ormester101 Â Â 10 #49 Posted September 6, 2015 It would appear the silent majority, 422,000+ in favour of accepting more asylum seekers, out-number the vocal minority, 76,000+ to stop allowing immigrants, by quite a large proportion. Â Who would have thought it? Â not quite right is it the against was started later Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dangerousedd   10 #50 Posted September 6, 2015 People; families, with children are lying down in the streets, hungry and cold and afraid - are we going to turn away from them. Would you like this to be your legacy? What kind of people are we if we turn our backs on the needy. We will live with this forever if we do the wrong thing now - it will be your legacy - the cold and the hungry and the needy died on our watch.   well if you want to house a family and provide for their needs inc. healthcare and education go ahead nobody will stop you.  personally I think stabilising Syria is the best option, plenty of hospitals and schools, houses etc. there once its stable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hots on   10 #51 Posted September 6, 2015 It would appear the silent majority, 422,000+ in favour of accepting more asylum seekers, out-number the vocal minority, 76,000+ to stop allowing immigrants, by quite a large proportion.  Who would have thought it?  This shows that the left wing minority are more active than the silent majority that's all.  While the silent majority are working and just getting on with day to day life, with some of them taking the time to sign a petition, the too-much-time-on-their-hands-Hope Not Hate-SWP- sad sacks have been constantly and frantically getting people to sign their petition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
panzer1 Â Â 10 #52 Posted September 6, 2015 This poll gives me hope for the EU referendum which is the only way to stop this. With a 4 to 1 combined vote against letting more in I am hoping we will vote to leave. There are some good points raised on this where are we going to house,educate and heal these people when all these already involve overcrowding, lack or long waits. Why are they 90 per cent young men, these are men of fighting age that should be protecting their countries and the elderly they have left behind, are these people safe for some reason and only males in their prime are at risk. We could always send them to Roumania or Poland as these countries have plenty of room, empty houses etc, well they must have because most of the fekkers are here. Take a drive down Page Hall where the Roma are, would you condemn new refugees/asylum seekers to live amongst such scum, that would make them yearn to return to the refugee camps where it is at least warm and sunny. Â ---------- Post added 06-09-2015 at 22:17 ---------- Â Hots on,the left are always more vocal and have plenty of time to help out bleeding heart causes and sod the cost to the indigenous population of all creeds colours or faiths. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Anna B Â Â 1,414 #53 Posted September 6, 2015 Sadam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad were hard men, given to hard solutions to hard problems, to such an extent that we thought they were beyond the pail, barbaric, and had to be removed. Too late did we realise that such men are needed in the region to deal with all the warring factions and religious conflict, and keep the peace. They were dealing with men who do not respond to reason or compromise. Â Are we now prepared to act like these hard men to do the same? Frankly, I don't think we have the stomach for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #54 Posted September 6, 2015 Sadam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad were hard men, given to hard solutions to hard problems, to such an extent that we thought they were beyond the pail, barbaric, and had to be removed. Too late did we realise that such men are needed in the region to deal with all the warring factions and religious conflict, and keep the peace. They were dealing with men who do not respond to reason or compromise. Are we now prepared to act like these hard men to do the same? Frankly, I don't think we have the stomach for it.  Do you saddam etc did what they did with a heavy heart or because they were power hungry nutters who wanted to line their own pockets? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
JFKvsNixon   11 #55 Posted September 6, 2015 Sadam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad were hard men, given to hard solutions to hard problems, to such an extent that we thought they were beyond the pail, barbaric, and had to be removed. Too late did we realise that such men are needed in the region to deal with all the warring factions and religious conflict, and keep the peace. They were dealing with men who do not respond to reason or compromise. Are we now prepared to act like these hard men to do the same? Frankly, I don't think we have the stomach for it.  Are you seriously asking if we're up to gassing whole communities? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mfmaintenace   10 #56 Posted September 6, 2015 Hi I agree with people that Bush and Blair should not gone in to wars that they could not win .Then to go in saying it's better for ever one but it's not all they do is to call un rest around the world.People running from there own countre owe is this right . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Happ Hazzard   10 #57 Posted September 6, 2015 Do you saddam etc did what they did with a heavy heart or because they were power hungry nutters who wanted to line their own pockets? Both. But there's a reason why people like that ended up in power and remained in power. Once they were removed, all hell broke lose as all the various nutter factions went to war to gain control. We need to stop getting involved in foreign conflicts and let those countries sort themselves out, in the same way that Western countries were allowed to over time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
AndrewC   307 #58 Posted September 6, 2015 This shows that the left wing minority are more active than the silent majority that's all. While the silent majority are working and just getting on with day to day life, with some of them taking the time to sign a petition, the too-much-time-on-their-hands-Hope Not Hate-SWP- sad sacks have been constantly and frantically getting people to sign their petition.  So people who are pro-immigration, pro-taking on more asylum seekers can't possibly also be people just getting on with day to day life?  And of course, there aren't any right-leaning people who have too much time on their hands and basically get very vocal about all their opinions, oh no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
petemcewan   27 #59 Posted September 6, 2015 My answer is yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
The Manager   12 #60 Posted September 7, 2015 id say NO , id like to see us get our own house in order before helping others. Sheffield does have homeless folks, there is a housing problem , also our own nhs has its own problems to deal with- without more added.  im sure many could raise a lot of issues/problems sheffield has among them page hall as we all know has the police or anyone sorted that on-going problem ??? so why bring another problem into the city.  overall if we was to look at the bigger picture police ,nhs have had cuts to staff over the last yrs - wheres the money going to come from for more Asylum seekers ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...