These 3,000 child refugees.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stevie Freestein II said:
Because governments tend to be shite and cannot do anything at all too well never mind concurrently.

It's your opinion that the UK should care for foreign kids, fair enough. My opinion is that I'd rather kids who were born in the UK were cared for before foreign kids, if at all.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you feeL really proud if this country had done the same in 1939? How proud would we all be right now I'd we'd told 20,000 Jewish kids "sorry, but we have our own problems going on right now. We can't afford you". Stay classy UK.
 


The Great Soprendo said:
MBH - where does your compassion (or rather lack of it) begin and end?
Yourself?
Your friends and family?
Your immediate community?
The country you live in?
The continent you live in?
The world?

Where do you arbitrarily draw the line?

IMO we all have a responsibility to all our fellow humans, to treat them humanely and help them wherever we are able. We might have problems of our own in the UK but we are still able to help others. It is precisely attitudes like yours that have led to the world being so fucked up in the first place. Of course we can't solve the problem alone, others must contribute too. But we certainly must play a part in solving it...unquestionably.
Click to expand...

Fair points but where do YOU draw the line with who to help?

Should we send cash to India when they have enough cash for space programmes?

Why not send cash to the USA for those who cannot afford health care?

Helping is nice but it isn't always practical.
 
HellsBells said:
Wouldn't you feeL really proud if this country had done the same in 1939? How proud would we all be right now I'd we'd told 20,000 Jewish kids "sorry, but we have our own problems going on right now. We can't afford you". Stay classy UK.
Click to expand...

A good point but I think that there was a lot of debate at the time and not everyone was keen on allowing Jewish people into the country.

Why did they stop at 20k kids when there were 6 million in total who were murdered by the Nazis?

Should the UK have resettled all of them?
 
Stevie Freestein II said:
Fair points but where do YOU draw the line with who to help?

Should we send cash to India when they have enough cash for space programmes?

Why not send cash to the USA for those who cannot afford health care?

Helping is nice but it isn't always practical.
Click to expand...
We should help those worse off than ourselves....even if it's just a little bit. We want Britain to be a 'global player'....then it works both ways IMO, and more to the point it's just the right thing to do.
 
Stevie Freestein II said:
Look after our own first.
Click to expand...
I love the way some people have suddenly become very concerned about needy children and the homeless in Britain. A few months ago they didn't give a fuck about them.
Seeing as how you seem so concerned Stevie what did you think about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report released last week on destitution in the UK ? I don't seem to remember you starting a thread about it.........such was your concern about "our own".

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/destitution-uk
 
Child refugees who have lost their families or made the dangerous journey across Europe ought to be given assistance.

I understand people's reservations about taking in refugees en-masse, especially in the way Germany have done. However, it is very hard to dispute the moral case against supporting vulnerable child refugees and offering them a better future.

Most of the arguments and concerns regarding taking in refugees do not apply in the event of focusing on children. Taking in 3000 kids is much more productive and a much humanitarian act than 1 million plus men whom some were blatant economic migrants.
 
MrOompapa said:
Child refugees who have lost their families or made the dangerous journey across Europe ought to be given assistance.

I understand people's reservations about taking in refugees en-masse, especially in the way Germany have done. However, it is very hard to dispute the moral case against supporting vulnerable child refugees and offering them a better future.

Most of the arguments and concerns regarding taking in refugees do not apply in the event of focusing on children. Taking in 3000 kids is much more productive and a much humanitarian act than 1 million plus men whom some were blatant economic migrants.
Click to expand...
Sums up my thinking
 
The Great Soprendo said:
We should help those worse off than ourselves....even if it's just a little bit. We want Britain to be a 'global player'....then it works both ways IMO, and more to the point it's just the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

I don't.

There's a lot of speaking up for other people, no offence intended and not particularly aimed at you.
 
The Great Soprendo said:
We should help those worse off than ourselves....even if it's just a little bit. We want Britain to be a 'global player'....then it works both ways IMO, and more to the point it's just the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

But the burden is being firmly placed on Northern towns and councils.......the people who shout the loudest about taking in refugees wouldn't recognise one from Adam because they aren't allocated to their nice leafy suburbs. London and the South East aren't playing their part.......in fact refugees aside the fuckers are exporting their disabled and benefit claimants up North too because it's cheaper to house them here.
 
My Boy Harry said:
Left wing, sandal wearing drivel.

No open borders shite on here please. Youd be happy to take 200m in. Saddled with self loathing dating back to some imperial incident your university lecturer told you about.
Click to expand...
Pathetic MBH.
How have the immigrants affected C-L-S and "the British way of life" there ? I was there in November and absolutely fuck all had changed apart from the town being over run with coke and smack.
 
MrOompapa said:
Child refugees who have lost their families or made the dangerous journey across Europe ought to be given assistance.

I understand people's reservations about taking in refugees en-masse, especially in the way Germany have done. However, it is very hard to dispute the moral case against supporting vulnerable child refugees and offering them a better future.

Most of the arguments and concerns regarding taking in refugees do not apply in the event of focusing on children. Taking in 3000 kids is much more productive and a much humanitarian act than 1 million plus men whom some were blatant economic migrants.
Click to expand...

Yes and on the plus side if kids are accepted there's the opportunity to mould them into nice Westernised secular voting consumers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top