Sinn Fein end Direct Provision

Wibbs

Herrerofatime wrote: »

One example from you:

Why didn't you include the rest of the post? And this was the best you could do in your ickle forensic trawl?

Me. Ages ago wrote:

Well you picked the old Jewish angle in your usual attempts to showboat and close down discussion(quelle surprise). Secondly you're labelling them asylum seekers, suggesting they're fleeing from tyranny, which is an increasingly bogus label. But, hey, I'll happily bite and you can swap out any two groups. If the government were to drop into a small rural Muslim town with few employment options or infrastructure a large number of predominantly young male Jews without any consultation or choice in the matter for the local population, yep I could well understand locals getting extremely pissed off and some taking it to extremes. Because I live in a place called the Real World™. And in said real world "multiculturalism" almost never works and has never worked, save for in what the modern world would consider hard core "right wing" cultures of the past. Oh and pointing to European colonies founded on and requiring off large scale immigration, IE colonisation, as examples doesn't work. It certainly didn't work for the original inhabitants.

Note I said I understand the whys. I hate to break it to you, but because one understands the whys of any situation, does not mean one supports, promotes, or indeed condemns.

Now, point out where you condemned these attacks.

I would add the caveat that if you don'rt you're a liar, but I'm not a moderator so would be risking getting in trouble for that.

Bless, you think you smell blood in the water so are going for broke. I like the "you're a mod" aspect. All hail the oppressors(I'm not a moderator of this forum BTW).


Coolaboola. Here ya go(bugger me Boards search is a pain in the arse. You must have gone to some trouble. I'm flattered, what with St Val's day coming up..)

The relevant bit.

Anti-Irish"?? BTW as far as I'm aware the hotel was vacant at the time of this attack. Which BTW Part II I don't condone in any way, even though I can understand why it's happening and why you will have a minority who go full retard and do something like this.

Now I know the R word will no doubt trigger you but there you go. In plain english in black and white. Oh and the very first post I thanked on that very thread, seeing as thanking posts seems to get knickers bunched..

Whatever their views, which they are entitled to, setting fire to a building is utterly scummy. The explanation is not an excuse. The emergency services, which probably have to bring reinforcements on board from a larger town, are tied up by it - hopefully there isn't another such serious incident occurring at the same time. There are residences and businesses nearby, smoke damage, scorched ground, high financial costs. Defending your town by setting fire to a building is a hell of a twisting of logic.

Wibbs

tipptom wrote: »

Can you answer the question and stop weaselling about white people,black people etc.

I will if you stop avoiding it.

You obviously think this incendiary rhetoric is okay alongside "send them the f*ck back home.

You missed the part where I said: It's not how I would have personally worded it, but I would agree with the general sentiment yes. Bogus asylum seekers, those who have been weighed and considered and rejected should indeed be sent home.

I quote our soon to be ex dear Leader Leo:

“There are, however, a lot of people from Georgia and Albania coming in with fake documents and that is the big driver of the increase,” he told the Sunday Independent.

A lot of people with fake, that is illegal documents driving a large increase in chancers. They would be "committing crime".

mikeym

Whats Russias policy on Asylum Seekers?

And North Koreas?

And Saudi Arabia's?

And Qatars?

Non existant id say.

Nobody told the asylum seekers to come here.

As for refugee's I welcome refugee's that have fled war.

tipptom

Wibbs wrote: »

I will if you stop avoiding it.

You missed the part where I said: It's not how I would have personally worded it, but I would agree with the general sentiment yes. Bogus asylum seekers, those who have been weighed and considered and rejected should indeed be sent home.

I quote our soon to be ex dear Leader Leo:



A lot of people with fake, that is illegal documents driving a large increase in chancers. They would be "committing crime".

So you are withdrawing your thanks to "Send them the fu*k back home"?

Why are you trying to change what was on the post that disappeared?
There was nothing about illegal documents or committing a crime with documents in it,it was "let them loose on the community to commit crime".

But you are not withdrawing your thanks for the hate filled incendiary rhetoric of "let them all loose into our communities to commit crime,you are actually doubling down on it by saying that if an asylum seeker has no documents or false documents that they are going to "commit crimes in our community's".

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't hear too much about the Georgians, Albanians and Ukrainians who try to get here and get refused claiming it's "racism".
.

Because it's not?
If an asylum seekers application is refused, then their case has been decided. How would that be racism?

Wibbs

tipptom wrote: »

you are actually doubling down on it by saying that if an asylum seeker has no documents or false documents that they are going to "commit crimes in our community's".

Eh... producing false documents is the very definition of a crime. So yep, straight outa the gate they're breaking the law of the land and international law to boot. But shure isn't dat ok, because they're "asylum seekers"? :rolleyes: Who's more likely to commit a crime, an above board asylum seeker or someone else trying to get into a country under planned false pretences?

Calhoun

I knew this would be a juicy thread, the white knighting and outrage is delicious. I haven't read it all yet but i assume somewhere in here is a post talking about the Irish emigrating for years.

The DP process should be ended and replaced with a legal process that either accepts or sends you home, far too many economic refugees who are taking places from actual asylum seekers.

We also need a decent integration model for those we are allowing to stay because right now we are just copying and pasting the problems that the UK have faced and we are giving extreme elements all they need to grow in popularity.

vladmydad

The Idea of asylum is to give temporary protection until it’s safe to return. When the conflict, for example, is over they’re supposed to be returned.

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

No not one bit bitter,

Are you are lad. You called the refugee who brought his case to the Supreme Court just so he could work bogus and on a jolly.

That is pretty delusional bitterness TBF.

I'd take a 100 of that guy for every unemployable ne'er do well rage posting from his mothers spare bedroom.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Are you are lad. You called the refugee who brought his case to the Supreme Court just so he could work bogus and on a jolly.

That is pretty delusional bitterness TBF.

I'd take a 100 of that guy for every unemployable ne'er do well rage posting from his mothers spare bedroom.

So you've tapped out your reserves of debate so completely all you're left with is a none too subtle variation of "you're wrong and you smell"? OK.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

So you've tapped out your reserves of debate so completely all you're left with is a none too subtle variation of "you're wrong and you smell"? OK.

I wouldn't know if he does or not.

But again pesky facts, the refugee who took the case was neither bogus nor on a jolly.

Discuss?

Sam Quentin

joseywhales wrote: »

Perhaps they will run out of ideas and just imprison innocent asylum seekers in an ironic twist.

Aye if there was prison spaces available!?

Eric Cartman

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Aye if there was prison spaces available!?

As if theres literally anyone presenting here for asylum that fully 100% followed the rules and only transitted legally on real documents

weldoninhio

vladmydad wrote: »

The Idea of asylum is to give temporary protection until it’s safe to return. When the conflict, for example, is over they’re supposed to be returned.

Greece are going to start only offering asylum for three years at a time. Proper order.

"The asylum we grant has a duration of three years, it is not indefinite," Mitarachi told To Vima weekly.

"Joint return operations will figure prominently in the new European commission proposals expected in March and April," he said. "If conditions change in a country [of origin], asylum may not be renewed."

tipptom

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh... producing false documents is the very definition of a crime. So yep, straight outa the gate they're breaking the law of the land and international law to boot. But shure isn't dat ok, because they're "asylum seekers"? :rolleyes: Who's more likely to commit a crime, an above board asylum seeker or someone else trying to get into a country under planned false pretences?

"Let them loose on the community to commit crime"

"Send them the f*ck back home".

That is the post that has disappeared.

You would only find that hate filled rhetoric on Stormfront sites or the like and the only one that got pulled up on this thread by a mod is me!!!

Own it now and put it back up if your so proud of it.

Nothing in that post about producing false documents so stop your weaselling about something else.

You have accused every asylum seeker that would go into the community will be "to commit crime".

rgossip30

Boggles wrote: »

Was just listening to 2 business people on the radio today saying they can't get workers and they pay well above the average.

8 vacancies in all they said.

I find it suspect they must be choosey. Turas nua is actively responsible for sending people for jobs .
This reminds me of an employer on radio in the celtic tiger days looking for cleaners . An annoyed woman called in said she had been to him for an interview and had 20 years + experience . He never replied to her after the interview and could only gasp ohhhh when challenged . He then composed himself and promised her a job .

Wibbs

tipptom wrote: »

"Let them loose on the community to commit crime"

"Send them the f*ck back home".

That is the post that has disappeared.

You would only find that hate filled rhetoric on Stormfront sites or the like and the only one that got pulled up on this thread by a mod is me!!!

Own it now and put it back up if your so proud of it.

Nothing in that post about producing false documents so stop your weaselling about something else.

You're all over the place in your efforts to get riled up, but I can tell you this much, I haven't deleted or modified a single one of my posts(or anyone else's. I couldn't).

CrankyHaus

rgossip30 wrote: »

I find it suspect they must be choosey. Turas nua is actively responsible for sending people for jobs .
This reminds me of an employer on radio in the celtic tiger days looking for cleaners . An annoyed woman called in said she had been to him for an interview and had 20 years + experience . He never replied to her after the interview and could only gasp ohhhh when challenged . He then composed himself and promised her a job .

Yes, actually this exposes why a lot of the "bleeding hearts" actually advocate for more migration. It prevents uppity workers from demanding more money in the good times when their skills and labour increase in demand, and should increase in value.

Beasty

The thread subject is Sinn Fein and what their alternative to Direct Provision may be

The last few pages has been filled with bickering about the wider topic of Direct Provision which has been done to death in various thread already. Now back on topic, or if there's nothing more to say then don't post

Boggles

rgossip30 wrote: »

I find it suspect they must be choosey.

They weren't afforded the benefit of being choosy, no one applied for the jobs.

You'll find that is common among a lot of sectors at the moment.

If the next government wants to end Direct Provision, they will also need to remove the barriers for people in DP being able to work and contribute towards their up keep.

rgossip30

Boggles wrote: »

They weren't afforded the benefit of being choosy, no one applied for the jobs.

You'll find that is common among a lot of sectors at the moment.

If the next government wants to end Direct Provision, they will also need to remove the barriers for people in DP being able to work and contribute towards their up keep.

They can work after 9 months .

suicide_circus

what would a venn diagram of staunch SF supporters and people who are less than fond of black taxi drivers look like?

ted1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's just another of their fantasy promises. In a housing crisis, where are they going to put asylum seekers?

On a plane or boat. SF aren’t tolerate of people