Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

What's in a name?

Recommended Posts

A mother of 10 kids living on a Council estate, was asked why she'd named them all Jason. When I want to call them all in for dinner, I just shout Jason. But what if you only want to call one of them in?  I use their surname, said the mother.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol:  good one Obs

PS I don't know which made me smile the most, the joke or you actually venturing into the joke section and proving that you do have a sense of humour after all :wink::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have to confess, I got from a comedian on the ship last week ! :lol:

 

so that's where Kije gets to when he isn't on here!! :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have to confess, I got from a comedian on the ship last week ! :lol:

Was it you who set that cargo ship adrift full of immigrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have sunk it.... but I would have turned it back from whence it came!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not at all.... in the spirit of common sense. 150,000 last year alone were taken ashore in Italy which only encourages more to try and more to die trying.... It is a difficult choice, but eventually the line has to be drawn; as most EU nations seem to agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that something needs to be done regarding these desperate people but sending them back to Syria from where they just escaped can't be the answer.  Don't forget our country had a large part to play in whats happening in Syria now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the international law, asylum should be sought in the next nearest safe country; which puts Turkey and Jordan in the frame; where most refugees are now encamped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't be pleased, especially the ECHR;  so towing them back would seem the preferred option. These people are being trafficked by criminal gangs, it's not some kind of humanitarian mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towing them back is not the preferred option is it?  Landing in Italy and placing them in migrant camps, foster homes etc. is the preferred option.  Tell you what, if you fancy towing a ship into a Syrian port I will buy the diesel lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preferred by the bleeding hearts Brigade no doubt; migrant camps from which they escape, make their way to Calais, then enter the UK. I said "next nearest safe country"; but I realise it suits your purpose to stick with Syria, much easier to put words into other people's mouths, then bang on about it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preferable to the Italians who's call it was , not yours, thank God.  So on this matter you haven't suggested sending them back "whence they came", they are Syrian ergo............ and thank you,  I prefer a bleeding heart to a swinging brick.  You were suggesting sinking the ship not long back, mass murder is mass murder even if the people you kill don't look exactly like you , you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you may find that the ship didn't embark from a Syrian port and next nearest safe country would suffice.  Think we decided the ECHR wouldn't like ships being sunk, so let's stick with towing or taking them back, shall we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't me who suggested sinking a ship full of families in the first place but nice try to wriggle free

 

Errm NO, I would have sunk it !

Now we got you from there to sending them back to whence they came, they , not the ship but they and they are Syrian but then you started to balk at that too.  Now we are at the nearest safe country option which is a huge leap from where we started.  Perhaps there is hope for you yet if you can change your views so quickly from drowning them to a far more compassionate solution.  I really am  rather emotional to have had such a positive effect on your thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Don't forget our country had a large part to play in whats happening in Syria now.

 

But we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.... Britain and the US have always been against Assad and probably hoped he would go the same way as Gaddafi and Saddam; however Assad was certainly more in control of his forces and made life extremely difficult for the FSA... we supplied only communication and medical supplies to the FSA and at the start of the conflict; no weapons so we hardly played a large part to start with and only recently have we got involved in the broader war against ISIS and yet our planes have still not been into Syrian airspace

 

One of the problems with refugees though is that the wider world community very rarely offer sufficient help to countries like Jordan or Turkey in order to provide decent conditions in whatever camps etc are set up which then starts to get refugees ignoring the nearest safest country and instead heading for Western countries in the search for a better life etc.

 

Better to treat the problems as locally as possible rather than to encourage the refugees to scatter all over the western world.... because then once peace is finally restored, all of the scientists, doctors, teachers etc are no where to be seen as they are usually the ones with the money that get the furthest away and so are harder to tempt back when peace is restored which then causes other problems 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better for us in the West if we treat the problem locally?  Would be great if we had but as Turkey and Jordan become increasingly unwilling or unable to cope with the influx of refugees then the next safe country gets passed along the line geographically which is what has happened.  The sanctions put on Assad and the support for the uprising,  is down to the West as is the supply of weapons and ammunition including anti tank weapons .   We did this in Iraq when we armed up that nice Saddam fellah as he was against a leadership we didn't approve of and look where that went.  We don't do enough to support and help the refugee situation and as we see , even on here, people balk at spending money on foreigners when we have our own issues.   Even those who have managed,, against great adversity, to make it out by their own devices are being spoken about on this forum as some kind of worthless dross rather than scared and desperate people in need of help and refuge.  Don't be offended Baz but your response didn't half sound like something Tony Blair would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...