Fortress Europe?

Whet

LE
Go back to sleep dozy. They didn't invade the country did they? ****.

It's people like you, a leech, who does absolutely nothing for your country except take what you've been brainwashed into leeching and using "it's my right to claim". You come across as a traitor, you really do. A lazy one at that. You are always so quick to denigrate this. what once was, a Great country.

You have no trouble leeching off it though do you? You're so called "right" i suppose?
First - we are not talking about invasion, just that our coastline makes our borders porous.

Second - pointing this out is not denigrating the country, just making a point.

Third - If you could think and mount an arguement you might do better in debates. As it is, you look a right knobber on a par with Bob and Stacker
 
First - we are not talking about invasion, just that our coastline makes our borders porous.

Second - pointing this out is not denigrating the country, just making a point.

Third - If you could think and mount an arguement you might do better in debates. As it is, you look a right knobber on a par with Bob and Stacker
If Gerry Adams/Bin Laden/Hitler called you a workshy, idle, fat twat, the majority of people here would still agree with them rather than you, you workshy, idle, fat twat
 

Whet

LE
Stacker and Bob - why do you keep posting the same thing over and over, that being "This message is hidden because stacker1 is on your ignore list."?
 
It'll be the coming Egyptian Civil War/Islamic Revolution that'll really turn it nasty when theres a couple of million Egyptians who'd rather not be murdered and will come steaming north. Still can't see why we couldn't create some form of Observation Corp to watch the Channel coast. Could always turn the Isle of Wight into a refugee/labour camp and start suing the EU members who allow refugees to come through to Dover, make the EU work for us for a change.
 
Stacker and Bob - why do you keep posting the same thing over and over, that being "This message is hidden because stacker1 is on your ignore list."?
How do you know I was posting anything about you Snoozy? Just so any newcomers can be made aware, Snoozy has been spongeing of the state for over a decade, the fat **** claims he can't work due to the fact he keeps nodding off, however the upside down head still manages to drive a car (at taxpayers expense I may add) despite several very genuine offers of work from various ARRSErs, of course lardarse comes up with every excuse under the sun why he can't. The last time a thread got on to the subject of him being a parasite, chubbster demanded to know where he could possibly get the money to start up a web based business (carefully ignoring the fact thousands of people have done just that by getting of their arses) when wobblyarse (Notice by the way he's overweight? Guess benefits arent that bad judging by his size) was informed that the RBL offer start up loans to ex squaddies he went very quiet and refuses to say why he still isnt able to run the most basic of Ebay businesses.
Some of his all time classics include.
Saying that the taxpayer paying for him to cruise around in his car actually saves the country money because they dont have to pay for his bus fares, How very generous of him eh?
Then there was the example of a higher taxpayer who is on commission and has all his savings in a foriegn bank account might be penalised now that his child benefit is to be stopped. (or in other word Whet was trying to have a dig at the Torys).
Sneeringly asking someone what experiance they had of school, and when the person answered he left 6th form 2 years ago and still had siblings in school, try to make out that he only had a childs view, of course fatty has bags of experiance him having no children what so ever (and not likely to as the only virgin to have children is called Mary)
That out of all his money (Notice the landwhale says its his money not the taxpayers) about 80 to 90% is collect back as taxes, sohe doesnt really use alot of money (Again judgeing by his size I beg to differ)
He used to call everyone a racist but as he was made to look an utter tool on many occasions as the person he's accused of being a racist was either seeing someone who is black or is black themselves he has now switched to calling everyone a bigot.
He likes to think of himself as a bit of a politician (he does admittedly swindle the taxpayer just like them) only he very nearly got beat by the BNP when he ran for election. (remember he can't get a normal job but when the gravy train came calling he thought he was in for a chance)
As you can see he has yet again got the O2 tag (I'm not sure why, but I am sure it deserved).
 
Stacker and Bob - why do you keep posting the same thing over and over, that being "This message is hidden because stacker1 is on your ignore list."?
You've not had a chance to block me yet, so I'll summarise for you: Get a ****ing job you lefty ****.
 
One of the favourite places in Spain to land Illegals was at Tarifa. The boats used to set out from Morocco and head across the water. The boats would hit dry land but the "land" was the sandbars that lay offshore.
Then it was a cry of "There you go chaps-enjoy your new life..." and the poor B****rs would jump overboard and start wading towards the shore. Over the sand bars the water becomes very deep and has treacherous currents and undertows. The bodies used to get washed up later that day and there would be a couple of stunned survivors blundering around the town
 

Flymo

Old-Salt
I cannot believe the ignorant, bigotted, knuckle dragging comments from you people. Are you all supporters of the BNP or something?
We should be looking forward to welcoming all this people to the British Isles. These people are people after all. And with them comes their rich culture that will integrate with ours all for the better of mankind.
When the EU agreed to the EuroMed (previously called the Barcelona Process) back in 2005 I whooped with joy and delight knowing that the EU will become closer to the North African countries and we will thus have further integration of peoples aka our North African cousins.

Yeah right ...
 

gogmilwr

Clanker
More British people emigrate to Central Europe, Africa and Australasia in a year than the number of migrants entering the country.

People are firmly within their rights to move if they are unable to live or work safely in one area. Such migrants (whether legal or illegal) go through extreme conditions to get the bare minimum of living conditions for themselves and their families. People that are forced to apply for asylum or are refugees are not so because of their own choice. People that are forced to illegally migrate do so due to strict legal channels that restrict their movements and income potential.

If "illegal migrants" were given the opportunity of safe accommodation while looking for work and protecting their family it would only be snapped up straight away. I cannot imagine after going through wars, genocide, public indignity, hunger, abuse, extortion and near death to get to ANY country that they perceive to be safe and that will accept them that their first choice is to exist outside the law.

When criminals and industry cease to be able of taking advantage of conflict or economically displaced people and when governments cease to pander to "popular" opinion in order to further their gain, we may just see people being able to live the way they need to.
 
The ad at the foot of this page will help I'm sure.

Are You An Asylum Seeker?
We Are The UK No.1 - 100% Success! Enquire Online, 100% Confidential.
UKVisaAndImmigration.co.uk?=Asylum
 

gogmilwr

Clanker
That ad illustrates my point.

Actual refugees should have no need for those types of companies. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the various processes put in place it is increasing difficult to be legally "genuinely" in need of asylum as the goal posts are frequently moved depending on which particular public mood is prevalent at the time.

Large amounts of semi-lawful and criminal organisations love this and do all they can to take advantage and expunge all that they can to make a quick £1000 off some poor sod and his family who then have to illegally, immorally and unethically work in gangs for the next 30 years just to pay off the interest that magically increases every day. A large proportion of female (and male) migrants that have entered the country in this way are invariably forced under threat of their own or their family's death to cater to the crims' sexual demands and that of their buddies in a never ending scheme that they are told will pay off their migration debt at some point.

If you are in desperate need of finding a way to protect your life and that of the people you love, you'll surely do anything that is given to you as an option.
 
Oh how they laughed and sneered when Rear Admiral Chris Parry wrote this 5 years ago.


"…He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble.…"

From The Sunday Times
June 11, 2006

Beware: the new goths are coming
Peter Almond

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.

The warnings by Parry of what could threaten Britain over the next 30 years were delivered to senior officers and industry experts at a conference last week. Parry, head of the development, concepts and doctrine centre at the Ministry of Defence, is charged with identifying the greatest challenges that will frame national security policy in the future.

If a security breakdown occurred, he said, it was likely to be brought on by environmental destruction and a population boom, coupled with technology and radical Islam. The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals".

Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned . . . [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet."

Third World instability would lick at the edges of the West as pirates attacked holidaymakers from fast boats. "At some time in the next 10 years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta," said the admiral.

Parry, 52, an Oxford graduate who was mentioned in dispatches in the Falklands war, is not claiming all the threats will come to fruition. He is warning, however, of what is likely to happen if dangers are not addressed by politicians.

Parry — who used the slogan "old dog, new tricks" when he commanded the assault ship HMS Fearless — foresees wholesale moves by the armed forces to robots, drones, nanotechnology, lasers, microwave weapons, space-based systems and even "customised" nuclear and neutron bombs.

Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, welcomed Parry’s analysis. "Bringing it together in this way shows we have some very serious challenges ahead," he said. "The real problem is getting them taken seriously at the top of the government."

Ancient Rome has been a subject of serious public discussion this year. Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP and journalist, produced a book and television series drawing parallels between the European Union and the Roman empire. Terry Jones, the former Monty Python star, meanwhile, has spoken up for the barbarians’ technological and social achievements in a television series and has written:

()"We actually owe far more to the so-called ‘barbarians’ than we do to the men in togas."

Parry, based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, presented his vision at the Royal United Services Institute in central London. He identified the most dangerous flashpoints by overlaying maps showing the regions most threatened by factors such as agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages, rising sea levels and radical Islam.

Parry predicts that as flood or starvation strikes, the most dangerous zones will be Africa, particularly the northern half; most of the Middle East and central Asia as far as northern China; a strip from Nepal to Indonesia; and perhaps eastern China.

He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America’s sole superpower status.

This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas.

The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.

Parry expects the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, compared with 6.4 billion today. By then some 68% of the population will be urban, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. He warns that Mexico City could be an example.

In an effort to control population growth, some countries may be tempted to copy China’s "one child" policy. This, with the widespread preference for male children, could lead to a ratio of boys to girls of as much as 150 to 100 in some countries. This will produce dangerous surpluses of young men with few economic prospects and no female company.

"When you combine the lower prospects for communal life with macho youth and economic deprivation you tend to get trouble, typified by gangs and organised criminal activity," said Parry. "When one thinks of 20,000 so-called jihadists currently fly-papered in Iraq, one shudders to think where they might go next."

The competition for resources, Parry argues, may lead to a return to "industrial warfare" as countries with large and growing male populations mobilise armies, even including cavalry, while acquiring high-technology weaponry from the West.

The subsequent mass population movements, Parry argues, could lead to the "Rome scenario". The western Roman empire collapsed in the 4th and 5th centuries as groups such as Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suevi, Huns and Vandals surged over its borders. The process culminated in the sack of Rome in 455 by Geiseric the Lame, king of the Alans and Vandals, in an invasion from north Africa.

Parry estimated at the conference there were already more than 70 diasporas in Britain.

In the future, he believes, large groups that become established in Britain and Europe after mass migration may develop "communities of interest" with unstable or anti-western regions.

Any technological advantage developed to deal with the threats was unlikely to last. "I don’t think we can win in cyberspace — it’s like the weather — but we need to have a raincoat and an umbrella to deal with the effects," said Parry.

Some of the consequences would be beyond human imagination to tackle. The examples he gave, tongue-in-cheek, include: "No wind on land and sea; third of population dies instantly; perpetual darkness; sores; Euphrates dries up ‘to clear way for kings from the east’; earth’s core opens."

TOP STRATEGIST

Rear Admiral Chris Parry is the armed forces’ chief “blue skies” thinker.

Parry, 52, was educated at the independent Portsmouth grammar school and at Jesus College, Oxford. During the Falklands war in 1982, he was mentioned in dispatches while serving with the Fleet Air Arm on the destroyer HMS Antrim.

Parry is one of Britain’s leading specialists on amphibious warfare. He once commanded the assault ship HMS Fearless, was in charge of amphibious warfare training at Portsmouth naval base and headed a joint British-Dutch taskforce before moving to his post at the Ministry of Defence.

The admiral heads the development, concepts and doctrine centre, set up in 1998 and based at Shrivenham, Wiltshire. It has more than 50 staff and is being expanded to include extra analysts

Beware: the new goths are coming - Times Online
 
More British people emigrate to Central Europe, Africa and Australasia in a year than the number of migrants entering the country.
Wrong - National Statistics office figures
An estimated 427,000 people emigrated from the UK in 2008
An estimated 590,000 people arrived to live in the UK in 2008.



People are firmly within their rights to move if they are unable to live or work safely in one area.
They have a right to move to the next safe country which unless they are coming from Ireland is not the UK
Such migrants (whether legal or illegal) go through extreme conditions to get the bare minimum of living conditions for themselves and their families. People that are forced to apply for asylum or are refugees are not so because of their own choice. People that are forced to illegally migrate do so due to strict legal channels that restrict their movements and income potential.

If "illegal migrants" were given the opportunity of safe accommodation while looking for work and protecting their family it would only be snapped up straight away. I cannot imagine after going through wars, genocide, public indignity, hunger, abuse, extortion and near death to get to ANY country that they perceive to be safe and that will accept them that their first choice is to exist outside the law.

When criminals and industry cease to be able of taking advantage of conflict or economically displaced people and when governments cease to pander to "popular" opinion in order to further their gain, we may just see people being able to live the way they need to.
So while people may have a right to migrate does this automatically mean that a country has to accept them?

By that I mean those that emigrate purely out of economic reasons.
 
People are firmly within their rights to move if they are unable to live or work safely in one area. Such migrants (whether legal or illegal) go through extreme conditions to get the bare minimum of living conditions for themselves and their families. People that are forced to apply for asylum or are refugees are not so because of their own choice. People that are forced to illegally migrate do so due to strict legal channels that restrict their movements and income potential.
Why ? If everyone in the world ran away the moment it got a little bit dangerous in their home country the whole of Africa would have been on the move almost permanently for the last 50 years.

People do have some responsibility for their own country. If things have gone Pete Tong then they should make some effort to repair the damage. It's not the UK's responsibilty to look after every slack git who ran away.

BTW. "Popular opinion" tends to be the reason why Governments get elected, strange thing that, democracy........
 

gogmilwr

Clanker
So while people may have a right to migrate does this automatically mean that a country has to accept them?

By that I mean those that emigrate purely out of economic reasons.
A lot of people that are illegally resident in the UK have not necessarily taken the conscious decision to enter illegally. I spoke to a group of females that had come from Romania illegally, contrary to what they were being told.

Most of them had come from villages surrounding an insignificant and poverty stricken town where "people poachers" operate giving out stories of amassed wealth to be found in the UK performing seemingly genuine jobs that are incredibly attractive to people and families that have just eaten their last potato or remnants of a failed crop or have been kicked out of their house and are now living on the streets. These females were offered a wonderful new life in safe, secure, respectful Britain for free-only to find out later that they had been sold on to any number of unsavoury characters-their families told not that they are not able to contact them for one reason or another. Years go by and they have been pulled into prostitution, looking after drug factories, or sold on again. When, all they thought they were doing was going to get a legitimate job to help send money back home for a few months.

While I do not necessarily argue that each and every country should automatically accept each and every person indefinitely, I do argue that the legal means of entry to each and every country should be simplified, clear and accessible to all. This way people would be able to understand how exactly they CAN enter a country legally and live there, while being economically active supporting themselves, their family and the state/society that has adopted them. The current process blocks off a lot of avenues that people otherwise could do this. Currently, certain classifications of immigrants are not legally able to work or are restricted and so cannot earn enough to be taxed or gain National Insurance contributions. Some only have the option of working in the black or grey market.

Given the opportunity to live freely and safely and to a good standard in our home country, I know I would take it as the females that I spoke to wanted to do.
 

gogmilwr

Clanker
Why ? If everyone in the world ran away the moment it got a little bit dangerous in their home country the whole of Africa would have been on the move almost permanently for the last 50 years.

People do have some responsibility for their own country. If things have gone Pete Tong then they should make some effort to repair the damage. It's not the UK's responsibilty to look after every slack git who ran away.

BTW. "Popular opinion" tends to be the reason why Governments get elected, strange thing that, democracy........
"Popular opinion" being in inverted commas to signify sarcasm as it is very rarely to be popular. It is usually misinformed half-truth supported by misconstrued statistics of little real value held by a small but very loud minority. Democracy is not based on popular opinion it is a form of decision making based on informed, honest understanding by people that consider all the options and arrive at a possible solution for a given situation without being subject to influences from a single political, social or economic force.

Popular opinion is not the reason why governments "get elected", indeed in the UK our Government is not elected. We elect people to make decisions on our behalf, whatever it may be. The Prime Minister who is (usually) a leader of some kind of majority in the Commons is chosen by the Monarch (who is appoint by God, apparently) appoints with no oversight and at his/her personal whim the Government. We actually have no say over what laws are passed, who makes them or what the form of their decision making may take.

You are entirely right to say that people have a responsibility for their place of own country and I'd like to think I'm not being rosey-eyed saying most people would prefer to stand up for what is right in their own country rather than run away, like we have seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Iran recently. The problem arises when a force of massive violence rains down on them from people that hold the reins of power and coercion with the goal of permanent persecution means that they are no longer able to take part in the political or economic process of their given homeland; take a look at Afghanistan circa-Russians V Islamic Crazies. Would you be happy moving to a country that was worse off than your own? Or, would you try and use all possible means to get yourself and your wife/husband/children to the best possible country that you can?

It is more often than not the people that who have attempted to make a repair to the damage that have moved away from their home or face being dismembered rather quickly. There comes a point when you can only try so much that you have to make a decision whether or not to continue fighting against stronger forces or try to make a life for yourself elsewhere.
 
people and families that have just eaten their last potato or remnants of a failed crop
Can you provide us with a link to these instances of famine stalking Romania?
 

Latest Threads

Top