Vocal Voices

Interesting statement in the Mirror.

The migrants have little chance of getting aboard the ship, the Eleftherios Venizelos, as priority is being given to Syrians, who are treated as refugees as they are fleeing their country's civil war and have greater rights under international law than economic migrants.

About time people started telling the truth about the situation.

Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan? All considered stable countries without war. Which means also that those leaving there and illegally trying to enter the EU are not asylum seekers. They are profit seekers.

I wouldn't include Afghanistan in that, Suff, to be honest. I believe there are still a number of bona-fide asylum seekers from that country.

And in that category, I very much include those local British Army interpreters who have been denied the granting of asylum in this country - something I find shameful and a disgrace. As an ex-Army man, would you not agree?

Two things: 1. It is possible to be persecuted in a UN defined safe-haven depending upon who you are. 2. Syria refugees seeking asylum are in a safe-haven once they get to Turkey, they have no right to move on until processed. Greece would be in its rights to send them back to Turkey.

I do agree that Afghan interpretors used by the UK should be granted asylum here, the rest, though, are passing through safe-havens and should be rejected.

And in that category, I very much include those local British Army interpreters who have been denied the granting of asylum in this country - something I find shameful and a disgrace. As an ex-Army man, would you not agree?

Shameful that we are not looking after these men, as they have really endangered themselves in our service!

Refugees are obliged by international law to seek refuge in the first safe country they reach, not the first that takes their fancy for whatever reason

Workingman wrote:I do agree that Afghan interpretors used by the UK should be granted asylum here, the rest, though, are passing through safe-havens and should be rejected.

Yes I'm in agreement with that totally too.

Britain has a track record of abusing those who have served them well. Labour were particularly poor at this with the Ghurkas whilst opening the country up to all and sundry illegally.

Those who pass through safe haven's generally do so for economic reasons. Anyone who is truly in dire straits will take the first opportunity of sanctuary. However I do also recognise that this sanctuary comes at a somewhat Ghetto price.

To me this is a case of people breaking international law because the grass is greener and the governments letting them do so because they don't want to be seen as "racist". It's time to separate the truly needy from those who just want a quick win. Because we can't accommodate them all and those who just want a quick win don't care about the truly needy.

So our language needs to change and when the language changes we enable our politicians to take different action. This, to me, is what Cameron is trying to do and the press, because they don't like him, are not only not helping bur are actually sabotaging his attempt to secure our borders.

Blairite press are not my favourite animals...

TheOstrich wrote:I wouldn't include Afghanistan in that, Suff, to be honest. I believe there are still a number of bona-fide asylum seekers from that country.

And in that category, I very much include those local British Army interpreters who have been denied the granting of asylum in this country - something I find shameful and a disgrace. As an ex-Army man, would you not agree?

Regarding the interpreters I think this is an outrage, one fellow who worked for the British army sought sanctuary here as his little boy had been shot. It was denied. This country has become rotten to the core.

At last, someone is realising what needs to be done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34014353

Macedonian police have tear gassed "migrants" who tried to charge the border.

These migrants are very determined people. They know where they want to be and they are going to use force if necessary to get there. So if you don't want that to happen, you have to use force to stop them. Not rocket science, is it?

I was just reading it.

The rule of law applies to everyone. Even if they are escaping war.

About time it was applied to those who are flouting all the laws every day than those who are trying to uphold the rule of law.

The BBC's reporting of it is a disgrace. Talk about tugging at heart strings.

The "migrants" are already in a safe place, Greece, but broke the law by leaving another safe place, Turkey. Macedonia has every right to keep them out.

Workingman wrote:The BBC's reporting of it is a disgrace. Talk about tugging at heart strings.

"The migrants who include WOMEN AND CHILDREN.. etc etc". Oh, FGS, give it a rest. Let's all get the violin out and switch our brains off, shall we? This is an invasion of Europe by people who want to go to where they will be best off - usually German or Sweden. Whilst I feel sorry for the poor sods in Germany, Sweden and most especially Greece, I don't feel sorry enough for the UK to take any of these economic migrants who seem to be bringing a big sense of entitlement with them.

The Germans say that the UK "should be doing more". I agree, we should be using force to prevent and deport these ratbags, and it's about time the Germans did the same.