Jump to content

General Chat


AVFCLaura

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

you are entitled to your opinions , I've not seen anyone ban you or deny your from posting whatever you want (within the guidelines) 

but , no offence , some of those opinions are so wrong that I find myself agreeing with the rabid lefties on VT , which tells you just how far wrong your opinions are :) 

 

 

I don't wanna go into it again chap. But opinions are opinions, if they are wrong they are still peoples opinions. Example, I totally understand Asylum seekers are not committing a crime coming over the channel on a dingy, but my opinion weather right or wrong, it should be illegal, as it's dangerous and just not the way. Yes it needs changing, an people can justify why they do it, that's fine, but I don't need some to insinuate I must be racist, xenophobic because I don't agree with them, it's just not on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

but I don't need some to insinuate I must be racist, xenophobic because I don't agree with them, it's just not on.

That's just their opinion chap

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

But you personally don't tell me why i'm wrong!

He'd only be repeating what everyone else said to you so why bother, you took no notice of anyone else's posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Thats another fine knot you've just tied yourself into

robin-trapped.gif

Best pals aye, ahhhh.

Let me remember to do all my research before I enter a football forum, never known a place like it lately off topic, ohh wait a minute, maybe I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I don't wanna go into it again chap. But opinions are opinions, if they are wrong they are still peoples opinions. Example, I totally understand Asylum seekers are not committing a crime coming over the channel on a dingy, but my opinion weather right or wrong, it should be illegal, as it's dangerous and just not the way. Yes it needs changing, an people can justify why they do it, that's fine, but I don't need some to insinuate I must be racist, xenophobic because I don't agree with them, it's just not on.

Thing is, if you said you were concerned about the migrant routes because they were dangerous and needed reviewing then you wouldn't have any aspersions cast upon you in a negative light because there's nothing prejudicial going on regarding the migrants themselves.

 

Instead, your initial post on the matter was "I'm not against immigration, I'm against randoms coming over in boats and risking there lives, then adding hardly anything to the economy." - so it's immediately about an assumption that people who arrive on boats don't do anything in this country.  The ignorance here is fairly astounding - not least because you legally cannot work whilst having an asylum claim (so you literally cannot add to the economy) but also an assumption that people don't want to work which, for the vast majority of people, is just untrue.

So, instead of thinking about people's safety, your concern is that people are coming here to sponge.  It's easy to see how that's prejudicial, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Best pals aye, ahhhh.

Let me remember to do all my research before I enter a football forum, never known a place like it lately off topic, ohh wait a minute, maybe I do.

It might be that VT just isnt the right place for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Thing is, if you said you were concerned about the migrant routes because they were dangerous and needed reviewing then you wouldn't have any aspersions cast upon you in a negative light because there's nothing prejudicial going on regarding the migrants themselves.

 

Instead, your initial post on the matter was "I'm not against immigration, I'm against randoms coming over in boats and risking there lives, then adding hardly anything to the economy." - so it's immediately about an assumption that people who arrive on boats don't do anything in this country.  The ignorance here is fairly astounding - not least because you legally cannot work whilst having an asylum claim (so you literally cannot add to the economy) but also an assumption that people don't want to work which, for the vast majority of people, is just untrue.

So, instead of thinking about people's safety, your concern is that people are coming here to sponge.  It's easy to see how that's prejudicial, no?

The highlighted is a very dangerous word on a forum, causes all sorts of problems on social media, an in life actually.. 

Edited by foreveryoung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

Example, I totally understand Asylum seekers are not committing a crime coming over the channel on a dingy, but my opinion weather right or wrong, it should be illegal, as it's dangerous and just not the way.

This is illegal (assuming that you mean dinghy). It's like you don't read anything properly.

Whether something is legal or not is not a matter of opinion. Whether it should be illegal is a matter of opinion.

The law agrees with you. The law is wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, limpid said:

This is illegal (assuming that you mean dinghy). It's like you don't read anything properly.

Whether something is legal or not is not a matter of opinion. Whether it should be illegal is a matter of opinion.

The law agrees with you. The law is wrong.

Then why are people defending them, saying they are breaking no rules? An why should it not be illegal to dangerously cross the channel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, foreveryoung said:

Then why are people defending them, saying they are breaking no rules? An why should it not be illegal to dangerously cross the channel?

Go on, quote one person defending "them" whoever them may be

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bickster said:

200w.webp?cid=ecf05e47hc6jlu73i25mwfxwsu

If your saying no one is defending Asylym seekers coming across the channel on Dinghys, I really don't know where to start?

I'm off this topic anyway, people are right, it's getting boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Go on, quote one person defending "them" whoever them may be

I don't want to prolong this, but I defend them. Genuine asylum seekers have no other option, so to attack them for it would be wrong, IMO. The system is deliberately working against them and it's awful. I think most posters seem to agree with that?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't want to prolong this, but I defend them. Genuine asylum seekers have no other option, so to attack them for it would be wrong, IMO. The system is deliberately working against them and it's awful. I think most posters seem to agree with that?

You haven't defended "them" saying "they broke no rules". You quite clearly have said that crossing the channel is illegal. No-one I'm aware of has said they defend crossing the channel in small boats.

Plenty of people have defended asylum seekers right to be asylum seekers, quite rightly, pretty much everyone minus 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â