aintforever

To be fair we started an illegal war that created the Iraq/Syria vacume that IS took advantage of. Then we encouraged the people of Syria to overthrow Assad. It wasn't for Milliband we would have been bombing the **** out of Assad at a time when IS we're on the rampage. Then there is Libya where we also helped create chaos then stood by and watched as it went to the dogs. Taking in a few refugees is the least we can do

You brought up the Dublin convention first, I just used the definition under international law. A refugee is still a refugee if they don't register at the first available safe country. Economic migrants - they are the hundreds of thousands of mainly white people who rock up from Europe every year that no one gets quite so worked up about.

Just because they are in France doesn't mean they are not refugees. The Dublin convention doesn't make refugees any less refugee just because they are in a safe country, it just means EU countries can move them around. Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol defines a refugee as: "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.." So wether they are in France, Turkey, Iraq or on a boat in the English channel is irrelevant - if they are a refugee they are a refugee.

They are not French, France is not where their home, family and friends are - they are homeless refugees. France has already taken more than us so we should do the right thing and help some of them out. If countries were allocated refugees by how much they have ****ed up other countries then we should take in more than anyone in Europe.

Dunno, ask the people going nuts because a handful of possibly over 18s have entered the country.

I'd be happy for France to help, happy for us to help. I think France has taken in more than us already. Regardless of where they are from they are people in a bad situation. We have hundred and hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who turn up every year who have left jobs, family's and safe homes in Europe to come here. A few people with brown skin turn up, who are in real desperate need, wether they are fleeing grinding poverty or wars we have caused, and some people go mental.

I disagree, anyone who makes an issue of a few possibly over age kids getting helped is a heartless bigot.

Yeah because when they get turned away at Calais their first thought would be to try and make their way to Hobbitland at the arse end of the planet. I would gladly welcome more because I think it's the decent thing to do after the way our armed forces have ****ed the whole region up over the past years/decades.

Fair play to Lineker. Who gives a **** if a few are over age, we should help more of them.

I didn't get angry about anything that is all in your head. I was just speculating about what could have happened and if her not reporting it is true then she either was raped whilst passed out or was just too ****ed to remember giving consent. Given that drunken consent is still consent it is amazing how it has got this far. I'm guessing the first jury was made up of old people who had little understanding of how some young ladies nowadays treat sex as some form of sport.

You seem to be pretending that it is the EU giving us subsidies. They are just giving us back a percentage of what we give them. It's our money and most of it subsidises other EU countries.

Going on reports is still second hand info, you can't make a judgement on wether you think someone is being honest or not by reading it in the paper. As the poster above says, the only people who really know are the people in the hotel room.

The only people with all the facts are the jury so we are all speculating with just some of the facts so you can pull you head out of your arse.

Surely someone had to make a complaint to the plod?

Why?

You can't say that he is certainly not a rapist, just that there was certainly not enough evidence to say he raped her, beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that drunken consent is still consent makes the original descision to convict him seem a bit strange. How could there not possibly be reasonable doubt over the consent? I guess one of three things happened. He raped her whilst she was unconscious, they ****ged but she was too drunk to remember, they ****ged and she tried to get him done for rape on purpose for some reason.

What a load of ******s. For starters according to Verbal The Labour Party is full of racists and they are mainly remainers. Why can't you just accept the fact that you lost the refurendum, most people in your country want out of The EU, call them racist, stupid or whatever but that's what's going to happen.

You don't think 500,000 extra people every year has a major effect on the housing shortage?

I would prefer a Trump win purely for the comedy factor. Doubt even the Yanks would be dumb enough to vote him in though. May be closer than the polls suggest though, Clinton seems very unpopular as well so the fact that half the U.S. hate Trump could be irrelivant if they don't get off their arses and vote. Also if Trump inspires a lot of people who don't usually vote to do so then it could make the polls even further off.

You really do talk out of your arse. If anything discriminating against commonwealth countries in favour of the EU could be considered favouring whites.

I think most people vote for selfish reasons to be honest. Anyway you could argue that staying in the EU limits the opportunities of the young to own their own home or for unskilled young to earn a decent wage.

Absolutely, you can vote for whatever is important to you.

The thing is, if some lonely old sod voted leave because he's fed up with his neighbours all speaking a different language that's just as valid a reason as you voting remain because you want to spend more on holiday.

Just like some people would believed all the crap spouted by the remainers - that's politics. Both sides had more than enough time and opportunity to refute each other's claims. Problem is the remain camp avoided the subject of how much we paid to Europe like the plague - because they didn't want the public to know.

Well we had the emergency Brexit budget that didn't happen. A PM resigning that wasn't going to happen. World war three, financial meltdown etc etc The £350m bus wasn't even a promise or a manifesto from a government who could implement it, it was a suggestion by an independent campaign. There are disputes about the figures involved which were obviously dodgy but the point about spending our money elsewhere was valid. The funny thing about the remoaners banging on about that bus thing is that during the entire campaign I never once heard a remainer say what the correct amount of money we send over to Brussels every day was. How many hundreds of millions a day we subsidise Poland and Romania, and pay the EU bureaucrats appeared to be a very hush hush subject.