Watch out for possible Fireworks

[munchy]

Looks like we may soon be witnessing an exchange of armaments over the skies of Cyprus. I hope not, as this may well impact negatively on the Tourist Trade. Where will this absolute tragedy lead us I wonder?

[Keithcaley]

...an exchange of armaments over the skies of Cyprus....

What are you on about?

[munchy]

Considering the threats and counter threats regarding the response to the chemical attack in Syria, it seems to me , that,in the worst case scenario, we could be witnessing some bright lights in the Eastern Med Area.

[frontalman]

I doubt very much if we'll see anything from here. There have been bombs going off for many years all out of earshot.

If you're implying that the British bases may come under threat, I doubt that too, and my name isn't Thomas.

[Hedge-fund]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.expr ... arning/amp

[frontalman]

I'm not saying when my plane is leaving Larnaca, after some of my posts on here, I may be a priority target.

[kayc]

on this topic - I am wondering in the event of an emergency situation that would involve the TRNC, are there "emergency management systems" in place for the residents, i.e. warning systems, shelters, and contingency plans in existence? (all joking aside ... this is a valid question!

[Keithcaley]

There is a TRNC Civil Defense Organisation, although I know nothing about any contingency plans.

There is also a network of warning sirens which are tested periodically (yearly?) but I've never been told what to do if they are activated!

[Ragged Robin]

When I first came here we were advised to register ourselves yearly with the British Embassy so they could contact us in an emergency. I must admit I have forgotten for several years now, and do not know if they system stlll exists . In view of the current attitude of the British gov't. to expats generally and h TRNC in particularly, I doubt it. You could try asking your embassy kayc as I believe one's country of citizenship is responsible in the event of international conflict. For earthquakes, fire etc I suspect they announce from the Mosque , which is not easy to hear even IF one speaks Turkish!

[Ragged Robin]

There is a TRNC Civil Defense Organisation, although I know nothing about any contingency plans.

There is also a network of warning sirens which are tested periodically (yearly?) but I've never been told what to do if they are activated!

Don't panic, don't panic Captain Mainwaring!

[Keithcaley]

Don't panic, don't panic Captain Mainwaring!

I 'spect I'll just breathe into a brown paper bag, and hope for the best

[frontalman]

We all gotta go sometime.

[Keithcaley]

We all gotta go sometime.

After you, I insist!

[Kanonier]

There is a TRNC Civil Defense Organisation, although I know nothing about any contingency plans.

There is also a network of warning sirens which are tested periodically (yearly?) but I've never been told what to do if they are activated!

Stick your head between your legs etc................

[Keithcaley]

...Stick your head between your legs etc................

I did think of quoting that in full, but somehow, good taste got in the way!

[kayc]

There is a TRNC Civil Defense Organisation, although I know nothing about any contingency plans.

There is also a network of warning sirens which are tested periodically (yearly?) but I've never been told what to do if they are activated!

Stick your head between your legs etc................

haaaaaaaaa, I guess that is the only option.

[Keithcaley]

They do have a website, although it is singularly lacking in advice or instructions on the topic of what to do if the sirens sound

http://sivilsavunma.gov.ct.tr/

[Deniz1]

Head to a basement casino.

[sophie]

Alsancak have a sirens stuck half way up Electricity pole. My nearest is opposite Illelli . As far as I can gather it get used for announcing when funerals are taking place and Belediye announcements. I think they may announce long time power cuts, but not sure. We can hear it a couple of times a month. If a local hotels have a weddings this weekend, then we'll see fireworks about 10.30 tonight.

[Soner]

Four Tornado jets left Akrotiri early this morning and bombed chemical sites in Syria. It has started....

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Anyone else feel a worrying rumble five minutes ago?

[Trigger]

I bet there are a few people waking up in the UK this morning and thinking of changing that Turkey or Cyprus summer holiday to Spain or somewhere a bit closer.

Sad and worrying times.

[Soner]

Worrying times indeed. Will Russia retaliate? Are we on the brink of WW3? Should May have waited to get support from MP's on Monday? What difference could a few more days have had before taking any action? May looked a little nervous when making statement this morning and taking questions from press. A very bold move by her without getting backing from parliament and public. Let's hope that this does not escalate in a bad way.

[Trigger]

Worrying times indeed. Will Russia retaliate? Are we on the brink of WW3? Should May have waited to get support from MP's on Monday? What difference could a few more days have had before taking any action? May looked a little nervous when making statement this morning and taking questions from press. A very bold move by her without getting backing from parliament and public. Let's hope that this does not escalate in a bad way.

IMO she would have waited. She should have waited for the evidence to be properly be presented, discussed it with parliament and then take action via the UN.

[mermaidsexist]

In an emergency an announcement is made from the mosques after a siren. been told to tune into bayrak radio or bayrak tv or watch the local news where government officials or police head honcho will make announcements and advise on emergency procedures. the website stated further up gives information, unfortunately they can't let people know meeting points or where to go UNTIL an emergency has been declared for security reasons. best bet is to turn on radio or go outside and locals will assist as they generally are clued up.

with regards to syria being bombed, its awful how many innocent people will get caught up in blasts. i fear this is the start to ww3 i hope to god i am wrong. sad state of affairs, but the US and uk have been itching to go for a while in my opinion.

yes i felt a couple of rumbles today, assumed mini quakes although when i looked theres not been any earthquake activity recorded on the database i checked as of yet. although I'm not concerned in the slightest as probably just nearby work going on.

[waz-24-7]

Battleship CRPRUS will be on full alert.
Attacks on Syria have emanated from British sovereign bases and without doubt are well in range will be very high on the target list for counter attack.
In addition. Any hostile party based in Syria or indeed close by, wishing to harm the UK and its citizens will surely register the close proximity of a vulnerable collection of unsuspecting ex pats residing in the TRNC. It is only the Turkish presence that may deter them. However the clear clandestine use of chemical agents to poison innocent unsuspecting targets presents a new level of risk in the region.

As for the negative aspects upon the TRNC economy, tourism, flights, travel, etc. This will surely become apparent in coming months

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Any hostile party based in Syria or indeed close by, wishing to harm the UK and its citizens will surely register the close proximity of a vulnerable collection of unsuspecting ex pats residing in the TRNC. It is only the Turkish presence that may deter them. However the clear clandestine use of chemical agents to poison innocent unsuspecting targets presents a new level of risk in the region.

As for the negative aspects upon the TRNC economy, tourism, flights, travel, etc. This will surely become apparent in coming months

Considering there are more than enough potential Syrian terrorists in the UK due to our open door policy then there is little need to attack TRNC. Chemical agents would probably harm the locals which would then bring in the Turks against them.
Sorry to spoil your apparent scaremongering and apparent glee with logic.

[erol]

our open door policy

fiction. No such policy exists.

Sorry to spoil your apparent scaremongering

[jacob]

I can say without a doubt that I feel far safer in the TRNC than I do in the UK.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

our open door policy

fiction. No such policy exists.

Sorry to spoil your apparent scaremongering

What would you call a policy that lets 30 year old children in?

Or lets Albanians in as Kosovans?

Or how about the checks done on this fellow below:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -stockport
Its in the Guardian so actually happened!

One has happened and one won't happened.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

our open door policy

fiction. No such policy exists.

Sorry to spoil your apparent scaremongering

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/02/italy.july7

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... n-on-trial

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... rist-group

[erol]

This is entirely off topic.

The UK does not have an 'open door immigration policy'. That is just a fact.

So if I do my best to understand what you meant when you said the UK does have such, even though it does not, I come up with something like 'The UK's immigration policy is so badly implemented in practice that it is in effect the equivalent of having a 'open door immigration policy'. This is not what you said but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

If I look at this claim, that is not what you said but could be reasonably guessed at what you meant, I still find the claim lacking in supporting evidence.

If the above was true I would expect the numbers of Syrian refugees granted leave to stay in the UK, absolute numbers or % of population, to be substantially higher than those granted leave to stay in say Australia (or Canada, or France, or Germany or USA or Turkey or any number of other comparison countries) Yet the numbers do not show this at all. So either the claim is unsupported or the UK actually has less of an 'effective open door' policy than Australia has.

You may well feel and believe that your claim that the UK has an open door policy is not 'scaremongering' despite the claim not being true and despite there being no evidence that I know of that shows the UK has granted leave to stay to vastly more Syrian refugees than other countries as a result of this fictional 'open door policy'. I on the other hand have a different perspective on if your claim was 'scaremongering' or not.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

This is entirely off topic.

The UK does not have an 'open door immigration policy'. That is just a fact.

So if I do my best to understand what you meant when you said the UK does have such, even though it does not, I come up with something like 'The UK's immigration policy is so badly implemented in practice that it is in effect the equivalent of having a 'open door immigration policy'. This is not what you said but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

If I look at this claim, that is not what you said but could be reasonably guessed at what you meant, I still find the claim lacking in supporting evidence.

If the above was true I would expect the numbers of Syrian refugees granted leave to stay in the UK, absolute numbers or % of population, to be substantially higher than those granted leave to stay in say Australia (or Canada, or France, or Germany or USA or Turkey or any number of other comparison countries) Yet the numbers do not show this at all. So either the claim is unsupported or the UK actually has less of an 'effective open door' policy than Australia has.

You may well feel and believe that your claim that the UK has an open door policy is not 'scaremongering' despite the claim not being true and despite there being no evidence that I know of that shows the UK has granted leave to stay to vastly more Syrian refugees than other countries as a result of this fictional 'open door policy'. I on the other hand have a different perspective on if your claim was 'scaremongering' or not.

Australia is an enormous, sparsely populated land mass. Ever thought that its immigration system is designed to attract settlers to move there as they have more room?
The UKs population density is ninety times larger than Australia, seventy times larger than Canada and eight times larger than the USA.
Two and a half times larger than Turkey and over double France.
We are even higher than Germany with Merkel in charge.
So comparing countries is apples and oranges.

If we are discussing asylum seekers then you should read up on The Guardian’s articles on Australia’s detention centre on Nauru.

Speaking of The Guardian any time to read the stories in the links?
Reading those stories and getting back to the topic you feel that you would be safer from revenge attacks in the UK than North Cyprus?

[turtle]

our open door policy

fiction. No such policy exists.

Sorry to spoil your apparent scaremongering

The UK has most definitely got an open door policy as any member of the EU can come and go as they please...Fact

[EnjoyingTheSun]

our open door policy

fiction. No such policy exists.

Sorry to spoil your apparent scaremongering

The UK has most definitely got an open door policy as any member of the EU can come and go as they please...Fact

Apparently not!
Although the total number of immigrants who arrived between 1948 and the early 1990s was about 2 million but from 1997 to 2012 the total of non-British net immigration was around 4 million.
Whilst it wasn't called an open door policy a few factors accounted for the significant rise.
The abolition of the so-called primary purpose rule, which had the effect of significantly raising the inflow of foreign spouses.
The introduction of the Human Rights Act and a more active judiciary made it harder to deport those who were not genuine refugees, which in most years was the majority.
The liberalisation of student visas and work permits, both of which more than doubled after 1997.
But the most significant was the decision taken at the end of 2003 to open the British labour market to the new Eastern European and Baltic EU states, seven years before it was legally required and before any other big EU state did.
About 1.5 million East Europeans (including dependants) came after 2004, some to work for a few months or years, others to settle here permanently. Far more than the official prediction of 13,000 a year.

To point out the speed and scale of the change and the subsequent pressure on resources means the upper middle class SJWs label you a racist while they enjoy having a cheaper au pair.

[waz-24-7]

The Hypocrites have indeed spoken.
So the UK should indeed keep immigrants out as clear undesirables and not of good stock.

However it is perfectly fine for the said hypocrites to live and enjoy the sun in a foreign land and expect to live free from hindrance, enjoy freedom of movement and pass criticism upon the homeland the have chosen to leave.
Perhaps it is the age old dependence on colonial rule. Cyprus was after all part of the great empire.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

The Hypocrites have indeed spoken.
So the UK should indeed keep immigrants out as clear undesirables and not of good stock.

However it is perfectly fine for the said hypocrites to live and enjoy the sun in a foreign land and expect to live free from hindrance, enjoy freedom of movement and pass criticism upon the homeland the have chosen to leave.
Perhaps it is the age old dependence on colonial rule. Cyprus was after all part of the great empire.

Typical SJW tactic to put words in other’s mouths.
No one is saying to keep immigrants out but to have some sensible controls.
I would count someone who is trying to enter a country and commit terrorist acts an undesirable yes.
When you say free from hinderance do you mean free from the terrorist attacks you seem to be hoping for?
The rules of residency in North Cyprus, which isn’t in the EU by the way so doesn’t have the beloved freedom of movement, do ensure that anyone coming to live here can support themself.
I don't criticise the UK I criticise the liberals who are slowly destroying the UK. The remain campaign of which you are a very vocal supporter consistently criticise the majority of the UK voters who voted for Brexit as being stupid so don't wrap the flag around yourself unless it is the EU one.
The left however do seem to spend their every waking hour criticising the UK referring to colonial rule, the empire and such nonsense.

There is not a strong far right movement in the UK unlike other EU countries but with the left demonising ordinary people with justified concerns as xenophobes and racists they are the best advert the far right can have.

[erol]

Talk about use of 'tactics' ! Talk about putting words into peoples mouths ! The level of intellectual dishonesty displayed is to me as blatant as it is depressing.

No one that I am aware of and certainly not me is saying that the UK should have NO controls on immigration. You are the one who claims that it has no controls - 'open door policy' and did so specifically in relation to Syrian immigrants. This is just not true. You know it is just not true. Yet you choose to keep making the claim. A sensible discussion could be had about what changes to the existing controls (for non EU migrants - you know like Syrians) are necessary or right for the UK. Claiming the UK has no controls at all, that it has an 'open door policy', even when talking specifically about Syrian refugees is not the behaviour of someone interested in such a rational sensible discussion. It is the action of a demagogue, of someone who wants the debate to be about emotion and irrationality. It is relentless.

Who is saying that the UK must let in someone "trying to enter a country and commit terrorist acts" ? It is possible to have a sensible discussion about how you establish if a given refugee is in fact a terrorist or even a potential terrorist, about what changes to the systems that are already in place to do such are needed to make them more effective. I do not believe you have any interest in such a discussion at all and that is why you make out that there are no such systems in place at all. This is just more demagoguery.

Who here has called you racist ? I called out your claim that the UK had "more than enough potential Syrian terrorists in the UK due to our open door policy" because the claim is just not true with regards to Syrians refugees in the UK. In response you start 'crying' about how the SJW's call you racist and distract by talking about immigration in to the UK from the EU. As far as I know Syria is not in the EU!

I had to look up SJW. There are several definitions here https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW. The one that struck me and the part that struck me in it was this

However, the term (SJW) has continued to evolve. While the previous definition sometimes applies, it's now often used simply as an excuse to dismiss things other people say without having to think about them at all, regardless of whether or not they have a valid point. In other words, it's increasingly used as if it's a "get out of jail free" card for insulting entire groups of people. This watering down of the meaning is slowly turning the term into a meaningless insult.

Labelling people you are in discussion with as SJW's is exactly the same 'tactic' as labelling someone who calls for tighter immigration controls 'racist'. It is an excuse to NOT address points being raised and to ignore them. No one here has called you racist that I am aware of. You on the other hand ....?

I do blame demagogues like yourself for the damage you have done and are doing to the UK. For example I see a direct connection to your rhetoric and demagoguery so proudly displayed here and the current 'windrush generation' scandal in the UK atm. I blame you and your shameless demagoguery and I blame the gutless politicians that pander to such.

[tomsteel]

How has this got so far from the original theme of 'bright light's' in the Eastern Mediterranean and no Mod has intervened?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

You are the one who claims that it has no controls - 'open door policy' and did so specifically in relation to Syrian immigrants. This is just not true. You know it is just not true.

No I did so in relation to potential Syrian terrorists. I posted several links of terrorists who had been given asylum from The Guardian (so they must be true) which you continue to ignore preferring to pull at the open door I referred to.
I have no wish to upset you so I admit that there is no open door policy and population didn’t vastly increase between 1997 and 2012.

A sensible discussion could be had about what changes to the existing controls (for non EU migrants - you know like Syrians) are necessary or right for the UK.

The problem with the left is they are all for discussion as a delaying tactic but not action.
OK let’s start with an easy one. Do you admit people have entered the UK under false pretences? Claiming to be another nationality or claiming to be a minor when they aren’t? Do you believe that we should make checks and if someone has been found to be lying immediately deport them? Or are we going to quote the human rights act every time we try to implement checks?

Who is saying that the UK must let in someone "trying to enter a country and commit terrorist acts" ? It is possible to have a sensible discussion about how you establish if a given refugee is in fact a terrorist or even a potential terrorist, about what changes to the systems that are already in place to do such are needed to make them more effective. I do not believe you have any interest in such a discussion at all and that is why you make out that there are no such systems in place at all.

I responded to waz-24-7 who said we were under imminent attack from chemical weapons. I pointed out this was unlikely and that you would be in more danger in the UK. So you don’t think that is the case and agree with him then?

Who here has called you racist ? I called out your claim that the UK had "more than enough potential Syrian terrorists in the UK due to our open door policy" because the claim is just not true with regards to Syrians refugees in the UK. In response you start 'crying' about how the SJW's call you racist and distract by talking about immigration in to the UK from the EU.

So the remain campaign doesn’t label leavers racist? Love the way you say I start crying! When labelled a hypocrite and now a demagogue in this thread it just amuses me. It’s a typical left move to throw out a name but then run to a safe space when one is thrown back..

I had to look up SJW.

So you had never heard the phrase? Yeah right.

it's now often used simply as an excuse to dismiss things other people say without having to think about them at all, regardless of whether or not they have a valid point.

I don’t dismiss other views you bought up how many asylum seekers other countries let in I pointed out the difference in population density. You moved on quickly. You accuse others of dismissing when you just ignore. Still waiting for you to respond to the Guardian links about asylum seekers who have gone on to commit terrorist acts.

I do blame demagogues like yourself for the damage you have done and are doing to the UK. For example I see a direct connection to your rhetoric and demagoguery so proudly displayed here and the current 'windrush generation' scandal in the UK atm.

I totally agree the windrush thing is a scandal and I take great pride in the fact that the UK has provided a haven for Jews from pograms and Nazism, Hungarians from communism, Ugandan and Kenyan Asians etc etc.
The problem with the bleeding heart liberals is when they yell in their pulpit that checking that 35 year old man might not be 15 year old is an invasion of their human rights they overlook that 35 year old man has probably bullied the 15 year old out of his place.

I also take great pride in the fact that the far right, for all the left scaremongering makes zero impact in UK elections.
If we look around the wonderful EU we see that is not the case there.
The AfD got nearly 6 million votes, or 13 per cent of the popular vote in Germany. Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party of Austria got 46% of the popular vote. Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France 33%. The Danish Peoples Party 21% in 2015, the Party for Freedom in Holland 13%. Sweden Democrats 12% in 2014 up from a record 4% in 2010.
In the xenophobic old colonial racist UK, the BNPs highest percentage of the popular vote was 1.9 in the 2010 election when after July 7 and the economic crises they might have expected to do well. In that election UKIP gained 3.1%.
In the last election UKIP got 1.8% and the BNP 0.01%.

So in Germany where Merkel buries her head in the sand the far right get 13% of the popular vote and that isn't damaging?
You are well read on history so will know the Nazi Party won 18% of the vote in 1930 doubling it by the 1932 election. That doesn't worry you?

But we'll ignore that there is a problem, label ordinary people who believe a bit of common sense is in order as racist and all will be well, right?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

How has this got so far from the original theme of 'bright light's' in the Eastern Mediterranean and no Mod has intervened?

I think it was my reponse to Waz scaremongering and grown from there.
I hope the debate doesn't get closed down it's always amusing to hear the other side

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Who here has called you racist ?

No one here has called you racist that I am aware of.

You do get to recognise the code or have I misread the quotes below and being sensitive?

So the UK should indeed keep immigrants out as clear undesirables and not of good stock.

Perhaps it is the age old dependence on colonial rule. Cyprus was after all part of the great empire.

[tomsteel]

Put it in a separate post.

[erol]

No I did so in relation to potential Syrian terrorists.

Are you really going to quibble over if you said there was an 'open door policy' with regards to Syrian immigrants or potential Syrian terrorists ? There is no such open door policy to either.

I have no wish to upset you so I admit that there is no open door policy

Should I be grateful that finally you admit that what you said was not true ? That you apparently admit it not because it is just not true but because you do not wish to upset me ? I believe there is a reason why you choose to use a phrase like 'open door policy', that you know is not true, rather than stating something like 'the UK's policy with regards to immigration is too lax'. A reason why you prefer an expression that appears a statement of fact, which is not even true, rather than one that is an expression of opinion. I might be wrong but I believe you, that is you personally not some nebulous ill defined 'alt right' group' but you personally, make such choices with intent. The intent being to exaggerate and distort and appeal to emotion rather than logic. To scaremonger in short.

I posted several links of terrorists who had been given asylum from The Guardian (so they must be true) which you continue to ignore preferring to pull at the open door I referred to.

You 'start' from a statement of 'fact', that is not true and when challenged on that statement, you ignore the substance of that challenge and instead start discussing specific instances and then wonder why I seem to have little will or volition to engage with such 'discussion' ?

The problem with the left is they are all for discussion as a delaying tactic but not action.

I engage in discussion with you, based on the things you said and in response you reply with things like 'the problem with the left' and 'upper middle class SJWs label you a racist while they enjoy having a cheaper au pair'. Again for me this is just a 'tactic' or 'technique' to avoid addressing what I, as an individual, have said. Who are you actually debating with here ? Me or 'the left' or 'SJWs' ? I will continue to stick to ascribing to you the things that you have said. Will you offer me the same courtesy or will you just keep on replying to the things I have said by referring to undefined groups of people and what you claim they say, that bears no relation to what I, me, have actually said ?

OK let’s start with an easy one. Do you admit people have entered the UK under false pretences? Claiming to be another nationality or claiming to be a minor when they aren’t?

Of course I 'admit' that there have been cases where people have entered the UK under false pretences. Just as I 'admit' that there are times when someone guilty of a crime is not found guilty in a court of law and visa versa. I see no 'argument' here, just more rhetoric and 'tactics' if I am honest.

You claim to want 'sensible' immigration controls. There is only one system that will or can provide 100% accuracy, that will ensure not a single person who does not have a right to enter and remain in the UK manages to do so. That would be an absolute 'closed door' policy that says because we can not guarantee that no one will ever be able to slip through the net of any immigration policy however constructed and implemented, we will therefore simply allow no immigration at all. Is this what you really mean when you say you want 'sensible immigration controls' ? If this is what you really mean then why not say that clearly and openly rather than claim you just want 'sensible controls' ? If it is not what you really mean then what is it that you do really mean ? You think you have some simple answer to 'how do you allow valid legitimate immigration whilst ensuring not a single invalid person enters under such a system' ? If you have such then why not share it with us ?

Do you believe that we should make checks and if someone has been found to be lying immediately deport them? Or are we going to quote the human rights act every time we try to implement checks?

Really what sort of question is that ? Are you now claiming that we do not currently make checks and if someone is found to be lying , we do not deport them ? Seriously ? The only sensible discussion is about how in practice we fairly asses if someone has a valid right to be in the UK or not before deporting them, not if we should do so at all. That you choose to frame such 'discussion' in the way that you do just strengthens the impression I have that you are not really interested such sensible discussion as you are in rhetoric and demagoguery for its own sake.

In the context of such a sensible discussion I can tell what I do NOT consider to be a fair basis on which to determine if someone has the right to remain in the UK or not, under threat of deportation. Requiring someone who had come to the UK at age 5, legally and validly, in the 50's and 60's to now in 2018 have to provide evidence of their having been in the UK for every year since their first arrival. If it requires a 'human rights act' to ensure such things are not allowed to happen then that to me is an argument for such an act not against it.

I responded to waz-24-7 who said we were under imminent attack from chemical weapons. I pointed out this was unlikely and that you would be in more danger in the UK. So you don’t think that is the case and agree with him then?

No I do not agree with waz-24-7. I never said I agreed with him. You are welcome to continue to respond to my challenges about the things you have said by replying with things that I have not said if you wish to but please do not be surprised if doing so reduces my appetite to continue in such discussion.

So the remain campaign doesn’t label leavers racist?

Who are you discussing with here ? Me or the 'remain campaign' ?

Love the way you say I start crying! When labelled a hypocrite and now a demagogue in this thread it just amuses me. It’s a typical left move to throw out a name but then run to a safe space when one is thrown back..

I have explained as clearly and plainly as I can why I think the things you have said are in my view demagoguery and hypocritical. In response you have referred to a 'typical left move'. Have I not been clear as to why I think the things I think ? Where exactly is it you think I (the left ? SJWs ?) have run to ? Have you addressed my question as to what is the difference between labelling someone who advocates stronger immigration controls racist (something I have NOT done) and labelling someone who challenges the assertion that the UK has a open door immigration policy as a 'leftist' and 'SJW' ? Or have you avoided it ?

So you had never heard the phrase? Yeah right.

I have heard the term social justice warrior before. I did not recognise the abbreviation SJW as meaning 'social justice warrior' so I looked it up. You can doubt my honesty about these claims all you like but it does not change the reality.

I don’t dismiss other views you bought up how many asylum seekers other countries let in I pointed out the difference in population density. You moved on quickly. You accuse others of dismissing when you just ignore. Still waiting for you to respond to the Guardian links about asylum seekers who have gone on to commit terrorist acts.

As far as I am concerned you still have not addressed the core and substance of my challenge to what you wrote. Why do you choose to use terms that imply a statement of fact, that is not true rather than expression of your own opinion ? I ignore that which I think does not deserve or warrant a reply, as is my right. For example your 'argument' around population density of countries and the idea that countries with lower population densities that let in similar levels of Syrian refugees (per head of population) as the UK do not show an 'open door' immigration policy where as the UK's figures do, because it's population density is higher. The idea is imo nonsense and that is why I ignored it. Germany population density is as near as dam it the same as the UK's. Countries like Netherlands and Belgium (and Lebanon) all have population densities higher than the UK. As for you 'guardain articles' I have dealt with those already.

But we'll ignore that there is a problem, label ordinary people who believe a bit of common sense is in order as racist and all will be well, right?

We come full circle. I do not ignore there is a problem. I do dispute that the way to solve the problem is to make assertions that are just not true (the UK has no immigration controls / open door policy, the UK does not seek to detect people making false claims for the right to remain in the UK or deport them when it catches such people and on and on and on). Nor do I label ordinary people racist just because they believe there should be even tighter controls on immigration that there currently are. It is very easy to 'win' an argument when you simply ascribe to those you claim to be arguing with things they have not said or done.

[kerry 6138]

Erol said" Requiring someone who had come to the UK at age 5, legally and validly, in the 50's and 60's to now in 2018 have to provide evidence of their having been in the UK for every year since their first arrival"

is this a statement of fact?

I also needed to look up SJW and now i need to google demagoguery sorry

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Should I be grateful that finally you admit that what you said was not true ? That you apparently admit it not because it is just not true but because you do not wish to upset me ? I believe there is a reason why you choose to use a phrase like 'open door policy', that you know is not true, rather than stating something like 'the UK's policy with regards to immigration is too lax'. A reason why you prefer an expression that appears a statement of fact, which is not even true, rather than one that is an expression of opinion. I might be wrong but I believe you, that is you personally not some nebulous ill defined 'alt right' group' but you personally, make such choices with intent. The intent being to exaggerate and distort and appeal to emotion rather than logic. To scaremonger in short.

So what would you call 4 million in 15 years? Too many, not enough or about right?
Or is the figure wrong?
By The Guardian quotes we aren't being THAT selective either are we?
But let’s thank god we do not have an open door policy!
Would it be more palatable if I said it was Labour Party policy

label you a racist .........
.... what you claim they say...........

So I’m being sensitive or maybe I’ve read it wrong? What do you think?

So the UK should indeed keep immigrants out as clear undesirables and not of good stock.

Perhaps it is the age old dependence on colonial rule. Cyprus was after all part of the great empire.

You claim to want 'sensible' immigration controls. There is only one system that will or can provide 100% accuracy, that will ensure not a single person who does not have a right to enter and remain in the UK manages to do so.
When you say you want 'sensible immigration controls' ? If this is what you really mean then why not say that clearly and openly rather than claim you just want 'sensible controls' ?

Little things like a simple test to ensure that a 15 year old is 15. Nothing too complicated maybe opening your eyes.
Maybe when someone is claiming to be an Afghan asylum seeker but is an Albanian maybe someone who is Afghan could question them? I don’t know about you but I think I could tell if someone wasn’t English even if their English was fluent.
Bit of common sense or would that be infringing their human rights?

Are you now claiming that we do not currently make checks and if someone is found to be lying , we do not deport them ? Seriously ?

Serously?
How many links and quotes do you want me to post to answer that?
Obviously I’ll try for Guardian ones because if I quote The Daily Mail or such like that will be propaganda won’t it?

I can tell what I do NOT consider to be a fair basis on which to determine if someone has the right to remain in the UK or not, under threat of deportation. Requiring someone who had come to the UK at age 5, legally and validly, in the 50's and 60's to now in 2018 have to provide evidence of their having been in the UK for every year since their first arrival.

I did say I agreed that was terrible and won’t point out that when I move the discussion out of narrow paramaters you state that I am wandering off subject.I’m bigger than that 

No I do not agree with waz-24-7. I never said I agreed with him.

So you agree we would be in more danger if we live in the UK?
If you do, why?

So the remain campaign doesn’t label leavers racist?

Who are you discussing with here ? Me or the 'remain campaign' ?

Simple question really.

The idea is imo nonsense and that is why I ignored it. Germany population density is as near as dam it the same as the UK's. Countries like Netherlands and Belgium (and Lebanon) all have population densities higher than the UK.

What is nonsense about pointing out that we have less room. If I have a car with 3 passengers I can pick up at most one hitch hiker. If you have an empty people carrier you can take more.
OK change Australia to the Lebanon if you wish. Would it be ok if I list countries who have taken in less asylum seekers than the UK or would that be evasive?

Any thoughts on why those other countries have such a high far right vote compared with the xenophobic UK?
In your very comprehensive answer it was one of the many things you ignored.

[erol]

is this a statement of fact?

I do not know if it is 'fact'. It would appear to be in line with what is being widely reported currently and the reported accounts of individuals who worked in the relevant border agency departments.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ding-cards

I was saying to them: ‘Look they’re more British than you! How can you, a 27-year-old fellow, refuse a 54-year-old fellow, and say he’s not entitled to remain in a country he’s lived in for 51 years? It is madness. It upset me and a few of the older staff members when they started saying to these fellows: we want four pieces of information per year you’ve been here.

Nor is the irony of the below in this thread where I dared to challenge the assertion the UK has an open door policy lost to me (from same source, my empahsis)

The home secretary, Amber Rudd, appeared to acknowledge that this newly hardened culture within the Home Office was becoming problematic on Monday when she apologised for the “appalling” actions of her own department towards some Windrush-era citizens who have struggled to prove their right to live in the UK, and recognised that the Home Office had “lost sight of individuals” and become “too concerned with POLICY”.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Erol said" Requiring someone who had come to the UK at age 5, legally and validly, in the 50's and 60's to now in 2018 have to provide evidence of their having been in the UK for every year since their first arrival"

Not wishing to diminish this as it is horrendous for those who have been unduly alarmed but to put it into perspective it is a civil service foul up not policy and moves are afoot to resolve it within two weeks. My understanding is the people in question have been punished for rightly assuming they are a British citizen but not applying for a British passport at the right time?
So due to a bureaucratic mess I guess it is best to just allow people to lie about their age and flush their documents down the toilet.

[turtle]

Put it in a separate post.

Better still stop reading this post and select a more "moderate" one ?

[tomsteel]

Why, get it back on thread?