Jump to content

Rugby League World
League Express
Garry Schofield Testimonial Brochure (Signed)


Member Since 06 Jun 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 05:01 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: European Refugee Crisis

Today, 03:50 AM

So lets be clear, Germany are looking at 800,000 people they are processing. Some of which they may be sending home. We are talking about around 3,000 people sitting in Calais wanting to come here, not even in this country to process. Germany accepts them processes them in hundreds of thousands and we can't cope with a tiny percentage of that. 


Does that not say something about how this country is being run, we can't do do a tiny percentage of what Germany is doing, or does it show how with the right wing agenda taking over in this country we are heading to be the be the most intolerant first world country on the planet.

Morally speaking, we should send them all back to Syria apparently.


It is funny this morality lark.

In Topic: European Refugee Crisis

Today, 03:49 AM

On that basis the only moral thing to do is to throw open our borders to the population of Syria, Libya, South Sudan, Afghanistan and all the other failed states around the world whose population would like to move to Europe and/or the United Kingdom to escape the conditions in their own countries.

We should arrange their transport here, avoiding the need for them to make hazardous crossings of the Mediterranean that lead to outcomes like the terrible photograph of the little boy that has been posted on this thread.

We can then all feel morally superior, and we can have contempt for those countries that don't follow our example.

The problem is that for all the moral posing that some people like to do, there doesn't seem to be a solution in sight.

The one thing we know is that relaxing the entry conditions will lead to an increase in the number of people who are prepared to risk their lives to come to Europe, making more tragedies such as the one highlighted here inevitable.

It may make some of us feel better about ourselves, but it will ensure that in the long term more people suffer terrible deaths.

And that seems to me to be an immoral stance.

The difference, incidentally, compared to 1938 is that we knew then that Jews were being victimised because they were Jewish, and they were facing obliteration unless they could get out of Germany.

The people trying to reach Europe now are not, as far as we are aware, facing ethnic cleansing in their own countries.

The most moral thing to do is exactly what you say.  But we must also be pragmatic, I am impressed you took my last reply to you so much to heart.  Good news on the transport issue, they are arriving in Europe anyway, you should tune into the news more - I am surprised you missed it.  


If you really think people only have compassion out of a desire to me morally superior, then I assume you are into nihilism.  I will respectfully disagree.  


I would suggest the increase in numbers of refugees is not primarily to do with the UK entry conditions.  It seems odd that so many are landing in Greece and attempting to reach Germany if that is the case.  About four million people have fled Syria, about 20% of the population.  They would  seem as a population extremely sensitive to possible future relaxations of UK borders.  There has been some political unrest in Syria and I suggest that is a bigger reason.


It is very hard to make this point without seeming sarcastic.


As for the difference to 1938; I question how relevant the basis if persecution is.  Admittedly, the Muslim and Christian refugee are not being persecuted for being Jewish, is it anti-Semitic of me to suggest that does not seem a biggie?  


Still, congratulations on your strong moral stance.

In Topic: European Refugee Crisis

Today, 03:36 AM

Irony, irony.  Americans are in no position to criticise anyone else, bearing in mind their attitude towards central Americans.

The debate in the USA is a world away.  In the UK, accepting the right of people with no documented of legal right to live in the UK would not even be discussed.  The debate in the USA centers around how dare the US not accept everyone.

In Topic: Labour leadership contest

Yesterday, 11:39 PM

First of all, though, you have to catch them alive and I don't believe for one moment that would have happened in relation to bin Laden.


First, if BR is naive is thinking it might have been possible, you should explain why beyond assertion.


Secondly, even if not possible, it does not seem bizarre that Corbyn would regard this as unfortunate, for the reasons I previously gave.

In Topic: Labour leadership contest

Yesterday, 05:03 PM

Bin Laden was a terrorist leading a group that had declared war on the west.


He was hardly a conventional criminal and in accordance with your definition he was a combatant rather than a criminal.


His killing was entirely justified.


There are lots of deaths in the world that are indeed tragedies, to use Corbyn's own expression, but to pick out Bin Laden's death as opposed to many others as a tragedy seems perverse in the extreme.

I appreciate your lack of cynicism.  


Often, nasty figures who are executed are held up as martyrs.  Putting them on trial and have them grow old slowly in prison is often a more effective way of removing their power over people.