But if there was nothing for them, and I mean absolutely nothing except maybe water and hostility, them I believe their numbers would subside.
Vive la France!
- Thread starter oldtom
- Start date
I agree the numbers could easily be reduced, but theres always the problem of one's own locals helping them. For example all the employers of very low pay illegals who welcome them and even house them to obtain the profit benefit.
That's why I gave the USA problem as an example. It's probable that few outside the USA realise the size of their Hispanic population now. They are now the largest minority ethnic group, almost a fifth of the population and rising so fast they are forecast to reach being a third of all Americans and will be a controlling US influence. In the single year mid 2013 to mid 2014 they were half of all the nation's population increase.
Since their origins are largely illegal immigration, it shows how this can completely change a country's nature.
.
Last edited:
I know the illegal employment market is problem. In the Midlands, Lincolnshire farmers are exploiting illegal immigrants, using them in the fields to harvest vegetables. This can't be hard to police though because they are quite visible. But I suspect that lack of will is the reason nothing is done.
I can't help but feel that we are all passengers on a high speed train heading for the buffers. The engine driver a grinning manic clown.
Very true, and not just for the immigration issue.
The driver problem is us though, all thinking a train can be steered when it patently cannot be. To get steering back we need to get off the train and regain control, which means scrapping our failed democratic model.
.
Not quite sure what you mean by this flecc. Do you mean that in your view our democratic model should be changed and perhaps made more local and accountable? Or do you mean you would like to scrap democracy in favour of some more top down authoritarian model?
You are spot on with your views on our democratic model. It has completely failed. The views and opinions of the general public are not listened to or acted upon. With our instantaneous, linked together society (Internet / online data), there has to be a better way in which we can all participate more actively in the direction our country takes.
To elect one person from our local community to go to London and represent our views seem antiquated and out of place. It was OK in the 1700s, but with modern technology we can do it better and each of us should be able to participate more fully in the process.
I suggested such a system when this forum was only just over a month old. You can read that post on this link.
.
Here are a few interesting statistics:
France has 280000 police officers with access to firearms and who are firearms trained. The UK currently had 6000 and Theresa May thinks we can get by with less.
Within two hours, France had more police officers on the streets of Paris than the UK has in total. Theresa May thinks we need less police.
Close protection of Politicians has not been diminished since the Conservatives came to power.
France has 280000 police officers with access to firearms and who are firearms trained. The UK currently had 6000 and Theresa May thinks we can get by with less.
Within two hours, France had more police officers on the streets of Paris than the UK has in total. Theresa May thinks we need less police.
Close protection of Politicians has not been diminished since the Conservatives came to power.
Because you thought they were there to protect ordinary people?
We get to walk by policemen with snazzy weapons now. Just hoping there aren't any as trigger happy as the yanks...
Syrian Conflict Explained
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).
So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad), which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
I hope that this clears it all up for you.
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).
So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad), which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
I hope that this clears it all up for you.
You have a typo at the beginning: "Americans (who are good) " should read Americans (who have bad Middle East foreign policy since they started playing with the Shah of Iran) short version (who have always been bad in the Middle East)
Otherwise you are on the money
Otherwise you are on the money
Well - - - - - almost on the money, not all the propaganda has been rejected:
"President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled"
That's the US/UK propaganda, but if he was so bad, why does much of the country support him, Sunni as well as Shia, even though his Shia are a small minority of the population?
The rebellion was about Sunnis seeking power and it was triggered by the West inspired and encouraged so called "Arab Spring", going on elsewhere. The Sunni rebels thought if they tried to grab power the West would help them as it did the rebels in Libya, a big miscalculation.
So the real villains are? The West and chiefly the USA and UK, who have spent so much of history from the crusades to the present interfering in the Middle East. If we'd never interfered with other countries there would never have been 9/11, 7/7 or an ISIS.
To solve a problem first find the problem, and that's often best found by looking in a mirror.
.
I suspect what Theresa May really thinks is that reducing the police numbers will eventually give room for more private security providers.
Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It's obviously something he wants to do which is fine I suppose.
My real concern is the continued passing on of government services to dodgy companies like G4S. As soon as profit comes in to play, the problems start to arise. Profit should not be the priority when it comes to policing.
You can rest assured that just because Theresa May's husband has a large financial stake in G4S, this will not influence government policy.
Have a read of this > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Let the Russians send the footsloggers in to tidy the mess up... ;-)
Eep. the 'III. The Apocalypse'
"Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State’s videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,” said a masked executioner in a November video, showing the severed head of Peter (Abdul Rahman) Kassig, the aid worker who’d been held captive for more than a year. During fighting in Iraq in December, after mujahideen (perhaps inaccurately) reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts or hostesses upon the arrival of the first guests at a party.
The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who “Rome” is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. But Cerantonio makes a case that Rome meant the Eastern Roman empire, which had its capital in what is now Istanbul. We should think of Rome as the Republic of Turkey—the same republic that ended the last self-identified caliphate, 90 years ago. Other Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army, and the Americans will do nicely.
After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.
“Only God knows” whether the Islamic State’s armies are the ones foretold, Cerantonio said. But he is hopeful. “The Prophet said that one sign of the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” he said. “If you go to the mosques now, you’ll find the preachers are silent about this subject.” On this theory, even setbacks dealt to the Islamic State mean nothing, since God has preordained the near-destruction of his people anyway. The Islamic State has its best and worst days ahead of it."
Last edited: