us not having any, or at best minimal, responsibility for refugees or immigrants.  When we are in fact a member of the EU with joint ownership of issues, and we are a 'christian' (apparently) country whose reputation is based upon championing the rights of others, and caring for the dispossessed and endangered.
		
Click to expand...

What cynical person you have become.
It is an entirely honest post. It does not mention that the UK is on the edge of Europe. It does not hide behind anything. For that matter it doesn't even mention that we are not in Shengen or that we have a better record than most in taking in Syrian refugees. I accept you will disappointed to see such a post from me, but that's life.
It also asks some GENUINE questions that you or anyone else have failed to answer that I think would help the British people understand the situation a whole lot better without the diatribe coming out of the right and left media helping to form their opinions.
I know you don't share my political views and we often disagree, but I am not dishonest and I am not uncompassionate.
Now, how about you read my post again and pretend it's written by someone you have no preconceived ideas about and then see what you think?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 24, 2016)

We should also remember that France is a safe country. There is some element of choice going on here as they could be processed and settle in France. Conscious decisions have been made to stay in this camp in order to go to the UK. I am sure the French will look after the children just as well as us in the UK.


----------



## MegaSteve (Oct 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Wrong there Taffy boy, Lineker and Allen represent me, and I would HOPE, millions more.
Good honest voices being heard against the an ever increasing UK cesspit of press and far right.
		
Click to expand...

On what basis do you believe it to be "ever increasing"....

Last Saturday there was a 'mass' demonstration by what was being described as a far right racist neo-Nazi group on the south coast... Apparently attended by 52 [yes, 52 too many]... Hardly an indication though of an ever increasing problem... Judging by what we saw in the morning, on passing through said town, we made it about 5 boys/girls in blue for each demonstrator....


----------



## Sweep (Oct 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Wrong there Taffy boy, Lineker and Allen represent me, and I would HOPE, millions more.
Good honest voices being heard against the an ever increasing UK cesspit of press and far right.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong there Doon.
Lily Allen does not represent anyone other than herself. You may agree with her but she is not your representative. It's not for her to apologise on our behalf. If she wants to do that she should stand for election and earn that right. She can express her opinion like anyone else. However, I can't imagine you or I being allowed into the camp with the media in tow to interview a boy. The fact that a singer with a famous dad who can do so is a fine example of how celebrity obsessed this country has become, even when we are dealing with issues as serious as this.
To anyone other than a fan it is clear it's a publicity stunt and completely ignorant of the fact that it is playing with people's lives. In that regard, it's actually a bit sick.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 24, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			To my cynical eyes Lilly Allen was all about pubilicity for herself and massaging her own ego. Linekers comments were more on the lines of easy folks, have a bit of humanity. He didn't write a newspaper article on it, didn't do a documentary on it, just made a few classic twitter comments. Nothing unreasonable in what he said.

With regards to those coming in. My understanding is they already have some relatives in the UK. That is requirement number 1. That rules out chunks of people in Calais. There are few girls at Calais as that would not be safe. Families in trouble zones send the strongest member of the family across with the aim to bring the rest of the family over later. Way too many horrible things can happen to young girls on their own so they take the calculated decision to send young males across. That is why the coaches have been bringing in single, teenage boys/men. Still a huge risk but the risks are lower. Inevitable that few girls would be stepping off the coaches. 

The rights and wrongs are another discussion entirely, okay another post, but that is how I see this particular situation.
		
Click to expand...

Well put, plus boys of 13 and 14 are being made to fight by these waring factions, so again it is understandable that the families will send them out as refugees first so as to to save possibly losing them in battle.


----------



## Raesy92 (Oct 24, 2016)

Find some peoples views on this astonishing. 

Many people seem to think that they have some define right to a better quality of life than these refugees. What makes us more entitled to  be living in a safe, war free country, than those that are seeking refuge? Just because of our country of birth on our passport? As long as the correct screening procedures have been taken place then I don't have any problem with males over the age of 18 being allowed in to Britain with the view of finding a safe place stay to bring their wife and kids.

We always have enough money to support fighting in wars but seemingly never enough to pay for the consequences we have caused!

Coming from Scotland I was shocked at some of the conversations I heard when down in England the other month, even instances bordering on downright racism on a train journey. This Brexit vote has seemingly given many the right to spout whatever pish they like.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 24, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			Find some peoples views on this astonishing. 

Many people seem to think that they have some define right to a better quality of life than these refugees. What makes us more entitled to  be living in a safe, war free country, than those that are seeking refuge? Just because of our country of birth on our passport? As long as the correct screening procedures have been taken place then I don't have any problem with males over the age of 18 being allowed in to Britain with the view of finding a safe place stay to bring their wife and kids.

We always have enough money to support fighting in wars but seemingly never enough to pay for the consequences we have caused!

Coming from Scotland I was shocked at some of the conversations I heard when down in England the other month, even instances bordering on downright racism on a train journey. This Brexit vote has seemingly given many the right to spout whatever pish they like.
		
Click to expand...

Im not going to deny that some have taken brexit as a free run to be a little more racist. 

I think the notion that it is in some way racist to say enough is enough is ridiculous. I never hear Australia criticised for their rules?

different countries have significantly different rules and morales than ours. And letting our country be over run (not that it currently is) would not be a good idea IMO. Look at many of the oil rich countries and some of their laws. If we go there, we follow them or face severe punishment. Here we seem to accept many (not a problem), then allow their their laws to mix with ours (not acceptable). 

Im not religious in the slightest but accept that if I go to To certain places I must not even converse out it. Yet here we open many other places of worship. Some think it's all well and good. Personally I think we have more than enough (of all religions).


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

Sweep said:



			What cynical person you have become.
*It is an entirely honest post. It does not mention that the UK is on the edge of Europe. It does not hide behind anything. For that matter it doesn't even mention that we are not in Shengen or that we have a better record than most in taking in Syrian refugees. I accept you will disappointed to see such a post from me, but that's life.
*It also asks some GENUINE questions that you or anyone else have failed to answer that I think would help the British people understand the situation a whole lot better without the diatribe coming out of the right and left media helping to form their opinions.
I know you don't share my political views and we often disagree, but I am not dishonest and I am not uncompassionate.
Now, how about you read my post again and pretend it's written by someone you have no preconceived ideas about and then see what you think?
		
Click to expand...

I suggested that it is not honest to the basic values of the UK on the grounds that *this* seems to be predicated on the basis of the UK having no responsibilities to accept ANY immigrants - and that we should do whatever we can to avoid accepting any unless we are almost forced to.  You may not have meant it that way but that is how it comes across to me.  Apologies if I have misunderstood.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 24, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			Find some peoples views on this astonishing. 

Many people seem to think that they have some define right to a better quality of life than these refugees. What makes us more entitled to  be living in a safe, war free country, than those that are seeking refuge? Just because of our country of birth on our passport? As long as the correct screening procedures have been taken place then I don't have any problem with males over the age of 18 being allowed in to Britain with the view of finding a safe place stay to bring their wife and kids.

We always have enough money to support fighting in wars but seemingly never enough to pay for the consequences we have caused!

Coming from Scotland I was shocked at some of the conversations I heard when down in England the other month, even instances bordering on downright racism on a train journey. This Brexit vote has seemingly given many the right to spout whatever pish they like.
		
Click to expand...

You are not wrong @Raesy92 -  I live down in Surrey and find some of the views quite openly expressed on immigration and immigrants quite shocking - specially as in most cases the individuals do not actually seem to be effected that much - it seems more to be just their opinion.  Of course I do hear much that is supportive.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 24, 2016)

http://newsthump.com/2016/10/24/most-of-the-really-vulnerable-refugees-died-frothing-public-assured/


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			Find some peoples views on this astonishing. 

Many people seem to think that they have some define right to a better quality of life than these refugees. What makes us more entitled to  be living in a safe, war free country, than those that are seeking refuge? Just because of our country of birth on our passport? As long as the correct screening procedures have been taken place then I don't have any problem with males over the age of 18 being allowed in to Britain with the view of finding a safe place stay to bring their wife and kids.

We always have enough money to support fighting in wars but seemingly never enough to pay for the consequences we have caused!

Coming from Scotland I was shocked at some of the conversations I heard when down in England the other month, even instances bordering on downright racism on a train journey. This Brexit vote has seemingly given many the right to spout whatever pish they like.
		
Click to expand...

I find your view astonishing.   Do you suggest that we open our borders and attract anyone around the world to come and live in the UK as they deserve the same standard of living.   Can you imagine the chaos that would create, our health and social services would collapse, we would not be able to house and feed the population and regular society would break down.   There has to be a form of control.

I see you come from Scotland which has a low population per square mile, England has one of the highest in the world, come and take a look around our major cities, our net migration creates a city the size of Cardiff each year. Brexit is a symptom of the immigration problem not the cause.


----------



## hovis (Oct 24, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I find your view astonishing.   Do you suggest that we open our borders and attract anyone around the world to come and live in the UK as they deserve the same standard of living.   Can you imagine the chaos that would create, our health and social services would collapse, we would not be able to house and feed the population and regular society would break down.   There has to be a form of control.

I see you come from Scotland which has a low population per square mile, England has one of the highest in the world, come and take a look around our major cities, our net migration creates a city the size of Cardiff each year. Brexit is a symptom of the immigration problem not the cause.
		
Click to expand...

what this guy said.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			Coming from Scotland I was shocked at some of the conversations I heard when down in England the other month, even instances bordering on downright racism on a train journey. This Brexit vote has seemingly given many the right to spout whatever pish they like.
		
Click to expand...

Is it racist to suggest that English people are more racist than Scottish people?


----------



## Raesy92 (Oct 25, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I find your view astonishing.   Do you suggest that we open our borders and attract anyone around the world to come and live in the UK as they deserve the same standard of living.   Can you imagine the chaos that would create, our health and social services would collapse, we would not be able to house and feed the population and regular society would break down.   There has to be a form of control.

I see you come from Scotland which has a low population per square mile, England has one of the highest in the world, come and take a look around our major cities, our net migration creates a city the size of Cardiff each year. Brexit is a symptom of the immigration problem not the cause.
		
Click to expand...

Yes because I just said there should be no form of control at all ...

I was speaking of the refugee's that have came in that everyone is having an uproar over because they look over the age of 18! I see the rest of the post you have conveniently ignored.

The government could have tackled immigration from those outside the EU before Brexit and didn't so what is going to make that change now?


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I suggested that it is not honest to the basic values of the UK on the grounds that *this* seems to be predicated on the basis of the UK having no responsibilities to accept ANY immigrants - and that we should do whatever we can to avoid accepting any unless we are almost forced to.  You may not have meant it that way but that is how it comes across to me.  Apologies if I have misunderstood.
		
Click to expand...

How many do you think we should take and how many are we responsible for taking? Is this number the same? From what I can glean from the news, the U.K. Is taking those Children who have a legal right to reside in the U.K. Are we responsible for more?
If we were outside the EU and therefore not subject to accepting any EU citizen who chose to come here, do you think we would be able to take more? And if so, should we?
In that context, is it more important to take people in need rather than take people from the EU for what are seen as economic benefits for belonging to the EU? Or, as these people are already in Europe and therefore safe, should we not be worrying about them so much?
Just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply asking questions that must be answered by those on both sides of the argument to validate their point of view. I would be interested in your answers.


----------



## Raesy92 (Oct 25, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Is it racist to suggest that English people are more racist than Scottish people?
		
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting English people are more racist than Scottish people. I am stating that from my experience of what I have seen/heard post Brexit that the feeling in England is very much different to that of Scotland. While also having the displeasure of witnessing a racist incident while on a train journey in England. 

I did not say 'This Brexit vote has seemingly given the 'English' the right to spout whatever pish they like'.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			In my eyes it's not honest.  It pretends to be a reasonable argument when in fact it hides behind the fact that the UK is at the edge of Europe - and uses that as a 'reason' for us not having any, or at best minimal, responsibility for refugees or immigrants.  When we are in fact a member of the EU with joint ownership of issues, and we are a 'christian' (apparently) country whose reputation is based upon championing the rights of others, and caring for the dispossessed and endangered.
		
Click to expand...

SILH.
The fact that the UK is at the edge of the Europe is irrelevant, we were part of the EU and as such were bound by law to take in so many people claiming political asylum, migrants etc etc. This subject is not about that. It is about CHILD refugees, and not one post including mine states that we should not let any enter the country. What has upset people inc me is that some of the children being let in do not look like children. I have read sweeps post again in which I agreed with and again find nothing to disagree with. 
The only thing that I have disagreed with is that your reasonable argument addresses issues that have nothing to do with child migrants entering the UK. Eg UK edge of Europe, Christian country, championing rights of others.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 25, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			I am not suggesting English people are more racist than Scottish people. I am stating that from my experience of what I have seen/heard post Brexit that the feeling in England is very much different to that of Scotland. While also having the displeasure of witnessing a racist incident while on a train journey in England. 

I did not say 'This Brexit vote has seemingly given the 'English' the right to spout whatever pish they like'.
		
Click to expand...

Don't expect an apology or a reply from SR 
BTW good posts.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			SILH.
*The fact that the UK is at the edge of the Europe is irrelevant, *we were part of the EU and as such were bound by law to take in so many people claiming political asylum, migrants etc etc. This subject is not about that. It is about CHILD refugees, and not one post including mine states that we should not let any enter the country. What has upset people inc me is that some of the children being let in do not look like children. I have read sweeps post again in which I agreed with and again find nothing to disagree with. 
The only thing that I have disagreed with is that your reasonable argument addresses issues that have nothing to do with child migrants entering the UK. Eg UK edge of Europe, Christian country, championing rights of others.


Click to expand...

I wish that *this *was the case - yet so many make the case against accepting refugees on the grounds of 'first safe country' - and is it not handy that the UK is at the far western edge of Europe with lots of safe countries between the sources of refugees and the UK

And on child refugees - my point is simply that it tells me a fair bit about the mindset of many towards accepting refugees when a huge fuss is made over some child refugees seeming to be a bit older than they claim.  It really is a big deal.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

Sweep said:



			How many do you think we should take and how many are we responsible for taking? Is this number the same? From what I can glean from the news, the U.K. Is taking those Children who have a legal right to reside in the U.K. Are we responsible for more?
If we were outside the EU and therefore not subject to accepting any EU citizen who chose to come here, do you think we would be able to take more? And if so, should we?
In that context, is it more important to take people in need rather than take people from the EU for what are seen as economic benefits for belonging to the EU? Or, as these people are already in Europe and therefore safe, should we not be worrying about them so much?
Just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply asking questions that must be answered by those on both sides of the argument to validate their point of view. I would be interested in your answers.
		
Click to expand...

My views are from the initial stand-point of us having values of being a caring and compassionate society - a society that has always looked to provide a home for the dispossessed and endangered.  Holding tight to those values we should start from a position of considering all in need - and working from that point on how many and of what nature of immigrant we can manage to accommodate - and accepting that that would require sacrifices by us all and that we have no greater right to maintaining what we currently have than anyone else in Europe.  In contrast the current standpoint of many seems to be a starting point of we keep and protect what we have, and no immigration other than that which we need, and for many that would be none.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			I am not suggesting English people are more racist than Scottish people. I am stating that from my experience of what I have seen/heard post Brexit that the feeling in England is very much different to that of Scotland. While also having the displeasure of witnessing a racist incident while on a train journey in England. 

I did not say 'This Brexit vote has seemingly given the 'English' the right to spout whatever pish they like'.
		
Click to expand...

Why would he expect an apology from Socket Rocket? It was me that asked if it was racist to suggest the English were more racist than the Scots.
My comment was tongue in cheek to illustrate how daft the world has become. 
For the record, I live in England 24/7/365 and I haven't seen a single incident of racism since the referendum. There has undoubtedly been more conversations on immigration but as this seemed to be central to the debate I suppose that would be expected. However, none of these have been racist and I do think this narrative suggesting Brexit has given a voice to racists nicely fits the agenda of those who refuse to accept the result - unless you think that discussing immigration is racist in itself.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 25, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Why would he expect an apology from Socket Rocket? It was me that asked if it was racist to suggest the English were more racist than the Scots.
My comment was tongue in cheek to illustrate how daft the world has become. 
For the record, I live in England 24/7/365 and I haven't seen a single incident of racism since the referendum. There has undoubtedly been more conversations on immigration but as this seemed to be central to the debate I suppose that would be expected. However, none of these have been racist and I do think this narrative suggesting Brexit has given a voice to racists nicely fits the agenda of those who refuse to accept the result - unless you think that discussing immigration is racist in itself.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have put a comma after apology.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 25, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Why would he expect an apology from Socket Rocket? It was me that asked if it was racist to suggest the English were more racist than the Scots.
My comment was tongue in cheek to illustrate how daft the world has become. 
For the record, I live in England 24/7/365 and I haven't seen a single incident of racism since the referendum. There has undoubtedly been more conversations on immigration but as this seemed to be central to the debate I suppose that would be expected. However, none of these have been racist and I do think this narrative suggesting Brexit has given a voice to racists nicely fits the agenda of those who refuse to accept the result - unless you think that discussing immigration is racist in itself.
		
Click to expand...

I live in Scotland and sadly I have heard quite a few [via the telephone] from my English relatives.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I live in Scotland and sadly I have heard quite a few [via the telephone] from my English relatives.
		
Click to expand...

Just as a wee bit balance of @DfT - I have heard Scots (in Scotland) talk about the immigrant community in Scotland in ways that would be deemed unacceptable in England.  Not necessarily in a nasty or pejorative way - but in a way which nonetheless would be deemed unacceptable.  Scots have to be a little bit careful.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 25, 2016)

We could play table tennis with the "who makes more racist comments, the English or Scots". I live not far from the border and have heard many Scots make racist comments about the English, not uncommon at all. Go to a rugby match at Murrayfield, great occasion by the way, and fill your boots with anti English comments. Does that mean I view all Scots as racist? No. I'm big enough and old enough to see past that. Making these sorts of comments is cheap points scoring. Move on and get back to proper discussion.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			My views are from the initial stand-point of us having values of being a caring and compassionate society - a society that has always looked to provide a home for the dispossessed and endangered.  Holding tight to those values we should start from a position of considering all in need - and working from that point on how many and of what nature of immigrant we can manage to accommodate - and accepting that that would require sacrifices by us all and that we have no greater right to maintaining what we currently have than anyone else in Europe.  In contrast the current standpoint of many seems to be a starting point of we keep and protect what we have, and no immigration other than that which we need, and for many that would be none.
		
Click to expand...

That is all very laudable but with respect you haven't answered any of my questions. If you cannot even put a number on this, how can the UK even begin to form a plan? From your reply I assume you believe we should ignore our responsibilities and take all who are dispossessed and endangered. But how many exactly is this and how do we determine who is dispossessed and endangered? Should we ditch our deal with the EU to make way for the endangered and dispossessed? If the UK was the first port of call for refugees and migrants, do you think the rest of Europe would be clamouring to take them off our hands?
When you talk of sacrifices, what would you be prepared to sacrifice? Are we talking about more houses in your area, less choice of school places for your kids, or no school for your kids? Maybe they want to build on your golf course. Would you be OK if it places your job under threat, your car, your house? I suspect we all have different levels we would be prepared to accept but how do we all agree? I don't think we should be too critical of people not wanting to lose the life they and their parents have worked hard for.

I suspect this is an idealism v practicality argument. In an ideal world we would all like to take every person who wants to come here, but it's simply not practical.
Lets start with something both sides can surely agree on. Whether you believe in unfettered immigration or no immigration at all, we all have to accept that we can only go at the pace we can cope with. We all know about the arguments on roads, hospitals, schools, doctors, housing, sewers, power, welfare etc. There is no point bringing unlimited numbers into the UK if we can't offer these people a decent life. That is why they want to come here. To be able to cope we have to know what numbers we are talking about. In many parts of the UK we can hardly cope now. It is inevitable that we and every other country has to set numbers. Alternatively we can move the Calais camp to Surrey but I don't think this is the idea.

Its all well and good taking the idealistic, moral high ground as the left often does, but someone has to work out how to make it work and how to pay for it. Someone has to work out the practicalities.

I would have to add that going off a number of posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK had done nothing for refugees, migrants or economic immigration, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

Again, I have to ask, as these people are already in France, why are they so desperate to come to the UK? What do we offer them that France doesn't? Why are they not requesting EU citizenship in France and then just walking into the UK? There must be a reason. Genuine questions.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

Sweep said:



			That is all very laudable but with respect you haven't answered any of my questions. If you cannot even put a number on this, how can the UK even begin to form a plan? From your reply I assume you believe we should ignore our responsibilities and take all who are dispossessed and endangered. But how many exactly is this and how do we determine who is dispossessed and endangered? Should we ditch our deal with the EU to make way for the endangered and dispossessed? If the UK was the first port of call for refugees and migrants, do you think the rest of Europe would be clamouring to take them off our hands?
When you talk of sacrifices, what would you be prepared to sacrifice? Are we talking about more houses in your area, less choice of school places for your kids, or no school for your kids? Maybe they want to build on your golf course. Would you be OK if it places your job under threat, your car, your house? I suspect we all have different levels we would be prepared to accept but how do we all agree? I don't think we should be too critical of people not wanting to lose the life they and their parents have worked hard for.

I suspect this is an idealism v practicality argument. In an ideal world we would all like to take every person who wants to come here, but it's simply not practical.
Lets start with something both sides can surely agree on. Whether you believe in unfettered immigration or no immigration at all, we all have to accept that we can only go at the pace we can cope with. We all know about the arguments on roads, hospitals, schools, doctors, housing, sewers, power, welfare etc. There is no point bringing unlimited numbers into the UK if we can't offer these people a decent life. That is why they want to come here. To be able to cope we have to know what numbers we are talking about. In many parts of the UK we can hardly cope now. It is inevitable that we and every other country has to set numbers. Alternatively we can move the Calais camp to Surrey but I don't think this is the idea.

Its all well and good taking the idealistic, moral high ground as the left often does, but someone has to work out how to make it work and how to pay for it. Someone has to work out the practicalities.

I would have to add that going off a number of posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK had done nothing for refugees, migrants or economic immigration, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

*Again, I have to ask, as these people are already in France, why are they so desperate to come to the UK? What do we offer them that France doesn't? Why are they not requesting EU citizenship in France and then just walking into the UK? There must be a reason. Genuine questions.*

Click to expand...

But why are you bothered, they want to come here because - they want to come here.  They like the sound of the UK - be proud.

You see my point is that I don't start from the point of questioning why they want to come here.  I would accept that they want to come here and assuming that their background merits asking us - and if we can accommodate them - why not?  Of course there has to be limits and criteria - but the starting point is very different.

As far as sacrifices.  I simply ask why it is that we should not be expected to make any sacrifices - as others across Europe currently are.  And that could be through us paying more tax to fund public spending or scrapping projects such as Trident replacement.  Are we in some way special?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 25, 2016)

Not really sure the question, why so many want to come to the UK? is valid, more don't, if we believe the number of refugees leaving the ME is correct, why do some Brits want to live in Spain or Portugal and bypass France or USA or Australia? Maybe it's the language or quality of life or they have family here.


----------



## Raesy92 (Oct 25, 2016)

Sweep said:



			That is all very laudable but with respect you haven't answered any of my questions. If you cannot even put a number on this, how can the UK even begin to form a plan? From your reply I assume you believe we should ignore our responsibilities and take all who are dispossessed and endangered. But how many exactly is this and how do we determine who is dispossessed and endangered? Should we ditch our deal with the EU to make way for the endangered and dispossessed? If the UK was the first port of call for refugees and migrants, do you think the rest of Europe would be clamouring to take them off our hands?
When you talk of sacrifices, what would you be prepared to sacrifice? Are we talking about more houses in your area, less choice of school places for your kids, or no school for your kids? Maybe they want to build on your golf course. Would you be OK if it places your job under threat, your car, your house? I suspect we all have different levels we would be prepared to accept but how do we all agree? I don't think we should be too critical of people not wanting to lose the life they and their parents have worked hard for.

I suspect this is an idealism v practicality argument. In an ideal world we would all like to take every person who wants to come here, but it's simply not practical.
Lets start with something both sides can surely agree on. Whether you believe in unfettered immigration or no immigration at all, we all have to accept that we can only go at the pace we can cope with. We all know about the arguments on roads, hospitals, schools, doctors, housing, sewers, power, welfare etc. There is no point bringing unlimited numbers into the UK if we can't offer these people a decent life. That is why they want to come here. To be able to cope we have to know what numbers we are talking about. In many parts of the UK we can hardly cope now. It is inevitable that we and every other country has to set numbers. Alternatively we can move the Calais camp to Surrey but I don't think this is the idea.

Its all well and good taking the idealistic, moral high ground as the left often does, but someone has to work out how to make it work and how to pay for it. Someone has to work out the practicalities.

I would have to add that going off a number of posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK had done nothing for refugees, migrants or economic immigration, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

Again, I have to ask, as these people are already in France, why are they so desperate to come to the UK? What do we offer them that France doesn't? Why are they not requesting EU citizenship in France and then just walking into the UK? There must be a reason. Genuine questions.
		
Click to expand...

If you look at the numbers of refugees settled from Syria, it is simply not true that they all want to come to the UK. I know this is not what you are saying but many seem to think so.

I think it should be our, and every other country that has the resources to do so's, duty to take their fair share. When looking at the settlement figures I don't believe the UK is doing enough to help. I keep hearing people say 'Oh they all want to com to Britain to take advantage of the benefit system, healthcare etc ..' but the UK have only taken a tiny proportion of refugee's compared to some, even much smaller, countries than ourselves. If figures are to be believed there are 4.5million Syrian refugee's in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Yet outside of Sweden and Germany, the other 26 EU countries (inc. us) have taken just 31,000 (which has proabbly risen now to be fair).


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I wish that *this *was the case - yet so many make the case against accepting refugees on the grounds of 'first safe country' - and is it not handy that the UK is at the far western edge of Europe with lots of safe countries between the sources of refugees and the UK

And on child refugees - my point is simply that it tells me a fair bit about the mindset of many towards accepting refugees when a huge fuss is made over some child refugees seeming to be a bit older than they claim.  It really is a big deal.
		
Click to expand...

It would seem sensible to accept that first safe country is a definition of a refugee. After that they become migrants. This does not absolve us from responsibility, moral or otherwise, but the language is more accurate.
The point about children is that the UK has agreed to take some unaccompanied children. If they are not children then the system is being abused. People naturally don't like being conned when they are trying to help.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			If you look at the numbers of refugees settled from Syria, it is simply not true that they all want to come to the UK. I know this is not what you are saying but many seem to think so.

I think it should be our, and every other country that has the resources to do so's, duty to take their fair share. When looking at the settlement figures I don't believe the UK is doing enough to help. I keep hearing people say 'Oh they all want to com to Britain to take advantage of the benefit system, healthcare etc ..' but the UK have only taken a tiny proportion of refugee's compared to some, even much smaller, countries than ourselves. If figures are to be believed there are 4.5million Syrian refugee's in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Yet outside of Sweden and Germany, the other 26 EU countries (inc. us) have taken just 31,000 (which has proabbly risen now to be fair).
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this post. I am sure many Syrian refugees have sought refuge in local countries with the intention of returning once the war is over.
I think part of the problem is that many in Calais are not casualties of the Syrian war and are in fact economic migrants.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But why are you bothered, they want to come here because - they want to come here.  They like the sound of the UK - be proud.

You see my point is that I don't start from the point of questioning why they want to come here.  I would accept that they want to come here and assuming that their background merits asking us - and if we can accommodate them - why not?  Of course there has to be limits and criteria - but the starting point is very different.

As far as sacrifices.  I simply ask why it is that we should not be expected to make any sacrifices - as others across Europe currently are.  And that could be through us paying more tax to fund public spending or scrapping projects such as Trident replacement.  Are we in some way special?
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't know and seemingly neither do you, why they are prepared to live in the Calais camp and try to stow away in vehicles or walk through the tunnel in the vain hope that can live in Britain. These people are already in France and have travelled through rich European countries to get to our border. Of course I am bothered why because this is absolutely central to the issue. If you are bothered about their welfare you would be bothered too. Are we a softer touch than France? Is our benefit system more generous? Do we grant EU citizenship more easily? If we can't even answer this basic question, how on earth do we begin to solve the problem?
The truth is it is just another example of how the EU has utterly failed in anything important. This is exactly it's reason for being and it failed to set an agreement that in this kind of crisis everyone takes their share and provides the same welfare. This is the end result.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we don't make any sacrifices. The central issue on the EU ref was the sacrifices we have already made. Remember "we want our country back"? But even you can't say what you would be prepared to sacrifice. The sad truth is in private most people would sacrifice nothing, but in public claim the moral high ground and sod the practicalities. Gary Linekar and Lily Allen being fine examples. And just like that, we are back on topic &#128512;


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Don't expect an apology or a reply from SR 
BTW good posts.
		
Click to expand...

You stupid little man.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2016)

Raesy92 said:



			Yes because I just said there should be no form of control at all ...

I was speaking of the refugee's that have came in that everyone is having an uproar over because they look over the age of 18! I see the rest of the post you have conveniently ignored.

The government could have tackled immigration from those outside the EU before Brexit and didn't so what is going to make that change now?
		
Click to expand...

If you think there should be no form of immigration control then can you explain how the problems I posted would be acceptable.

You are rather alarmist and prone to exaggeration.  To suggest that 'everyone is having an uproar' is untrue.   I  am not aware what I have ignored from your previous post but if you would enlighten me I am sure I could answer it.  And, Brexit has not taken place yet.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 25, 2016)

Gary Lineker

DICK..wanted 50k to come hit a golf ball for a charity... DICK


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 25, 2016)

I maybe wrong here but you will probably find his agent asked for that. I doubt he is aware, he will let his agent deal with all bookings, charges etc.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 25, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You stupid little man.
		
Click to expand...

Bloomin cheek.........I'm 5'10'' :lol:


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 25, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I maybe wrong here but you will probably find his agent asked for that. I doubt he is aware, he will let his agent deal with all bookings, charges etc.
		
Click to expand...


Surely you do not believe that the client (in this case Lineker) is unaware of the appearance fees that his agent would be requesting on his behalf.

Agents do not operate in a vacuum and clients will be well aware of their "value".


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Bloomin cheek.........I'm 5'10'' :lol:
		
Click to expand...

And full of BS


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 25, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Surely you do not believe that the client (in this case Lineker) is unaware of the appearance fees that his agent would be requesting on his behalf.

Agents do not operate in a vacuum and clients will be well aware of their "value".
		
Click to expand...

I get that Lineker will know what he is charged out at but he wont know who approaches his agent. That is why the agent is there. Now I would accept totally that there should be an agreement between agent and client over charges including no charge for charity events. 

Clearly the other option is that I am hopelessly naive and he is a dick &#128513;


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Oct 26, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I get that Lineker will know what he is charged out at but he wont know who approaches his agent. That is why the agent is there. Now I would accept totally that there should be an agreement between agent and client over charges including no charge for charity events. 

Clearly the other option is that I am hopelessly naive and he is a dick &#62977;
		
Click to expand...

No charge for charity events? So if 365 charities invite him in a year, he should go and do them all for free?


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 26, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			No charge for charity events? So if 365 charities invite him in a year, he should go and do them all for free?
		
Click to expand...

No, but maybe he should tell his agent to inform him of all charities that get in contact and he can deal with ones close to his heart?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 26, 2016)

As Papas said. Clearly celebs can't do every event but a polite no would be better than an excessive fee quote. It is about a balance. If you want someone to open a supermarket you pay them for it. To help promote a charity, no fee, expenses only at most. These people have done well enough out of life to be able to afford that. I'd still like to think that he was unaware of the request and fee quoted.


----------



## MegaSteve (Oct 26, 2016)

Sadly with most of the bigger charities these days its business first charity second...


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			No charge for charity events? So if 365 charities invite him in a year, he should go and do them all for free?
		
Click to expand...


Where do you see it written that there should be no charge for charity events?

Oops i forgot, this is a forum where you read something, ignore it and then reply to your own version

He wanted 50k to hit 1 ball for a kids blind charity
at a golf club that he plays at regularly and is* local to him* (50K) think about that

as i say, dick


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Where do you see it written that there should be no charge for charity events?

Oops i forgot, this is a forum where you read something, ignore it and then reply to your own version

He wanted 50k to hit 1 ball for a kids blind charity
at a golf club that he plays at regularly and is* local to him* (50K) think about that

as i say, dick
		
Click to expand...


Second Line:lol:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 26, 2016)

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/this-sun-story-is-a-little-weird?utm_source=vicetwitteruk


----------

