Taking the Knee | Page 33 | Vital Football

Taking the Knee

jogills said:
I don't know what is in the minds of refugees but I do know over 22000 applied to come to the UK. They should have been admitted swiftly. Most are women and children and any phoney security concerns should be referred to the clowns that issued visas to the Skripal posioners.
Click to expand...







Would you prefer we didn't have security concerns? To turn a blind eye and say they are phoney is reckless when dealing with some countries. There are people out there who want to kill people like you and me. Do you not think that other countries carry out checks on you when you visit them?
 
Buddha said:
Apologies, '58. Dunno what happened there, it wasn't intentional. Been working with a couple of Scousers, their vernacular must have had some kind of subliminal effect upon me. Will try not to let it happen again!
Click to expand...
Apology accepted. That phrase apart it was a wonderful post. I took the risk of "unignoring" 3x6 on this thread and realised why I had pressed the ignore button in the first place.

Ps. Sorry to go on about "ignoring" yet again
:-)
 
Nobby_66 said:
Would you prefer we didn't have security concerns? To turn a blind eye and say they are phoney is reckless when dealing with some countries. There are people out there who want to kill people like you and me. Do you not think that other countries carry out checks on you when you visit them?
Click to expand...
Oh come off it Nobby. We let two KGB style agents in for a sightseeing tour of Salisbury whilst they tried to poison a dissident and yet we put up barriers to Ukrainian refugees incase some are Russian spies. Do me a favour. Totally phoney objections in comparison to any real threat

For once the Government are almost being honest and actually carrying out their Brexit agenda in keeping out foreigners. Shocking that the Ukrainian refugees are the ones they are finally getting round to using these new powers on.

My sister in law has taken the "risk" of letting 9 potential spies into her home in Northern Italy. How recklesss of her. :rolleyes:
 
Nobby_66 said:
Would you prefer we didn't have security concerns? To turn a blind eye and say they are phoney is reckless when dealing with some countries. There are people out there who want to kill people like you and me. Do you not think that other countries carry out checks on you when you visit them?
Click to expand...

I think the concerns are fake Nobby but of course I am concerned about security. Do we believe that all the other countries are irresponsible? The overwhelming majority are women and children. We can take records and do checks, others do. We have let in several Russians to murder people in Britain and no one jibbed at that. Abramovitch was a benevolent benefactor until today.
 
ThreeSixes said:
Why did you reference that they were women and children? You said that wasn't relevant yesterday?
Click to expand...

Why do you think, seriously? Because several have suggested the danger might come from men. I tend to agree though there have been exceptions. Women travelling with their children are both less threatening andore identifiable. There is little or no excuse in obstructing them fleeing war.
 
@ 58 and Jogills, the fact that you point out a security breach proves that security worries are not phoney surely? Also, I never said that security was the reason for being slow letting Ukraine refugees in did I? Who said anything about them being Russian spies? Who said anything about any of the Ukranians being a risk? Not me, i was talking about those from Syria (and if you think the risks from there are phoney, you need your bumps felt) but suggested (or more like, wondered) if the mistakes made before was causing the hesitancy. If you read my post again, you will see that I pointed out the difference between the risks of Syrian refugees and (the lack of) those trying to come now, I actually said that the two were dealt with "the wrong way round" and that Ukrainian refugees should be allowed to come here quicker. Please guys, read the post again (#604)
 
Nobby_66 said:
Oh and the sarcasm is getting a little tiring now 58 so please come off it, to use your words, ta.👍
Click to expand...
Unless you are incredibly naive, and I'm sure you aren't, it is obvious why the intake is a trickle compared to other countries. The 'security' excuse is b#llocks, as Jogills says. No way should it be this slow. I do accept that you said the response was too slow and the wrong way round. I just think the reaction from our Government is more sinister and/or incompetent.

My sister in law must be taking a big risk with the 5 refugees she doesn't personally know (out of the 9), according to this Government.

Fair enough re checks on certain other countries. I don't think anyone is saying there should be no checks, just that our response is pitiful.
 
Last edited:
Gills 58 said:
My sister in law must be taking a big risk with the 5 refugees she doesn't personally know (out of the 9), according to this Government.

Fair enough re checks on certain other countries. I don't think anyone is saying there should be no checks, just that our response is pitiful.
Click to expand...

She should be applauded, its a wonderful gesture and is not something many of us would do.

I bet she hasn't offered to house nine of the African men that have been arriving in Lampedusa for the last couple of years though.
 
Nobby_66 said:
@ 58 and Jogills, the fact that you point out a security breach proves that security worries are not phoney surely? Also, I never said that security was the reason for being slow letting Ukraine refugees in did I? Who said anything about them being Russian spies? Who said anything about any of the Ukranians being a risk? Not me, i was talking about those from Syria (and if you think the risks from there are phoney, you need your bumps felt) but suggested (or more like, wondered) if the mistakes made before was causing the hesitancy. If you read my post again, you will see that I pointed out the difference between the risks of Syrian refugees and (the lack of) those trying to come now, I actually said that the two were dealt with "the wrong way round" and that Ukrainian refugees should be allowed to come here quicker. Please guys, read the post again (#604)
Click to expand...

Point taken Nobby. I am still suspicious when we are told this morning that Priti Patel has received information, which allows us to be less strcit. I submit that the information is in fact a wave of public opinion in this country and of condemnation from across the world. I don't deny that we should be concerned by security but it is the first recourse of incompetent ministers when an excuse is needed.
 
jogills said:
Point taken Nobby. I am still suspicious when we are told this morning that Priti Patel has received information, which allows us to be less strcit. I submit that the information is in fact a wave of public opinion in this country and of condemnation from across the world. I don't deny that we should be concerned by security but it is the first recourse of incompetent ministers when an excuse is needed.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but it would be disappointing if decisions regarding our public safety were made based on public opinion. The much more obvious explanation would surely be that Ukranian women and children are viewed as posing less of a security risk to the UK than Syrian, Afghan and Iranian men are?
 
ThreeSixes said:
Possibly, but it would be disappointing if decisions regarding our public safety were made based on public opinion. The much more obvious explanation would surely be that Ukranian women and children are viewed as posing less of a security risk to the UK than Syrian, Afghan and Iranian men are?
Click to expand...

That is the more obvious explanation. But if it's true, why is this so?

Is it because of their gender? Or is it because of their nationality? Their religion? Or their experiences?

Do Ukrainian women have any reason to hold a grudge and want to seek retribution against the British? What about Syrian, Afghan and Iranian women, are they a security risk to Britain too?

Whatever the answer to these questions I'm fairy sure it's not a simple one, even if the explanation for the different policies is obvious.
 
ThreeSixes said:
Possibly, but it would be disappointing if decisions regarding our public safety were made based on public opinion. The much more obvious explanation would surely be that Ukranian women and children are viewed as posing less of a security risk to the UK than Syrian, Afghan and Iranian men are?
Click to expand...

We disagree then. I'm sure public and international opinion made the difference.
 
Buddha said:
That is the more obvious explanation. But if it's true, why is this so?

Is it because of their gender? Or is it because of their nationality? Their religion? Or their experiences?
Click to expand...
Does it matter, really? There are apparently 43,000 people in the UK that were deemed a potential terrorism risk (that was 2 years ago), and religion is believed to be a factor in 90% of those people (possibly more, only one religion was mentioned) It might be a mix of all 4 reasons though

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-watchlist-doubles-43-000-just-one-year.html
 
jogills said:
Point taken Nobby. I am still suspicious when we are told this morning that Priti Patel has received information, which allows us to be less strcit. I submit that the information is in fact a wave of public opinion in this country and of condemnation from across the world. I don't deny that we should be concerned by security but it is the first recourse of incompetent ministers when an excuse is needed.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point I was trying to make, but, sadly, less articulately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.