The correct term for a whole bunch of people is a âClusterfuck of peopleâ Had he used that term, there would have been no problem.
2 or 3 years ago, some guy in a prominent position was lambasted for using the word niggardly in itâs proper context. Now, I understand the confusion of those with a small vocabulary, but when we come down to having to avoid using words that sound a bit like other wordsâŚWell, thatâs just bullshit.
It seems that we are very happy to dumb down our language to suit the masses, but as soon as there is an oportunity, to have a go at someone for doing that, all of a sudden we expect them to be absolutely accurate in their terminology.
Itâs only politicians in this case though, so fuck 'em.
The fact that this debate is being had by the lawmakers of the country and used to score pathetic playground points sums up what is wrong with the debate in commons sometimes
Which is a fair point. Iâve had to reconsider one of my opinions this week based on the amount of migrants Germany is accommodating. I was labouring under the impression that weâd be most attractive on account of being a gateway to other places. Theyâre dealing with the most.
Some interesting facts in there though. A third of all asylum seekers in Europe are from Syria, indirectly attributable to Western governments deciding to invade Iraq. The complete lack of post-conflict planning beyond how weâre going to get the oil out, not to mention the deliberate strategy of tension, helped create both the vacuum of authority and much of the motivation to allow the situation in that country to develop.
I ended up getting 11 right, which seems ok until you consider at least one of the questions was stupidly easy.
This is fucking ridiculous, swarm, big fucking deal. Nothing wrong with the word. the fact is that most of us in this country donât want these people coming in.
As applied to insects, no. Itâs not being applied to insects. Collective nouns are a wonderful oddity of the English language, but theyâre not inert when it comes to meaning. Would you be happy being described as part of a herd, a mob, a nest or a plague? If not, Iâd suggest that the reason for that is it casts you in a certain light, or compares you to an animal. This is dehumanisation of a sort, not a road that tends to lead to nice places.
More than anything else, what would you suggest be done with them? A third of all asylum seekers from outside the EU are from Syria. Would you personally be okay with sending a family back if you were fairly certain theyâd be killed on return? I personally couldnât, especially if I knew my country had some part in creating the situation.
"Compassion â that most basic of feeling â is now saved for worthy targets. As the news of a manâs death in the Channel Tunnel spread, David Cameron told the press he had âevery sympathy with holidaymakers who are finding access to Calais difficult because of the disturbances thereâ.
Let us feel for British holidaymakers and foreign lions. That is the power of de-humanisation. We have reached a point where animals are easier to identify with than so-called migrants."
Hasnât the PM got better things to be worrying about? - like continuing to cover up for former home secretaries, ministers and senior police officers who protected child rapists and demonised victims?
Former ministers who are still alive have covered up sex crimes within their own political parties, and the media is trying to distract everyone with fucking word games.
I applaud your sentiment, Rallyboy, and agree with the vast majority of your post, including the way that the media is stoking this up. I had to venture into the outside world for milk and actually saw an Express or Mail headline in real life - I mentally blocked the branding at the last minute. â70% of Calais tunnel migrants get throughâ.
Still related to Calais, I had to lauigh when I read that the mayor there expects us to give them money. What the actual fuck? Isnât that a geographical vicinity tax? Maybe a popularity tax? Cameronâs bunging her a bone, or at the very least, dogs that will enjoy bones. We are apparently sending dogs, fences and other stuff.
Does anyone mind teling me where dogs fit into the âsolve the migrant crisisâ equation? Frankie Boyle has the only sensible suggestion for me; that theyâre going to be set on the migrant population in Calais. Setting dogs on people is the sort of thing that Ramsey âThe Bastardâ Bolton does in Game of Thrones. Weâre fucking doing it as a way to solve an international crisis!
Today I learned that the Twitter hash tag #KiyiyaVuranInsanlik means humanity washed ashore.
I suppose I should warn you that you might find the images in the following article distressing. But that sort of the whole bloody point I guess.
Itâs not an easy problem to solve, far from it. But letâs start by recognising that itâs a bloody big problem and collectively do something about it.
What we do is say weâll give refuge to children 16 or under and anyone travelling as a family,men on their own can join the queue for economic reasons, sactuary for families and children.
Where will all these people go? Who will pay for this? Can assimilation be possible? Can they be forced to go to Portugal as opposed to Germany or Sweden? Why canât they get fingerprinted in Austria or Hungary?
This is the real Europe showing its real face, self interest and seeing the rules as they see fit (Germany needs 600,000 postions to be filled by the wayâŚ
