What would "Dads Army" do and deal with the Migrants by the tunnel

Who needs lessons from me?

Anniebach is the only one on here who says she cares about a woman who has been made to abandon her husband in a hospital because of the new immigration rules.
How very kind of you all. I hope you do not believe in karma.

You just said several, ethel.

yawn, Im glad its not just me that gets Ana's horrid remarks
Im just observing this thread not saying a word

yawn, Im glad its not just me that gets Ana's horrid remarks

Can't help you on that Ana, I try to avoid unpleasant posts

What was it you said that made thatbags laugh? I see what she meant now.

I have made a rather big mistake, I mixed up POGS and Jan10, for this I apologise to Jane10

No, again from you and a just a few more

And sarky too! You must have had lessons from dj...

If I was rude Ana, I must give some credit to you, an excellent teacher .

How rude!

Jane10, I asked a perfectly straight forward question , not of you, and I asked the question approx three minutes after POGS had posted, I asked because I was interested in her views. So please but out there's a sweetie, thanks

Anniebach- its possible that POGS has other things to do. Maybe hasn't even looked at GN today. Alternatively s/he has said his/her piece and isn't interested in responding to sniping.

POGS, not like you to avoid a straight answer , can it be justified ? I don't think it can

Not going to bother. Life is full of exceptional cases and unfairness. Real answers to the mass migration problem cannot be derived from this single case.

There's a story in today's i about a cancer patient's wife who is denied a visa to join him in Britain.
He is British, she is Canadian. She had to leave on Sunday, three days after he went into Hereford County hospital for bladder cancer surgery.
They wanted to retire here, and arrived in 2013, but her first application was refused on the grounds that they weren't in an affectionate relationship, despite the fact that they had been married since 1970.
They appealed and that reason was overturned. Then it was refused on insufficient income grounds, despite the fact that her part-time income took them over the threshold.
She appealed, and sent the tribunal an email to tell them of her husband's cancer, and had a reply to tell her to apply by post. The nice people from the Home Office have said she can appeal again from outside the UK.

An immigration law consultant has said that appalling decisions are being made, with people missing funerals, and one man having to cancel his wedding.

I would love to hear how people justify this.

You said it all in your first sentence Ana

We will now have a list of the jobs which apparently our home-grown citizens won't do, or which don't pay enough.

If the jobs are there, why are there so many unemployed?

Where are the jobs durhamjen?

"According to the UN more than 4m people have fled to Syria’s immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq and a further 6.5 million are internally displaced within Syria. Last year just 138,000 Syrians made it to Europe. European countries have pledged to resettle a further 33,000 Syrian refugees. The UK has offered shelter to just 187 of them.

British politicians seem happy to ignore this context. The view seems to be that everyone displaced by conflict and poverty is heading for the UK. In reality only a few thousand migrants have reached Calais. That’s about 1% of the more than 200,000 people who have landed in Italy and Greece so far this year."

Dad's Army wouldn't have a problem. They really do not all want to come here and never have. However, it's amazing how many people have been taken in by all the bullsh*t in the media.

Soon, if they are allowed to work when they are here, they will not cost us anything. Refugees contribute to the public purse, not take from it.

I just started a rather sarcastic post about standing room only in Western Europe but thought it may be taken too seriously so I'd just like to say I agree with TerriBull.

Perhaps a solution would be for the EU and the other richer nations (ALL of them) to send as much support as is needed to house, clothe and feed the refugees at their first landfall in a safe country (such as Turkey, Greece and Italy). Then, when (hopefully) sanity returns to the countries from which they have fled, they will be able to return home more easily and rebuild their own countries. Anyone who wishes to progress from the refugee settlements will then be known as economic migrants. I know that in the past whole new cities have grown from this solution and borders have moved, but it seems like the least messy option. I think Mr Cameron is among those with this idea which is why he's sent the cruise ship.

In answer to the OP, Dad's Army just wouldn't be able to cope.

Countries such as Slovenia may well be recovering still from their own conflict and declaring itself independent . The wars in the former Yugoslavia were very traumatic and that caused a huge refugee problem - which is still ongoing.
Pakistan took 6 million Afghan refugees, however many have been 'encouraged' to return.
There are thousands more refugees dispersed around the world.

According to the Salvation Army website:

^AUSTRALIA: REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS
Australia is in the top three countries for resettlement of refugees. The USA, Canada and Australia provide 90 percent of global resettlement places. In 2012, asylum seeker applications in Australia accounted for just over 3 percent of the global share^

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jun/18/59m-people-displaced-war-violence-persecution-says-un

It is a massive global problem which needs more than a country by country approach.

We have lost far more money by stopping lorries because of the fear of refugees swamping our country than it would have cost to let all of them through

Costs for the first few days, or for their lifetimes?

Come on.

Extremes again. Saudi Arabia. Ignore the other 209 countries or however many they are.