London Tube Terrorist Attack

That depends on the details. Maybe they got molested in foster care, and it was intended to be payback.

Maybe the foster couple are saints, and these kids are just massive douches

Maybe the fosters are jihadists themselves

I haven't been following this closely, maybe someone else knows more details

 

I do have my personal feelings regarding other races and religions, but that is NOT what I'm trying to put forward here! I'm trying to put forward an idea that we should keep out those who are, even remotely likely, to take a contrary view of the country who has SAVED THERE FUCKING ARSES from the death-dealers in their own countries, and in return for our kind-heartedness and welcoming actions they blow up, burn, stab, run down in the street, spray with acid, etc. a whole bunch of people they maybe should be fucking GRATEFUL TO. If I was to put forward the racist/religion based shit some would prefer to read, then yes, I'd scream and shout to get them all the fuck out of MY country. But instead of arguing a different a slightly off-piste point you should maybe say what YOU would do in the circumstances currently extant in The UK. I presume you do have a non-racist/religious view of our situation? Or do you think we should just chuck the foreigners out without even trying to live in, and encourage, a harmonious coexistence?

 

Payback? What?

Whatever happened to them, it doesn't justify what they did.
Fucking scum.

 

That is very naive.

 

I wouldn't say they were justified either. No matter what happened to them, bombing a lot of innocent people can't be justified.

VG seemed to be suggesting though that they were taken in by saintly fosters. Which they may have been, but maybe not.

 

I can't believe it. I was just in London this last May (when the Ariana Grande thing happened). It's such a beautiful city... why would anyone want to attack there? Terror doesn't make sense. Ugh.

 

What would I do? Cut immigration, at least change quotas spread it more evenly across the world.

It is that simple, its what my country does, what the US does.

Its not going to stop every attack, but it is going to cut them down, and reduce all those sudanese/middle eastern slums developing in parts of europe

 

This is part of what brexit is meant to Achieve !! why should it be up to the EU who Britain allows into OUR COUNTRY ?
The EU have already threatened Poland for not taking more immigrants !!!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-08/71-people-poland-want-ban-muslim-immigration
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/04/eu-hungary-poland-take-migrants-leave/

 

Dream on. Let's see how Brexit get's all those people deported.

 

Notice something though, as soon as foster parents were mentioned, you jumped to thinking maybe they've been molested

Would you have said anything of that nature if the story read they had lived with their actual parents?

Makes it sound like you are very cynical about foster parents

 

Technically Mallys sentence is right: Brexit is ment to achieve all kinds of stuff It won't, certainly not immigration issue wise, except maybe regarding Polish labourers.

 

OK I'll Type it slower for you ! It means Britain gets to decide Who comes in (or not ! ) Not the EU What part of that is too complicated for you guys ?

 

The part where that is demonstrably untrue.

 

Tell me then Who Does ?

 

Well, we never really gave up control of our borders to the EU. We never signed the Shengen agreement, which lifted border controls between European countries, meaning that we retained our rights to prevent entry and controlled who could obtain a Visa. So we have no more control post-Brexit than we did before. More importantly though, Without the EU, we can no longer rely on the Dublin agreement to deport failed asylum seekers, which a key part of how we controlled migration, so in that sense we have less control than ever. Perhaps most pressingly, without membership of the EU, our border with France becomes Dover, not Calais, and the French have absolutely no incentive to stop anyone from crossing the channel and heading towards that big open border we now have.

We will no longer have access to the conferences or summits at which negotiations are made about how migrants should be distributed across Europe, and will have made ourselves the unprotected end point of middle east migration with no recourse to other countries to help manage the flow of migrants.

Maybe, as Farage suggests, we should aim to leave the EU but stay in the single market, like Norway did! except that as part of that deal, Norway had to sign the Shengen agreement and completely give up control of its borders....silly Nigel.

In short, the migrant crisis, and fear of uncontrolled immigration, was probably the best reason to stay in the EU. We literally had our cake and eat it too, maintaining control of our own borders while relying on EU legislation to deport failed asylum seekers. With Brexit, we lose all of that. No border control, a more permeable border, and a complete inability to sit at the table were migration is concerned. Bravo, Brexiters.

If only someone had written that on the side of a bus, as we all know now that doing that has the hypnotic power of stopping normally reasonable people from looking things up.

In a more general sense the Idea that Brexit involves "Taking our country back" are completely and utterly ludicrous.

What we've done is cut our own bollocks off, completely abandoning all of the influence we had, and allowing mountains of legislation to be rewritten overnight by establishment figures with no oversight, no democratic mandate and absolutely no accountability. That's taking back control, I guess. Even if it feels like giving it up completely.

 

Where there does it say It wont be up to the UK whether we let Immigrants into the country or not after brexit ?

And France dont Control the tunnel crossing for free We pay them to do that ( EU or not )
all the rest is propaganda I read it all before

 

It says that your statement, that Brexit "means Britain gets to decide Who comes in (or not ! ) Not the EU" Is completely wrong. We have no more or less immediate control of our borders as a result of Brexit, but we stand to lose or inhibit our ability to deport migrants, control numbers of migrants coming to the UK and their distribution throughout Europe, and might end up having to take a deal that grants us even less border control than we had previously.

And of course, for the reasons I've stated, your definition of "The UK" in the sentence context "The UK will decide..." is a little skewed, unless you define "The UK" as a bunch of unelected civil servants with no democratic mandate, accountability or oversight. Woo! taking back controooool!

Of course, It's certainly true that you shouldn't pay attention to propaganda. Still waiting on that £350m for the NHS, by the way...

Sure it'll be here....

Any day now...

 

It says that your statement, that Brexit "means Britain gets to decide Who comes in (or not ! ) Not the EU" Is completely wrong. We have no more or less immediate control of our borders as a result of Brexit, but we stand to lose or inhibit our ability to deport migrants, control numbers of migrants coming to the UK and their distribution throughout Europe, and might end up having to take a deal that grants us even less border control than we had previously.

And of course, for the reasons I've stated, your definition of "The UK" in the sentence context "The UK will decide..." is a little skewed, unless you define "The UK" as a bunch of unelected civil servants with no democratic mandate, accountability or oversight. Woo! taking back controooool!

Of course, It's certainly true that you shouldn't pay attention to propaganda. Still waiting on that £350m for the NHS...

Sure it'll be here....

Any day now...

 

Those things you say we already have are they because of the EU ?

d, unless you define "The UK" as a bunch of unelected civil servants with no democratic mandate, accountability or oversight.
?^ Sounds just like the EU
?
?
?
?And The £ 350 Million we pay to the EU ( as its second largest Contributor ) can be spent here
But thats Off topic here !

 

Unfortunately, there's a rational basis for thinking that a child is more likely to be molested in foster care.

Although the system in the US has supposedly improved, I've heard that a study found that about half of all children in foster care get molested, either by the fosters themselves, or by other foster siblings

Maybe the foster care system in the UK is better, or worse, idk