Council take houses earmarked for immigrants & give them to British flood victims
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Not everybody works or lives in cities
Yes, I don't myself. Park up on the outskirts, get on the tram or whatever.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
The flood victims need to toughen up. I think it's highly irresponsible and outright disgusting to give the safe houses that were designated for immigrants to flood "victims". The flood victims have family, friends and the resources to find somewhere else to live temporarily like a B2B or a hotel. This move is too rash.
I would love a UK with less people like you.....
Original post by StrawbAri
The U.K. is also a relatively small country with a relatively small population.
Even if you minus all those countries, Britain barely makes top 20.
Even if you minus all those countries, Britain barely makes top 20.
And so ****ing what?
Countryside > immigrants
This is what happens when you create a culture that dehumanizes refugees / immigrants. People don't understand that this affects actual human beings and therefore, feel no hesitation in treating them as if they're not.
A question - when the picture of that picture of that little boy was spread across the media, did you still push this hatred? Because that little boy and the refugees / immigrants you're talking about in this thread - they're the same. I don't understand how people can talk about how horrific the death of that boy was and then, in the same breath, relish in the actions that will result in the same fate for so many others.
While it's a nice thought, I do agree with others in that it's not that simple - if it was, we wouldn't have the housing crisis we currently do.
When building new houses, you need to find money to fund those new houses - even if you can find this money, you then need to find a space for those houses to go - and it goes on.
A question - when the picture of that picture of that little boy was spread across the media, did you still push this hatred? Because that little boy and the refugees / immigrants you're talking about in this thread - they're the same. I don't understand how people can talk about how horrific the death of that boy was and then, in the same breath, relish in the actions that will result in the same fate for so many others.
Original post by scrotgrot
Hey kids, here's a thought:
How about we just build enough houses for EVERYONE?
"What are you, some kind of communist?"
How about we just build enough houses for EVERYONE?
"What are you, some kind of communist?"
While it's a nice thought, I do agree with others in that it's not that simple - if it was, we wouldn't have the housing crisis we currently do.
When building new houses, you need to find money to fund those new houses - even if you can find this money, you then need to find a space for those houses to go - and it goes on.
Original post by acupofgreentea
While it's a nice thought, I do agree with others in that it's not that simple - if it was, we wouldn't have the housing crisis we currently do.
When building new houses, you need to find money to fund those new houses - even if you can find this money, you then need to find a space for those houses to go - and it goes on.
When building new houses, you need to find money to fund those new houses - even if you can find this money, you then need to find a space for those houses to go - and it goes on.
There is plenty of space, and land really ought not to be so expensive. Maybe if we at least had a comprehensive register of who owned all the land we might have some chance of taxing them for not putting it to use.
Of course, the landed elites have always resisted this as their first priority. Unfortunately it has in the past usually taken a revolutionary government, an invasion or a devastating war to get it done properly. But north of the border, where half the land is owned by just 400 people, the SNP are sorting out a radical land reform bill.
Original post by scrotgrot
There is plenty of space, and land really ought not to be so expensive. Maybe if we at least had a comprehensive register of who owned all the land we might have some chance of taxing them for not putting it to use.
Of course, the landed elites have always resisted this as their first priority. Unfortunately it has in the past usually taken a revolutionary government, an invasion or a devastating war to get it done properly. But north of the border, where half the land is owned by just 400 people, the SNP are sorting out a radical land reform bill.
Of course, the landed elites have always resisted this as their first priority. Unfortunately it has in the past usually taken a revolutionary government, an invasion or a devastating war to get it done properly. But north of the border, where half the land is owned by just 400 people, the SNP are sorting out a radical land reform bill.
if this is the case I wonder why so many people believe the 'Britain is over saturated' argument works....
Original post by mmm778899
And so ****ing what?
Countryside > immigrants
Countryside > immigrants
I'm not getting your point
Original post by StrawbAri
I just think it's sensationalist and ridiculous to imply that the UK is bursting at its seams due to overpopulation and it's an arguement against immigration that has been debunked a lot of times.
The U.K. has a relatively high population density (compared to other European countries) but it is not dangerously or 'grossly' overpopulated
.
I just think it's sensationalist and ridiculous to imply that the UK is bursting at its seams due to overpopulation and it's an arguement against immigration that has been debunked a lot of times.
The U.K. has a relatively high population density (compared to other European countries) but it is not dangerously or 'grossly' overpopulated
.
How are we to assess population density if not in relative terms?
And what population density for England would be problematic for you? It is currently the highest in Europe, would it need to be the highest in the world before it could be felt to be anything other than just, fantastic?
It is by no means the only argument against open door immigration nor the most compelling but it joins the list.
Original post by TSRFT8
Its sad that people are pretending to care about flood victims in order to fuel their racist agenda (Lets not pretend like you arent a racist) I dont understand why people cant just be outright racist instead of constantly hiding their racism behind another group in order to not portray themselves as a racist.
Now logic says that we should house British people but im sure most flood victims have families, friends etc that would happily house them (reason you should choose your friends wisely) whereas these refugees are fleeing from a warzone that BRITAIN played a part in. They are fleeing from bombs dropping right on their head (no exaggeration) and youre telling me that some people who have a bit of water in their house cant just stay with family for a month or so? Even better why dont some of you who care so much start a campaign where you take some of these flood victims with you? Wait no you wont do that as you dont actually care..
Before someone says that all immigrants are going to do is ruin the country by scrounging off benefits, some of these people have spent years in Syria and other countries cleaning up **** for 12-15 hours a day for no pay whilst in this country there are countless off "scroungers" sitting on benefits as they dont want to serve fries as they "feel insulted" yet have no qualifications in order to get a better job. Also dont sit and listen to the media telling you there all bad - yes there are a handful of absolute ***** but there are more than a handful of ***** who are "British" aswell.
Now logic says that we should house British people but im sure most flood victims have families, friends etc that would happily house them (reason you should choose your friends wisely) whereas these refugees are fleeing from a warzone that BRITAIN played a part in. They are fleeing from bombs dropping right on their head (no exaggeration) and youre telling me that some people who have a bit of water in their house cant just stay with family for a month or so? Even better why dont some of you who care so much start a campaign where you take some of these flood victims with you? Wait no you wont do that as you dont actually care..
Before someone says that all immigrants are going to do is ruin the country by scrounging off benefits, some of these people have spent years in Syria and other countries cleaning up **** for 12-15 hours a day for no pay whilst in this country there are countless off "scroungers" sitting on benefits as they dont want to serve fries as they "feel insulted" yet have no qualifications in order to get a better job. Also dont sit and listen to the media telling you there all bad - yes there are a handful of absolute ***** but there are more than a handful of ***** who are "British" aswell.
You should give up your own bed to a refugee, whilst continuing to pay for it, and sleep on the street. After all that is what you are telling the flood victims to do.
Charity begins at home. In reality you would not force your family out of their houses or do so to help a refugee however much you emote on a website. You just expect others to do so.
Contemptible.
Original post by TSRFT8
Its sad that people are pretending to care about flood victims in order to fuel their racist agenda (Lets not pretend like you arent a racist) I dont understand why people cant just be outright racist instead of constantly hiding their racism behind another group in order to not portray themselves as a racist.
Now logic says that we should house British people but im sure most flood victims have families, friends etc that would happily house them (reason you should choose your friends wisely) whereas these refugees are fleeing from a warzone that BRITAIN played a part in. They are fleeing from bombs dropping right on their head (no exaggeration) and youre telling me that some people who have a bit of water in their house cant just stay with family for a month or so? Even better why dont some of you who care so much start a campaign where you take some of these flood victims with you? Wait no you wont do that as you dont actually care..
Before someone says that all immigrants are going to do is ruin the country by scrounging off benefits, some of these people have spent years in Syria and other countries cleaning up **** for 12-15 hours a day for no pay whilst in this country there are countless off "scroungers" sitting on benefits as they dont want to serve fries as they "feel insulted" yet have no qualifications in order to get a better job. Also dont sit and listen to the media telling you there all bad - yes there are a handful of absolute ***** but there are more than a handful of ***** who are "British" aswell.
Now logic says that we should house British people but im sure most flood victims have families, friends etc that would happily house them (reason you should choose your friends wisely) whereas these refugees are fleeing from a warzone that BRITAIN played a part in. They are fleeing from bombs dropping right on their head (no exaggeration) and youre telling me that some people who have a bit of water in their house cant just stay with family for a month or so? Even better why dont some of you who care so much start a campaign where you take some of these flood victims with you? Wait no you wont do that as you dont actually care..
Before someone says that all immigrants are going to do is ruin the country by scrounging off benefits, some of these people have spent years in Syria and other countries cleaning up **** for 12-15 hours a day for no pay whilst in this country there are countless off "scroungers" sitting on benefits as they dont want to serve fries as they "feel insulted" yet have no qualifications in order to get a better job. Also dont sit and listen to the media telling you there all bad - yes there are a handful of absolute ***** but there are more than a handful of ***** who are "British" aswell.
Right so everyone who doesn't agree that British tax payer resources should go to random Albabians and Syrians instead of people already here who've had their homes and things destroyed has a racist, anti-immigrant agenda and in fact doesn't care at all about the flood victims?
lol get out of here with that nonsense you social justice warrior mong.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Yes, I don't myself. Park up on the outskirts, get on the tram or whatever.
After queuing on the motorway for a few hours
Original post by generallee
How are we to assess population density if not in relative terms?
And what population density for England would be problematic for you? It is currently the highest in Europe, would it need to be the highest in the world before it could be felt to be anything other than just, fantastic?
It is by no means the only argument against open door immigration nor the most compelling but it joins the list.
And what population density for England would be problematic for you? It is currently the highest in Europe, would it need to be the highest in the world before it could be felt to be anything other than just, fantastic?
It is by no means the only argument against open door immigration nor the most compelling but it joins the list.
I love how you've switched to England in order to inflate the figures when in my post I mentioned the UK.
It is a misleading and dishonest argument to use just England as migrants settle across all of the UK and you can't use information from only a part of the UK to dictate policy for the whole country.
Maybe you can use the population argument for just England ( still not a very compelling one) but you can't for the entire UK.
For example, there's a constituent part of Germany (North Rhine Westphalia) that has about 1,300 people per square mile but to use that information as an argument that 'all immigration to Germany should be stopped' is ridiculous.
Original post by StrawbAri
I love how you've switched to England in order to inflate the figures when in my post I mentioned the UK.
It is a misleading and dishonest argument to use just England as migrants settle across all of the UK and you can't use information from only a part of the UK to dictate policy for the whole country.
Maybe you can use the population argument for just England ( still not a very compelling one) but you can't for the entire UK.
For example, there's a constituent part of Germany (North Rhine Westphalia) that has about 1,300 people per square mile but to use that information as an argument that 'all immigration to Germany should be stopped' is ridiculous.
It is a misleading and dishonest argument to use just England as migrants settle across all of the UK and you can't use information from only a part of the UK to dictate policy for the whole country.
Maybe you can use the population argument for just England ( still not a very compelling one) but you can't for the entire UK.
For example, there's a constituent part of Germany (North Rhine Westphalia) that has about 1,300 people per square mile but to use that information as an argument that 'all immigration to Germany should be stopped' is ridiculous.
It is you who are ridiculous. England is a country, it may have conquered Wales and Ireland and (after centuries of fighting with that nation) entered into an act of union with Scotland in 1707, but it is still a country unlike North Rhine Westphalia which is just a province.
You seem to know very little about the UK and its history. No one who does could compare England to Westphalia. Good grief. Your ignorance astounds me.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
After queuing on the motorway for a few hours
Never had problems on the motorway, or even really A-roads, other than when there are accidents. However there is routine morning and evening congestion in every town in the country especially on single-lane roads.
It is also fairly simple to solve pinch points on trunk roads as they are usually out in the middle of nowhere. In towns you can't reconfigure the roads without knocking down loads of houses and disruption to traffic during works will be worse.
Park and rides can just be placed on all the existing exits on the ring road around the town. People presently driving into the town already come off at those exits anyway, so the motorway shouldn't become busier as a result of placing them there.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by generallee
It is you who are ridiculous. England is a country, it may have conquered Wales and Ireland and (after centuries of fighting with that nation) entered into an act of union with Scotland in 1707, but it is still a country unlike North Rhine Westphalia which is just a province.
You seem to know very little about the UK and its history. No one who does could compare England to Westphalia. Good grief. Your ignorance astounds me.
You seem to know very little about the UK and its history. No one who does could compare England to Westphalia. Good grief. Your ignorance astounds me.
When did I say England wasn't a country? I don't know how using Westphalia as an example is the same as me saying that England is a province.
It is a constituent part of the UK no?
The arguement is that immigration to the UK should be stopped becasue England has a high population density. And I said you can't use England which is a constituent part of the UK to dictate a policy for the entire sovereign state.
I'm guessing you purposely misunderstood me as you haven't countered my point
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by StrawbAri
When did I say England wasn't a country? I don't know how using Westphalia as an example is the same as me saying that England is a province.
It is a constituent part of the UK no?
The arguement is that immigration to the UK should be stopped becasue England has a high population density. And I said you can't use England which is a constituent part of the UK to dictate a policy for the entire sovereign state.
I'm guessing you purposely misunderstood me as you haven't countered my point
It is a constituent part of the UK no?
The arguement is that immigration to the UK should be stopped becasue England has a high population density. And I said you can't use England which is a constituent part of the UK to dictate a policy for the entire sovereign state.
I'm guessing you purposely misunderstood me as you haven't countered my point
Wow. You are comparing England to Westphalia! Do you know ANYTHING about the country you presume to lecture the inhabitants of?
First, could you please tell us what is England's population as a percentage of the total UK's and then contrast that with North Rhine Westphalia?
Secondly do you seriously think anyone living in England cares what the population densities are in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Finally, how about getting off this thread? This is a debate which won't affect you, of which you know nothing since you admit you don't even live here, and is none of your business.
Original post by JezWeCan!
Wow. You are comparing England to Westphalia! Do you know ANYTHING about the country you presume to lecture the inhabitants of?
First, could you please tell us what is England's population as a percentage of the total UK's and then contrast that with North Rhine Westphalia?
Secondly do you seriously think anyone living in England cares what the population densities are in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Finally, how about getting off this thread? This is a debate which won't affect you, of which you know nothing since you admit you don't even live here, and is none of your business.
First, could you please tell us what is England's population as a percentage of the total UK's and then contrast that with North Rhine Westphalia?
Secondly do you seriously think anyone living in England cares what the population densities are in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Finally, how about getting off this thread? This is a debate which won't affect you, of which you know nothing since you admit you don't even live here, and is none of your business.
1. I used it as an example to pass my point across that the situation in a constituent part of any place shouldn't be used to decide the policy of the entire country.
2. Even if England is 70% of the UK's population you still can't say all immigration to every part of the UK should be banned becasue of the high population density in just England.
3. If no one in England cares about that then why do you want make laws for the enitre UK based of the statistics of just one part of it?
4. Why am I not allowed to share my opinion? This is a public forum for students. I have every right to weigh in on issues whether it affects me or not. People on here don't live in Saudi Arabia yet they can still weigh in on issues concerning that country. Besides I haven't even posted anything about the flood victims/housing issue. I just pointed out a flaw in an argument against mass immigration ( an issue that even I myself have admitted to being against)
Original post by scrotgrot
Maybe if we at least had a comprehensive register of who owned all the land we might have some chance of taxing them for not putting it to use.
Tax tax tax and yet I bet you pay hardly any.
Original post by StrawbAri
I'm not getting your point
I prefer retaining our countryside rather than building all over it to house immigrants simply because their country/culture is undesirable.
Original post by StrawbAri
1. I used it as an example to pass my point across that the situation in a constituent part of any place shouldn't be used to decide the policy of the entire country.
2. Even if England is 70% of the UK's population you still can't say all immigration to every part of the UK should be banned becasue of the high population density in just England.
3. If no one in England cares about that then why do you want make laws for the enitre UK based of the statistics of just one part of it?
4. Why am I not allowed to share my opinion? This is a public forum for students. I have every right to weigh in on issues whether it affects me or not. People on here don't live in Saudi Arabia yet they can still weigh in on issues concerning that country. Besides I haven't even posted anything about the flood victims/housing issue. I just pointed out a flaw in an argument against mass immigration ( an issue that even I myself have admitted to being against)
2. Even if England is 70% of the UK's population you still can't say all immigration to every part of the UK should be banned becasue of the high population density in just England.
3. If no one in England cares about that then why do you want make laws for the enitre UK based of the statistics of just one part of it?
4. Why am I not allowed to share my opinion? This is a public forum for students. I have every right to weigh in on issues whether it affects me or not. People on here don't live in Saudi Arabia yet they can still weigh in on issues concerning that country. Besides I haven't even posted anything about the flood victims/housing issue. I just pointed out a flaw in an argument against mass immigration ( an issue that even I myself have admitted to being against)
Are you Nigerian?
Original post by JezWeCan!
Are you Nigerian?
Yes why?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Housing crisis
- Feel so upset as a British Asian
- Renting on Benefits
- English Language Paper 1 Question 5
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Craig Foster apologises to Sam Kerr for saying her crime was sackable
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- HELP: Private Science candidate concerned with practicals
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Medicine extenuating circumstances
- How hard is it to get allocated council housing?
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- URGENT! Right to Rent - what EXACTLY do natural born Brits need to provide?
- Homelessness, worst crisis in life, ...
- Long Residency
- OpenAI reveals Sora, a tool to make instant videos from written prompts
- Warning-Abuse (this is just me talking about my *****y life today)
- Disappointed in CAS team
- stagnant water
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
