• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    What the court did not hear was that 'Major' Colclough - who in fact has earned six figure salaries in finance in the City of London - is a serial fantasist who once briefly obtained a job at a university in Prague by claiming to be a professor and friend of Stephen Hawking.
    Alright Major!

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    How do you know they haven't? I know two households who do this kind of thing - one has taken in homeless people and the other provides short-term care for foster children, a few days at a time.

    But that's too scary and/or disruptive for the vast majority, myself included, as well as being quite a high-risk way of helping. Better to fund people who know what they're doing and have the experience and facilities needed to help more effectively.
    Fostering children is admirable, but my post was directed to another poster who claimed that there were thousands of people who would take in people and provide for them.

    You, on the other hand, find this risky and are only prepared to fund people who know what they are doing. So you agree with the government response of sending overseas aid to Jordan then, and not taking in people...

    (By the way, that's called "giving to charity", and you'll find that many of us do that anyway, you don't have a monopoly on it)

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
    So that you can sleep a little better because you have a clear conscience.
    No, because helping people is a good thing to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarillionFan
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

    But that's too scary and/or disruptive for the vast majority, myself included, as well as being quite a high-risk way of helping. Better to fund people who know what they're doing and have the experience and facilities needed to help more effectively.
    So that you can sleep a little better because you have a clear conscience.

    I luckily don't have a conscience, so I say feck 'em all and send them back. There's no room at the Inn and you're definitely not having the stable.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    Then why don't those people take a trip over to Southall or Reading or Slough and take in a migrant that's living in a shed. Or even better, a homeless person?
    How do you know they haven't? I know two households who do this kind of thing - one has taken in homeless people and the other provides short-term care for foster children, a few days at a time.

    But that's too scary and/or disruptive for the vast majority, myself included, as well as being quite a high-risk way of helping. Better to fund people who know what they're doing and have the experience and facilities needed to help more effectively.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by fullyautomatix View Post
    Believe it or not, there are thousands who are generous enough to allow someone to live with them and provide for them. Just because you are selfish and narrow minded, it does not mean everybody else in this country is similar.

    This is why a socialist government is needed so we can get some compassion back in this country. Corbyn is really the only answer and he cannot have come up at a more appropriate time.
    Then why don't those people take a trip over to Southall or Reading or Slough and take in a migrant that's living in a shed. Or even better, a homeless person?

    Or is it only a Syrian that will ease your conscience and look better on Facebook?

    Leave a comment:


  • fullyautomatix
    replied
    Believe it or not, there are thousands who are generous enough to allow someone to live with them and provide for them. Just because you are selfish and narrow minded, it does not mean everybody else in this country is similar.

    This is why a socialist government is needed so we can get some compassion back in this country. Corbyn is really the only answer and he cannot have come up at a more appropriate time.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickFitz
    replied
    Originally posted by MicrosoftBob View Post
    It could have been worse, at least The Wurzels never went postal

    Imagine the stocks of fertilizers they'd have, and that's after they could mow people down with their army of combine harvesters
    Sixty-three acres that will be forever England, assuming the proposal was accepted

    Leave a comment:


  • MicrosoftBob
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    A couple of hundred Paddies had the UK bricking itself in the 70's and early 80's, and that was just with a few hundred kilograms of fertiliser.
    It could have been worse, at least The Wurzels never went postal

    Imagine the stocks of fertilizers they'd have, and that's after they could mow people down with their army of combine harvesters

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    If a few thousand people, something like 2% of our annual immigration, will destroy out country then it's ruined already.
    A couple of hundred Paddies had the UK bricking itself in the 70's and early 80's, and that was just with a few hundred kilograms of fertiliser.

    Leave a comment:


  • Platypus
    replied
    I read it, a day or two ago. It's always worth reading the views and opinions. Who knows, you might even change your mind or even learn something

    Leave a comment:


  • TestMangler
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    If a few thousand people, something like 2% of our annual immigration, will destroy out country then it's ruined already.

    I wouldn't take heroin-addict prostitutes, or abused damaged children, into my house but that doesn't mean I am hypocritical for thinking they should be cared for. That's part of what the government DOES with my tax money...
    That's the first thing you've ever said that I agree with

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    I wouldn't take heroin-addict prostitutes, or abused damaged children, into my house but that doesn't mean I am hypocritical for thinking they should be cared for. That's part of what the government DOES with my tax money...
    Would you be ok if it was cocaine-addict prostitutes?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    If a few thousand people, something like 2% of our annual immigration, will destroy out country then it's ruined already.

    I wouldn't take heroin-addict prostitutes, or abused damaged children, into my house but that doesn't mean I am hypocritical for thinking they should be cared for. That's part of what the government DOES with my tax money...

    Leave a comment:


  • MicrosoftBob
    replied
    Originally posted by FatLazyContractor View Post
    FFS leave them poor refugees alone

    Instead help AtW buy a sofa.
    FTY

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X