High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Mar 29th 2005, 8:14 pm
#166
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by NedKelly
You are seriously mixing up asylum seekers and economic refugees. So what if some countries take proportionally more than others.
Mar 30th 2005, 6:42 am
#167
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 244
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by bondipom
why does it matter that people skip a few nations before claiming assylum in the UK?
Now it could be said that the the largest continent with the smallest population woul dnot have problems allowing in "asylum seekers" -there is plenty of space afterall. BUT its not a question of space.
Fact is that there really are few genuine asylum seekers in danger, except in Africa's warring countries. So lets alll open the doors to them on a pro rata basis...biggest countries take more..cos they have space for them.On the other hand Africa is no midget..so on a space per person basis they dont need to move. Ooops forgot about the real reason..its not space...its MONEY...free housing, benefits, free driving lessons, other handouts.
Oh, and if BondiPom is in favour of why not this and why not that, how would he feel if someone just walked into his house and occupied it on the basis that -why not skip a few conventions, like having money to buy it and simply saying I need to live here because I am in danger if I dont!
With apologies to the others..nearly a rant !
Mar 30th 2005, 7:46 am
#168
Banned
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: from Shepherds Bush to Aussie Bush. Well not quite - Mountain Creek, Sunshine Coast
Posts: 187
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by bondipom
But all you have used is words like "lots of them" "overwhelmed" etc. That is neither an experience, a fact and it means jack all.
Oh sorry, I forgot that you base your current understanding of the problem in this country on figures gained from the Net, a week or so visiting London and some friends living here to, (not said where yet) !
Me, I have only lived here all my life, so I must know nothing. Yes, that's it, this is all an illusion. I know, if I can start looking at the Net, say, some of the sites you are looking at, this might clear up my miss-understanding of the situation.
You are a class one MUPPET.........
Have you got any other contributions that you can offer us all based on figures from the NET, and say, a week or two on holiday. Maybe, you have a solution to the issue in the US regarding immigrants from Mexico, you could check the Net and visit them for a two week holiday, I'm sure your observations would be well received over there !!
Mar 30th 2005, 7:54 am
#169
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by jc_hoops
Oh sorry, I forgot that you base your current understanding of the problem in this country on figures gained from the Net, a week or so visiting London and some friends living here to, (not said where yet) !
Me, I have only lived here all my life, so I must know nothing. Yes, that's it, this is all an illusion. I know, if I can start looking at the Net, say, some of the sites you are looking at, this might clear up my miss-understanding of the situation.
You are a class one MUPPET.........
Have you got any other contributions that you can offer us all based on figures from the NET, and say, a week or two on holiday. Maybe, you have a solution to the issue in the US regarding immigrants from Mexico, you could check the Net and visit them for a two week holiday, I'm sure your observations would be well received over there !!
Me, I have only lived here all my life, so I must know nothing. Yes, that's it, this is all an illusion. I know, if I can start looking at the Net, say, some of the sites you are looking at, this might clear up my miss-understanding of the situation.
You are a class one MUPPET.........
Have you got any other contributions that you can offer us all based on figures from the NET, and say, a week or two on holiday. Maybe, you have a solution to the issue in the US regarding immigrants from Mexico, you could check the Net and visit them for a two week holiday, I'm sure your observations would be well received over there !!
Mar 30th 2005, 7:54 am
#170
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by Vinny van Gogh
Now it could be said that the the largest continent with the smallest population would not have problems allowing in "asylum seekers" -there is plenty of space afterall. BUT its not a question of space.
Mar 30th 2005, 7:54 am
#171
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by Vinny van Gogh
Just side stepping the thread intent for a while---could I perhaps invoke some rolleyes and mention values! The basic structure on which we base our lives. Good ole BondiPom seems to have overlooked that there are laws and conventions in place. Just like the ones that were applied when presumably, he inititated a visa application to live and work in Australia. Applying his "values" I fail to see why he bothered. Why not just move in a hide away from authority? The UK..unfortunately - has always been a "humanitarian" nation - its now taken to mean "a soft touch" - and allowed in migrants. Yes we know we opened the doors to the "black" nations in the 50,s but lets not forget the £10 assisted passage offered by Australia.
Now it could be said that the the largest continent with the smallest population woul dnot have problems allowing in "asylum seekers" -there is plenty of space afterall. BUT its not a question of space.
Fact is that there really are few genuine asylum seekers in danger, except in Africa's warring countries. So lets alll open the doors to them on a pro rata basis...biggest countries take more..cos they have space for them.On the other hand Africa is no midget..so on a space per person basis they dont need to move. Ooops forgot about the real reason..its not space...its MONEY...free housing, benefits, free driving lessons, other handouts.
Oh, and if BondiPom is in favour of why not this and why not that, how would he feel if someone just walked into his house and occupied it on the basis that -why not skip a few conventions, like having money to buy it and simply saying I need to live here because I am in danger if I dont!
With apologies to the others..nearly a rant !
Now it could be said that the the largest continent with the smallest population woul dnot have problems allowing in "asylum seekers" -there is plenty of space afterall. BUT its not a question of space.
Fact is that there really are few genuine asylum seekers in danger, except in Africa's warring countries. So lets alll open the doors to them on a pro rata basis...biggest countries take more..cos they have space for them.On the other hand Africa is no midget..so on a space per person basis they dont need to move. Ooops forgot about the real reason..its not space...its MONEY...free housing, benefits, free driving lessons, other handouts.
Oh, and if BondiPom is in favour of why not this and why not that, how would he feel if someone just walked into his house and occupied it on the basis that -why not skip a few conventions, like having money to buy it and simply saying I need to live here because I am in danger if I dont!
With apologies to the others..nearly a rant !
Mar 30th 2005, 8:00 am
#172
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Nappyland
Posts: 2,886
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by jc_hoops
Oh sorry, I forgot that you base your current understanding of the problem in this country on figures gained from the Net, a week or so visiting London and some friends living here to, (not said where yet) !
Me, I have only lived here all my life, so I must know nothing. Yes, that's it, this is all an illusion. I know, if I can start looking at the Net, say, some of the sites you are looking at, this might clear up my miss-understanding of the situation.
You are a class one MUPPET.........
Have you got any other contributions that you can offer us all based on figures from the NET, and say, a week or two on holiday. Maybe, you have a solution to the issue in the US regarding immigrants from Mexico, you could check the Net and visit them for a two week holiday, I'm sure your observations would be well received over there !!
Me, I have only lived here all my life, so I must know nothing. Yes, that's it, this is all an illusion. I know, if I can start looking at the Net, say, some of the sites you are looking at, this might clear up my miss-understanding of the situation.
You are a class one MUPPET.........
Have you got any other contributions that you can offer us all based on figures from the NET, and say, a week or two on holiday. Maybe, you have a solution to the issue in the US regarding immigrants from Mexico, you could check the Net and visit them for a two week holiday, I'm sure your observations would be well received over there !!
Can I ask why his input is less credible than yours? You say you live there but what does that prove? I live near Manchester but know less about Manchester United than some guy in Singapore who follows the club on the internet. But I live near Manchester so therefore my knowldege must be more valid than his?
Mar 30th 2005, 8:04 am
#173
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by HiddenPaw
Isn't BP a Londoner?
Can I ask why his input is less credible than yours? You say you live there but what does that prove? I live near Manchester but know less about Manchester United than some guy in Singapore who follows the club on the internet. But I live near Manchester so therefore my knowldege must be more valid than his?
Can I ask why his input is less credible than yours? You say you live there but what does that prove? I live near Manchester but know less about Manchester United than some guy in Singapore who follows the club on the internet. But I live near Manchester so therefore my knowldege must be more valid than his?
I don't think we are talking about football.
Mar 30th 2005, 8:06 am
#174
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by NedKelly
I don't think we are talking about football.
Mar 30th 2005, 8:21 am
#175
Banned
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: from Shepherds Bush to Aussie Bush. Well not quite - Mountain Creek, Sunshine Coast
Posts: 187
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by HiddenPaw
Isn't BP a Londoner?
Can I ask why his input is less credible than yours? You say you live there but what does that prove? I live near Manchester but know less about Manchester United than some guy in Singapore who follows the club on the internet. But I live near Manchester so therefore my knowldege must be more valid than his?
Can I ask why his input is less credible than yours? You say you live there but what does that prove? I live near Manchester but know less about Manchester United than some guy in Singapore who follows the club on the internet. But I live near Manchester so therefore my knowldege must be more valid than his?
This is not about a bloody football team, it is about my local environment, where I live.
Now how the hell can someone who lives on the other side of the planet, have a better idea of the local issues in my area then me.
Is he going to know about our housing issues created by the current surge in legal/illegal immigration or the local NHS issues created by this invasion ?
How about the extra taxes that we, as Londoners (good old Ken ) are now having to pay.
Lets not forget the increase in TB and AIDs, all rife in East Europeans and Africans.
I could rant on, but can't be arsed.......
NOT FOOTBALL
Mar 30th 2005, 8:40 am
#176
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Nappyland
Posts: 2,886
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by jc_hoops
What are you on
This is not about a bloody football team, it is about my local environment, where I live.
NOT FOOTBALL
This is not about a bloody football team, it is about my local environment, where I live.
NOT FOOTBALL
Mar 30th 2005, 8:48 am
#177
Banned
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: from Shepherds Bush to Aussie Bush. Well not quite - Mountain Creek, Sunshine Coast
Posts: 187
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by HiddenPaw
I guess the analogy went right over your head.
Mar 30th 2005, 8:52 am
#178
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Nappyland
Posts: 2,886
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by jc_hoops
No, you just didn't make any sense
Last edited by HiddenPaw; Mar 30th 2005 at 8:59 am.
Mar 30th 2005, 9:19 am
#179
Banned
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: from Shepherds Bush to Aussie Bush. Well not quite - Mountain Creek, Sunshine Coast
Posts: 187
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by HiddenPaw
Now all you need to do, is make a few more links that can translate how you equate football, to the subject that was being discussed between BP, me and a few others on this thread ?
Mar 30th 2005, 9:21 am
#180
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 743
Re: High Court rules Australia must take asylum seekers
Originally Posted by HiddenPaw
I guess the analogy went right over your head.
Anyone can read up on facts and figures but only someone who lives in a certain area can tell what its like to live there. Try this : can the person from Singapore if he has never visited Old Trafford tell you what that the atmosphere is like at Old trafford, what its like to be part of a 60,000 crowd, what it smells like, etc etc. ?