|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 17:44:42 GMT
Being struck by lightening is a legitimate concern - however it doesn't happen very often. Is there any evidence (beyond a grainy twitter post) that you are disproportionately likely to be stabbed by an asylum seeker than by someone from the wider population? Because if there is I can't find any. In fact there is a view that asylum seekers are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/asylum-seekers-more-likely-victims-7889093The most likely group of people to either kill you or assualt you are people related to or otherwise known to you. Perhaps therefore we need a thread about the risks of friends and family if concern for being stabbed is the big worry? In any case, being stabbed to death by a terrorist can be linked to immigration. Which is something that should be properly managed, but isn't. It has no relation to any other potential cause of death. The whataboutery from certain quarters today is utterly breathtaking
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 17:52:13 GMT
Being struck by lightening is a legitimate concern - however it doesn't happen very often. Is there any evidence (beyond a grainy twitter post) that you are disproportionately likely to be stabbed by an asylum seeker than by someone from the wider population? Because if there is I can't find any. In fact there is a view that asylum seekers are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/asylum-seekers-more-likely-victims-7889093The most likely group of people to either kill you or assualt you are people related to or otherwise known to you. Perhaps therefore we need a thread about the risks of friends and family if concern for being stabbed is the big worry? In any case, being stabbed to death by a terrorist can be linked to immigration. Which is something that should be properly managed, but isn't. It has no relation to any other potential cause of death. So no evidence that asylum seekers represent a disproportionate risk then? In which case it's the same risk as being stabbed by anyone else and a risk you incur just by being alive. Why are you singling out one group of people that are no more likely to stab you than any other?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 17:54:22 GMT
In any case, being stabbed to death by a terrorist can be linked to immigration. Which is something that should be properly managed, but isn't. It has no relation to any other potential cause of death. So no evidence that asylum seekers represent a disproportionate risk then? In which case it's the same risk as being stabbed by anyone else and a risk you incur just by being alive. Why are you singling out one group of people that are no more likely to stab you than any other? Because they shouldn’t be here!
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 17:56:57 GMT
So no evidence that asylum seekers represent a disproportionate risk then? In which case it's the same risk as being stabbed by anyone else and a risk you incur just by being alive. Why are you singling out one group of people that are no more likely to stab you than any other? Because they shouldn’t be here! Ah - so they're no more of a risk than anyone else. We just don't want them. Now we're getting somewhere. Wish folk would just say that rather than coming up with spurious justifications
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 18:04:21 GMT
In any case, being stabbed to death by a terrorist can be linked to immigration. Which is something that should be properly managed, but isn't. It has no relation to any other potential cause of death. So no evidence that asylum seekers represent a disproportionate risk then? In which case it's the same risk as being stabbed by anyone else and a risk you incur just by being alive. Why are you singling out one group of people that are no more likely to stab you than any other? It doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. Terrorist attacks happen and shouldn't happen at all.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 18:07:29 GMT
Because they shouldn’t be here! Ah - so they're no more of a risk than anyone else. We just don't want them. Now we're getting somewhere. Wish folk would just say that rather than coming up with spurious justifications What's happening is you're actually saying we turn a blind eye and accept terrorist killings just because they occur less than other ones.
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Apr 26, 2024 18:08:40 GMT
Are we really comparing a car accident to being stabbed🤦🏻♂️ It’s a legitimate concern on a relevant thread Being struck by lightening is a legitimate concern - however it doesn't happen very often. Is there any evidence (beyond a grainy twitter post) that you are disproportionately likely to be stabbed by an asylum seeker than by someone from the wider population? Because if there is I can't find any. In fact there is a view that asylum seekers are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/asylum-seekers-more-likely-victims-7889093The most likely group of people to either kill you or assualt you are people related to or otherwise known to you. Perhaps therefore we need a thread about the risks of friends and family if concern for being stabbed is the big worry? I’m sure the family of the deceased would take great comfort in them wise words. As far as I’m aware bolts of lightening don’t intentionally target people with knives, this bloke did. It’s upto you what you think on the matter, but letting people into this country without proper background checks is going to cause problems.. You might think it’s a small percentage and that’s fine, I don’t hence we disagree. It’s a message board about opinions that’s all
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 18:11:38 GMT
So no evidence that asylum seekers represent a disproportionate risk then? In which case it's the same risk as being stabbed by anyone else and a risk you incur just by being alive. Why are you singling out one group of people that are no more likely to stab you than any other? It doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. Terrorist attacks happen and shouldn't happen at all. Of course they shouldn't. But as there's no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers represent any greater risk than the wider population to target them is being openly discriminatory.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 18:19:54 GMT
It doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. Terrorist attacks happen and shouldn't happen at all. Of course they shouldn't. But as there's no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers represent any greater risk than the wider population to target them is being openly discriminatory. I'm happy to target any group that has a record of committing terrorist attacks....and this thread is related to immigrants, which is why they are being discussed. Have there been incidents of asylum seekers committing terrorist attacks and killing people...yes. That's all the proof and evidence needed to show that they need to be properly vetted before being let out on the streets with the general public.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 18:20:13 GMT
Ah - so they're no more of a risk than anyone else. We just don't want them. Now we're getting somewhere. Wish folk would just say that rather than coming up with spurious justifications What's happening is you're actually saying we turn a blind eye and accept terrorist killings just because they occur less than other ones. "Another overriding myth that needs to be dispelled is that refugees are, in fact, security threats. This is not the case, as Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in his 2016 United States study of ‘Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Assessment’ that “the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on US soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year”. He goes on to note that the “chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.” He concludes by stating, “[t]he hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists are not large enough to warrant extreme actions like a moratorium on all immigration or tourism”. Terrorism and Asylum - Dr James Simeon
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Apr 26, 2024 18:20:23 GMT
So no evidence that asylum seekers represent a disproportionate risk then? In which case it's the same risk as being stabbed by anyone else and a risk you incur just by being alive. Why are you singling out one group of people that are no more likely to stab you than any other? It doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. Terrorist attacks happen and shouldn't happen at all. I agree. But the last time i heard the head of counter terrorism discuss this he claimed 80% of terrorist attacks in the UK were British born.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 18:22:40 GMT
It doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. Terrorist attacks happen and shouldn't happen at all. I agree. But the last time i heard the head of counter terrorism discuss this he claimed 80% of terrorist attacks in the UK were British born. It depends what constitutes a terrorist attack. Seems no one can agree on that little detail.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 18:23:58 GMT
It doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. Terrorist attacks happen and shouldn't happen at all. I agree. But the last time i heard the head of counter terrorism discuss this he claimed 80% of terrorist attacks in the UK were British born. OK, so it's a religious issue then. In which case the vetting of asylum seekers of that particular religion should be stepped up. I for one do not feel concerned for my safety when it comes to asylum seekers from Ukraine, South America, India, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 18:24:17 GMT
Of course they shouldn't. But as there's no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers represent any greater risk than the wider population to target them is being openly discriminatory. I'm happy to target any group that has a record of committing terrorist attacks....and this thread is related to immigrants, which is why they are being discussed. Have there been incidents of asylum seekers committing terrorist attacks and killing people...yes. That's all the proof and evidence needed to show that they need to be properly vetted before being let out on the streets with the general public. Better start targetting Brits then as they're the most likely perpetrators.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Apr 26, 2024 18:24:26 GMT
I agree. But the last time i heard the head of counter terrorism discuss this he claimed 80% of terrorist attacks in the UK were British born. It depends what constitutes a terrorist attack. Seems no one can agree on that little detail. I'd hope the head of counter terrorism had a better idea than most of us though.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 18:26:14 GMT
I'm happy to target any group that has a record of committing terrorist attacks....and this thread is related to immigrants, which is why they are being discussed. Have there been incidents of asylum seekers committing terrorist attacks and killing people...yes. That's all the proof and evidence needed to show that they need to be properly vetted before being let out on the streets with the general public. Better start targetting Brits then as they're the most likely perpetrators. Seymour Ostrich
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 18:27:57 GMT
I'm happy to target any group that has a record of committing terrorist attacks....and this thread is related to immigrants, which is why they are being discussed. Have there been incidents of asylum seekers committing terrorist attacks and killing people...yes. That's all the proof and evidence needed to show that they need to be properly vetted before being let out on the streets with the general public. Better start targetting Brits then as they're the most likely perpetrators. I do. The only difference is that you can't prevent brits from entering the countr so other measures should be taken.
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Apr 26, 2024 18:29:08 GMT
How many asylum seekers can little old UK take FFS over populated before all of this started happening
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Apr 26, 2024 18:29:09 GMT
I agree. But the last time i heard the head of counter terrorism discuss this he claimed 80% of terrorist attacks in the UK were British born. OK, so it's a religious issue then. In which case the vetting of asylum seekers of that particular religion should be stepped up. I for one do not feel concerned for my safety when it comes to asylum seekers from Ukraine, South America, India, etc. MI5 agree. www.mi5.gov.uk/what-we-do/countering-terrorism#:~:text=Terrorists%20use%20violence%20and%20threats,religious%2C%20racial%20or%20ideological%20cause.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 26, 2024 18:37:56 GMT
What's happening is you're actually saying we turn a blind eye and accept terrorist killings just because they occur less than other ones. "Another overriding myth that needs to be dispelled is that refugees are, in fact, security threats. This is not the case, as Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in his 2016 United States study of ‘Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Assessment’ that “the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on US soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year”. He goes on to note that the “chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.” He concludes by stating, “[t]he hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists are not large enough to warrant extreme actions like a moratorium on all immigration or tourism”. Terrorism and Asylum - Dr James Simeon Isn’t it relative to ratio and not just the figures. You have to look at it as a percentage in relation to the whole population and not just overall figures.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 18:48:04 GMT
"Another overriding myth that needs to be dispelled is that refugees are, in fact, security threats. This is not the case, as Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in his 2016 United States study of ‘Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Assessment’ that “the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on US soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year”. He goes on to note that the “chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.” He concludes by stating, “[t]he hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists are not large enough to warrant extreme actions like a moratorium on all immigration or tourism”. Terrorism and Asylum - Dr James Simeon Isn’t it relative to ratio and not just the figures. You have to look at it as a percentage in relation to the whole population and not just overall figures. You have to look lots of things - not just Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 18:52:53 GMT
Isn’t it relative to ratio and not just the figures. You have to look at it as a percentage in relation to the whole population and not just overall figures. You have to look lots of things - not just Twitter. You haven't actually made a point. All you've done is try to point out that others on here have sinister ulterior motives. What's your opinion and solution regarding thousands and thousands of unvetted Muslim asylum seekers entering the UK?
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Apr 26, 2024 18:57:36 GMT
You have to look lots of things - not just Twitter. You haven't actually made a point. All you've done is try to point out that others on here have sinister ulterior motives. What's your opinion and solution regarding thousands and thousands of unvetted Muslim asylum seekers entering the UK? Dont stand near a tree when it’s lightening 👀only joking Mr beaver😁
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 19:08:52 GMT
You haven't actually made a point. All you've done is try to point out that others on here have sinister ulterior motives. What's your opinion and solution regarding thousands and thousands of unvetted Muslim asylum seekers entering the UK? Dont stand near a tree when it’s lightening 👀only joking Mr beaver😁 Are you kidding? He spends every waking hour (when he’s not whataboutering on here) either biting trees or chucking them in rivers
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 19:15:05 GMT
You have to look lots of things - not just Twitter. You haven't actually made a point. All you've done is try to point out that others on here have sinister ulterior motives. What's your opinion and solution regarding thousands and thousands of unvetted Muslim asylum seekers entering the UK? I've made the point that a lot of people get in a lather over something that there little evidence to support whilst I consider demonising groups of people who are no greater threat than the local population probably in itself increases any risk and obscures the failures of the asylum system - which is precisely what our government wants it to do. The answer - I believe - is in reforming the asylum system ("illegal" immigration) and better planned economy and workforce ("legal" immigration) - which I have discussed before. The current asylum system couldn't have been designed better to create scapegoats and demons. And so it does.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 19:17:07 GMT
You haven't actually made a point. All you've done is try to point out that others on here have sinister ulterior motives. What's your opinion and solution regarding thousands and thousands of unvetted Muslim asylum seekers entering the UK? I've made the point that a lot of people get in a lather over something that there little evidence to support whilst I consider demonising groups of people who are no greater threat than the local population probably in itself increases any risk and obscures the failures of the asylum system - which is precisely what our government wants it to do. The answer - I believe - is in reforming the asylum system ("illegal" immigration) and better planned economy and workforce ("legal" immigration) - which I have discussed before. The current asylum system couldn't have been designed better to create scapegoats and demons. And so it does. Finally some sense
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 26, 2024 19:22:28 GMT
I've made the point that a lot of people get in a lather over something that there little evidence to support whilst I consider demonising groups of people who are no greater threat than the local population probably in itself increases any risk and obscures the failures of the asylum system - which is precisely what our government wants it to do. The answer - I believe - is in reforming the asylum system ("illegal" immigration) and better planned economy and workforce ("legal" immigration) - which I have discussed before. The current asylum system couldn't have been designed better to create scapegoats and demons. And so it does. Finally some sense Oh come on you big tart- you know you like a bit of sport along the way just as much as I do😉
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 26, 2024 19:23:03 GMT
Oh come on you big tart- you know you like a bit of sport along the way just as much as I do😉 I do mate absolutely
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Apr 26, 2024 20:54:33 GMT
Because they shouldn’t be here! Ah - so they're no more of a risk than anyone else. We just don't want them. Now we're getting somewhere. Wish folk would just say that rather than coming up with spurious justifications Their involvement in any type of crime should be taken into consideration when allowing people into this country. People have a right to be concerned about who we are letting in, people shouldn't have to feel unsafe in their own country. Yes we should be helping people who generally need help but if they are coming here and are more of a nuisance than an asset then they should lose their right to be here. People who get asylum should get it with conditions especially around behavior. If they want help the least they can do is be respectful to the country that gives them help and not break the law. Anyone who breaks the law should be given their marching orders and sent back to the country they came from whether it's safe or not. Crime costs a lot of money not only to the country but the people affected by it and some people never recover from it.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Apr 26, 2024 21:15:04 GMT
Ah - so they're no more of a risk than anyone else. We just don't want them. Now we're getting somewhere. Wish folk would just say that rather than coming up with spurious justifications Their involvement in any type of crime should be taken into consideration when allowing people into this country. People have a right to be concerned about who we are letting in, people shouldn't have to feel unsafe in their own country. Yes we should be helping people who generally need help but if they are coming here and are more of a nuisance than an asset then they should lose their right to be here. People who get asylum should get it with conditions especially around behavior. If they want help the least they can do is be respectful to the country that gives them help and not break the law. Anyone who breaks the law should be given their marching orders and sent back to the country they came from whether it's safe or not. Crime costs a lot of money not only to the country but the people affected by it and some people never recover from it. Try messing about with the laws in Japan as a visitor and see what happens. Zero tolerance. Dont see why its such a problem to have to obey the laws and customs of a country you move to or visit.
|
|