Sandro Raniere

It is not about the fact that they are muslims, I am not anti muslim, only anti muslim extremist As Saudi Arabia is their spiritual homeland in terms of Islam, and the UAE have incredible oil wealth, those nations should be taking the refugees

My wish not to accept the Syrian refugees is purely financial, even though i want Assad to win the conflict it has been a dreadful conflict but Syrians are muslims and it should be for muslims to look after their brothers, Saudi Arabia, the UAE nations etc have untold riches wealth wise, they should take the majority of the refugees

Then more should contribute to a debate Every thread is me v 4 or 5 left wingers, my posts would be less visible if more people contributed to this forum

How many is your country taking? have you lobbied your representative to pressurise the Irish PM to accept loads? if not why not

My suggestion (professionals and entrepreneurs) is far more than the government are saying (no one at all) so my stance is far more considerate than that of the government

Certainly in London and the South it is overcrowded to bursting point, doctors surgeries, hospitals, trains, schools, roads etc are bursting at the seams, there is a serious problem with overcrowding Re welfare, we should be reducing heavily the welfare budget not unnecessarily adding to it which would be the case with many refugees, as well as giving them money to live on they have to be found accomodation which means they queue jump UK nationals who have been on the housing list for years I am not a heartless person, merely an economic realist

They are far bigger countries than us in landmass plus i bet those countries don't spend 1/3 of their budget on social security So Germany, France, Italy etc have far more space than us to accomodate refugees, we are a tiny island And paying benefits to refugees would not eat into the finances like they do here Those countries are far more suited than us

There are plenty of other countries that can take the poorer less educated ones, no reason for them to die, just should not be us

1/3 of all government spending is on social security benefits, yes a sizeable chunk of that is on pensions but JSA, income support, housing benefit, child benefit etc is a scary amount of money and needs reining in badly and fast We can't afford as a country to have Syrians coming in and adding to it

We didn't have an out of control welfare state in the 1930s I want people to come to this country who are going to make a difference to that country, we have enough home grown benefit claimants without importing any more so i welcome doctors, accountants, business owners, dentists, architects etc who are pretty sure to walk straight into a job or set up a business Unskilled Syrians are far more likely to be a burden on the already out of control welfare budget, so it is right to cherry pick the cream of Syrian society

I think it is right to accept Syrians but only certain ones, professionals and entrepreneurs etc

Great news plus its great that it is a Bon song and not a Brian one, Bon with all due respect to Brian was on a whole different level to Brian

How wrong you were Griff ;)

I will reply to your post tonight or tomorrow daytime Tyron Been away for couple of days and got guests over today till about 10pm tonight so simply dont have the time to reply fully atm

The guy is a raving lunatic, another Vladimir Romanov, it is time the FA added teeth to their 'fit and proper person' test As for Suarez i think if Real came calling he would be off in a heartbeat, all the new contract does is make him more expensive to get

According to our top ITK we have no interest in De Boer, Baldini wants Capello and is prepared to wait till after WC if necessary, second choice is Loew De Boer just angling for an Ajax pay rise by drumming up false interest

We tried for Martinez before AVB but he wanted to stay in the north as him and his family settled up there, didn't want to move south

I support the tories because they support and champion aspiration and enterprise I do think that they should do more to help the genuine disabled and poor pensioners but despite a few faults they are by far the party for me

I was against the idea from the start and this article reinforces my belief that it was completely and utterly ridiculous They should be focusing on child porn, bestiality, hardcore stuff, fully in favour of that being blocked, but this complete blanket ban is barmy

The graph doesn't display on an ipad :( just a black and white square, i won't have access to a laptop till Sunday night But between Maggie leaving power in 1990 and now, we had 13 years of labour government so if the gap between rich and poor rose during that time then it shows labour are full of shit about being champions of the poor and the working class The tories have never pretended to care about the poor, labour have, so it does question whether labour should ever be trusted with power again

I am actually quite socially liberal, for example i have passionately supported gay marriages long before Cameron jumped on that bandwagon, i have said repeatedly that genuinely disabled people and the poorer elderly don't get enough money and should get more, i have spoken out against the thieving energy companies etc, I am far from an extremist But, i do not believe in the idea of bailing out people who make bad lifestyle choices and those that live beyond their means be it someone on benefits who gambles or drinks or smokes or has a Sky subscription or owns an iphone Or someone in work who gets loads of credit cards and gets into debt because they want to have a celebrity lifestyle People have to make their own choices in life and live by those but not expect a helping hand if it goes pear shaped, and stuff like foodbanks gives people who have made the wrong choices in life a helping hand, and no incentive to change their ways, i believe in 'tough love' Likewise with people on benefits who got sanctioned because they didn't apply for jobs or were late for an appointment or turned down a job etc, no sympathy for them, they made their bed let them lie in it, they should not get free food for making bad choice Of course not everyone who goes to a foodbank is in the examples i gave above and in those cases following a means test and checks on their homes i would help those people, but no way do the examples i gave above deserve even a tin of free beans That does not make me some sort of extremist one bit

But you don't have to do all that on £70 a week If they have kids they will get child benefit, tax credits, other benefits related to the kid, plus any money the partner brings in etc The priority before anything should be putting food on the table

There was over 3 million unemployed at the peak under Maggie, currently there are about 2.3m unemployed so surely more people would have been 'struggling' under Maggie compared with now, because so many more were out of work then

I think 99% could afford at least 2 meals a day if they budgeted accordingly yes, it may not be 'Taste The Difference' or gourmet food but it would be enough to put food on the table at least twice a day How much is a loaf of bread? about a pound for about 20 slices or so, some eggs, some cheese strips, some beans, again dirt cheap Tins of soup Vegetables are not very expensive and there is plenty of BOGOF deals if shop around, can make a lot of dishes out of vegetables Sainsburys are doing 4 curries and 2 side dishes for a tenner atm, thats 6 meals each averaging out at about £1.66 Pot noodle, tinned casseroles, sausage and beans, tinned curry, again each of those lot arrn't even a pound each I would be surprised if more than 1% of the country that use food banks are so destitute they cant afford £1 per meal https://twitter.com/barneyprouse/status/413389664867729408 << this guy too, he manages on next to nothing as he makes things himself So much people can do if they take personal responsibility for their lives

If the food banks were closed down, those extreme cases that need free food (about 1% imho) could still get it, i suggested supplying food coupons to them for use at the local supermarket, the extreme cases would not starve But imho the other 99% of foodbank users would not need foodbanks if they lived within their means, budgeted properly, played ball with their jobseekers agreement, took advantage of supermarket deals, made more of their own meals etc, how are they going to sort their lives out if they are just going to get free food? where is the incentive The gap between rich and poor was higher under Maggie than now yet there was no food banks under Maggie and i certainly didn't see starved dead bodies in the street or any reports of them in even left wing papers, people managed, food banks are a modern phenomenon, people can manage without them in 99% of cases