Music1 min ago
Why Is Our Plan "Unnacceptable"?
114 Answers
https:/
We copied the Aussies, their plan was ok. Why is ours any different?
We copied the Aussies, their plan was ok. Why is ours any different?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The lefties seem to have forgotten about this.
https:/
https:/
Atheist;
Interventions made now by church leaders carry the greatest spiritual impact and should therefore be the most thoroughly prepared and well thought-through.
Judged by this yardstick, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s condemnation of a new asylum policy that was announced by the Prime Minister as recently as Thursday falls embarrassingly short.
In claiming that the policy “cannot stand the judgment of God” or “carry the weight of our national responsibility as a country formed by Christian values”, Justin Welby has chosen to offer knee-jerk soundbites which brand those members of his rapidly-diminishing flock who support the policy as positively unchristian.
'That is an astoundingly arrogant thing for him to have done on the basis of not much prior thought but no doubt plenty of exposure to the enraged outpourings of the liberal-Left establishment. Welby has shown such political bias on several occasions before, for example when signalling his readiness to chair proposed “people’s assembly” gatherings of do-gooders opposed to Brexit.
Interventions made now by church leaders carry the greatest spiritual impact and should therefore be the most thoroughly prepared and well thought-through.
Judged by this yardstick, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s condemnation of a new asylum policy that was announced by the Prime Minister as recently as Thursday falls embarrassingly short.
In claiming that the policy “cannot stand the judgment of God” or “carry the weight of our national responsibility as a country formed by Christian values”, Justin Welby has chosen to offer knee-jerk soundbites which brand those members of his rapidly-diminishing flock who support the policy as positively unchristian.
'That is an astoundingly arrogant thing for him to have done on the basis of not much prior thought but no doubt plenty of exposure to the enraged outpourings of the liberal-Left establishment. Welby has shown such political bias on several occasions before, for example when signalling his readiness to chair proposed “people’s assembly” gatherings of do-gooders opposed to Brexit.
-- answer removed --
Getting down to the nitty-gritty, the *area* of our country is too small to cater for the endless increase of its population.
Whilst not objecting to accepting anybody, if they wish to come, each has to be housed, fed, employed and educated. Additional housing requires an additional spectrum of services = from transport systems, water to digital, as well as space for food.
Climate-change is only going to exacerbate an already enormous problem. U. K. simply can not be a solution.
France and Germany are far larger. Until a few weeks ago, the Ukraine, being the largest by area in Europe, would be an ideal country.
Whilst not objecting to accepting anybody, if they wish to come, each has to be housed, fed, employed and educated. Additional housing requires an additional spectrum of services = from transport systems, water to digital, as well as space for food.
Climate-change is only going to exacerbate an already enormous problem. U. K. simply can not be a solution.
France and Germany are far larger. Until a few weeks ago, the Ukraine, being the largest by area in Europe, would be an ideal country.
//In claiming that the policy “cannot stand the judgment of God”//
Meddlesome priests should stay out of politics. Although around 50% of the UK population describes itself as "Christian" (usually when signing a consent form before undergoing surgery) less than 5% are actually practicing Christians. This means 95% at least do not subscribe to the model of God that Mr Welby is suggesting would not judge the government's proposals in their favour.
For those seeking an alternative policy to this one (which will not work successfully, if at all) any alternative must include preventing the migrants from landing. My own favourite would be to provide a flotilla of navy (or commandeered merchant) vessels, the choice being those which produce the largest wash. These would patrol the Straits of Dover, just inside UK waters and they would operate in front of, or preferably broadside on, to any approaching rubber boats. Their wash would do the rest. Anyone who thinks I might be joking, I'm not because the alternative is to put up with this current invasion.
I know which the government will choose and that's because it worries more about the safety of people who imperil themselves by putting to sea in unsuitable vessels to travel to this country illegally and without leave to do so, than it concerns itself with the trials and tribulations of the working population already here who have to provide the enormous sums required to sustain the invaders.
There's really no point in continually debating this. The people concerned need to be forcibly prevented from landing (let alone helped ashore by lifeboats and Border Farce vessels). Until and unless that is done it will continue. It's not a party issue - no party has any sustainable alternative to offer. It's only Ms Patel's "fault" at the moment because she happens to be the Home Secretary. Bear in mind that if Labour had won the last General Election, Diane Abbott was earmarked for that post. The Labour Party would have probably made it easier to land here but we would have had, of course, the advantage of not knowing the numbers too accurately as Ms Abbott seems somewhat numerically challenged.
Meddlesome priests should stay out of politics. Although around 50% of the UK population describes itself as "Christian" (usually when signing a consent form before undergoing surgery) less than 5% are actually practicing Christians. This means 95% at least do not subscribe to the model of God that Mr Welby is suggesting would not judge the government's proposals in their favour.
For those seeking an alternative policy to this one (which will not work successfully, if at all) any alternative must include preventing the migrants from landing. My own favourite would be to provide a flotilla of navy (or commandeered merchant) vessels, the choice being those which produce the largest wash. These would patrol the Straits of Dover, just inside UK waters and they would operate in front of, or preferably broadside on, to any approaching rubber boats. Their wash would do the rest. Anyone who thinks I might be joking, I'm not because the alternative is to put up with this current invasion.
I know which the government will choose and that's because it worries more about the safety of people who imperil themselves by putting to sea in unsuitable vessels to travel to this country illegally and without leave to do so, than it concerns itself with the trials and tribulations of the working population already here who have to provide the enormous sums required to sustain the invaders.
There's really no point in continually debating this. The people concerned need to be forcibly prevented from landing (let alone helped ashore by lifeboats and Border Farce vessels). Until and unless that is done it will continue. It's not a party issue - no party has any sustainable alternative to offer. It's only Ms Patel's "fault" at the moment because she happens to be the Home Secretary. Bear in mind that if Labour had won the last General Election, Diane Abbott was earmarked for that post. The Labour Party would have probably made it easier to land here but we would have had, of course, the advantage of not knowing the numbers too accurately as Ms Abbott seems somewhat numerically challenged.
NJ; your measures really are "Draconian" :0) I suggest a variant, & one I have been suggesting for a long time; put the navy there as you suggest, but instead of drowning them, pluck the whole dinghy from the sea with a custom-made derrick, do not allow them to touch British soil, (if they do, they only have to say the 3 words, "I claim asylum" & they must stay) but deposit them on moored passenger ship anchored offshore & when full, from there to be sent on to somewhere as arranged by the two governments.
sandra4444: "The GREAT in GREAT Britain is no longer. " -ahh bless the usual incomprehension of the dim. The "Great" in Great Britain refers to the geographical area. Not an evaluation of "greatness" . There is(was) Great Britain and Britain (or Brittany) distinguishing the parts of Britain that were in what we now call great Britain and what is now in France, oh yes quite a chunk of France was once "Britain" too! I assume you missed those lessons at school! PMSL!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.