Migrant watch (merged topic)

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 11 Sep 2015, 22:45

well you are going to open up chez biff to a group of somalis thats a start isnt it

.

You really ought to look at that video I just posted to see what our media are not showing but still filming, your basically being fed a pack of lies.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 12 Sep 2015, 09:08

Catweazle wrote:Are you JHemming ? It's the sort of answer I would expect from him.

As in an answer that is true, but one that you don't like.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 12 Sep 2015, 10:36

Yes, but it was proven to be not all rubble.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 12 Sep 2015, 13:36

Little John wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:Yes, but it was proven to be not all rubble.
You really are a sad bugger Mr Hemming....

In any ordinary, everyday walk of life where you had to interact with ordinary, everyday people, you really would not fare well. Not well at all.

Nevertheless, you are not stupid and so, at some level, you must surely realise what an objectionable personality you have.

Are all (ex)politicians like you? Seriously? Are they?

You have a view that being abusive towards people will stop them saying inconvenient truths. That may be true for many people, but is not true for me.

Your attitude towards freedom of speech is something I find objectionable.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Sep 2015, 14:28

johnhemming2 wrote: You have a view that being abusive towards people will stop them saying inconvenient truths. That may be true for many people, but is not true for me.

Your attitude towards freedom of speech is something I find objectionable.

Which is where John Hemming and I stand together.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 12 Sep 2015, 14:38

whats the point in freedom of speech if everyone has a list of people they will not respond to or listen to .

now me I am in favour of freedom of speech

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 12 Sep 2015, 15:33

Just watching the coverage of the rally in support of refugees at which Jeremy Corbyn is speaking. One of the placards says 'Refugees in, Tories Out'. Isn't that a bit simplistic?

While I agree that a lot of what Corbyn said is well-principled, I think it's a bit simplistic to jusat say 'yeah, let's have uncontrolled immigration'.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Sep 2015, 16:07

All placards are simplistic. Try writing your manifesto in less than half a dozen words.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 12 Sep 2015, 19:47

Ive been thinking about something .

When does a well meaning idiot thats causing ruin become a traitor

Post by **adam2** » 12 Sep 2015, 20:35

jonny2mad wrote:Ive been thinking about something .

When does a well meaning idiot thats causing ruin become a traitor

IMHO it depends on whether they only hold views that might be considered idiotic, or whether they take actual actions that assist actual or likely enemies.

For example, during the cold war, to hold a VIEW that Russia was a nice country and that the UK would be better as part of Russia would in my view be idiotic but not traitorous.
If however such views were backed up by actual ACTIONS, such as passing classified information to Russia, then I believe that they are a traitor.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 12 Sep 2015, 20:48

I was on a bill committee that looked at the issue of imagining the UK as a republic. (The Deregulation Bill Committee) there was an interesting discussion about this area of law.

This was the Treason Felony Act of 1848.

The minutes of the committee are here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 318s01.htm

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Sep 2015, 21:51

Thom Brooks, of Durham University, on the desperately inadequate response to the refugee crisis

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/new ... e-10036788

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 13 Sep 2015, 00:07

Amazing to see the Poles and Slovaks complaining about taking refugees when the people of these countries have come to Western Europe.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 13 Sep 2015, 04:01

biffvernon wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:
Catweazle wrote:I thought it was accepted that large areas of our most fertile land would be ruined by rising sea levels, either by direct flooding, heavier rainfall or by increasing salt infiltration.

When did that prediction change ?
When Biff realised that it could be used as an excuse to not take in too many migrants! Apparently something that James Hansen doesn't. I hope he contributes his valuable insight to the peer revue of Hansen's paper.
Why do keep writing nonsense about what I have written? I wrote that you were wrong to assert that Lincolnshire would become smaller as a result of sea level rise over the coming decades. Worry about sea level rise in Egypt and many other places, but sea level rise will not affect the UK's ability to provide asylum.

I apologise, Biff I got my geography slightly wrong.

When sea level rise gets to a couple of metres the whole coastline of Lincolnshire and the south of the county will require very much improved sea defences to keep out storm surges as will Church End. Cambridgeshire and Norfolk will be affected to a much greater degree. These storm surges will be much higher due to sea level rise and deeper depressions causing higher surges. Once the sea breaks through though erosion will take hold very quickly and scour even more land away especially with the more extreme weather events which will be likely.

When sea level rise reaches 3 metres the area from Lincoln to Cambridge and Peterborough to Kings Lynn will be vulnerable to storm surges and flooding if the sea defences are breached. If the sea defences are breached these areas would probably be permanently flooded including Church End. At 7 metres those areas will definitely be permanently flooded and the Lincolnshire Wolds become an island.

Large parts of Central London are under water and if they haven't all been sold off to absentee foreign owners by then the population will be displaced. Many east coast towns are also under water as is the south coast from Gosport to Shoreham. Portsmouth, like Florida, is built largely on sand and so will not be suitable for dyke defences. Again scouring and erosion will take an even bigger toll on soft sediments.

Add displaced local populations to populations inflated by large numbers of refugees and you have a massive problem.

The more we learn about the mechanisms of sea level rise the more likely it is seeming that abrupt sea level rise, on a decadal time scale, is likely is what Hansen is saying and he has been right before when he has criticised the IPCC's conservative pronunciations.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 13 Sep 2015, 09:13

AutomaticEarth wrote:Amazing to see the Poles and Slovaks complaining about taking refugees when the people of these countries have come to Western Europe.

It is about competing for resources.