onetruth

It isn't. The concept of political asylum was codified in law by the Kingdom of Kent about 1500 years ago, but refugees have been accepted throughout the world for almost as long as we have written records. More recently, England/UK has provided for Jews in the late 1930s, Russians in 1917, Belgians in 1914, Huguenots in the 16th-18th centuries. And, for a bit of proportionality... UK homes fewer than 2 refugees for every 1,000 inhabitants. USA, less than 1. Lebanon, over 200.

you forgot physiologically.

1. I do understand, I just don't agree. 2. I did not say that, and don't think that. 3. As previously said, I don't read the Guardian. I'm not a do-gooder or an imbecile. I am probably what you might consider a "leftist"; I have no swastika tattoos - does that qualify me? 4. You are referring to Brexit? It's not over. We all lost. 5. I don't want you to let anyone into your house that you don't want to. You have no idea who I chose to let into mine.

If by "actually dealing with it" you mean withdrawing from treaties, or starting unwinnable wars, or creating space for ISIS, or encouraging sectarian violence, or ignoring problems that could actually kill us all, then yes - that is the main problem. I'm not one for vigils, but at least an impotent show of solidarity doesn't make the situation worse.

No fact is undeniable, however true.

It won't lead to civil war. The main problem with Islamic extremism is the bonkers policies that populist governments come up with to deal with it - that could lead to civil unrest. Next 50 years? Biggest threats to the west: economic collapse, global warming, war with Russia, flu. Not sure what order I'd put them in. Edit: and Chalara fraxinea, of course

I agree that immigration was the main reason we voted for Brexit, I do get it. I don't read the guardian, my opinions are my own. I think that ignorant people filled with hate could hurt my children, too. I'm more worried about the scum we already have, and the scum we are indoctrinating by blaming all our woes on people who look or speak different.

remain

It wouldn't, so the burden of refugees (and it is a burden, no getting away from that) has to be shared by the world. This is why I don't like the idea of every country deciding its own system of immigration without consequence (which I think is what you were arguing). It's a global issue, and personally I would like us (it's my country, too) to lead the way in dealing with it, and use our influence to encourage other countries to accept their share of the problem. I agree I wouldn't want to bankrupt myself over a point of principle, but that isn't going to happen anyway.

Can't think of one in Poland or hungary. Would I like to live in either of those countries? No. Would I feel safer there than in Britain? no way! I don't know of external terrorism in Japan (but they do have their fair share of home-grown crazies like the aum cult), and tbh I have no idea on their immigration policy - they are very overcrowded, though. UK is safer now than 20 years ago. Not because of terrorism - terrorism is statistically insignificant (except, of course, for those very few people unfortunate enough to get caught up in it). It's safer because cars are safer. And because, for now at least, we still have a functioning health service, thanks to all the immigrants.

The example was silly, not the point it was making. The chance of being injured - in this country - by a terrorist, is less than the chance of being injured by someone who doesn't like you because you are different. Intolerance is far more dangerous for everyone.

You may lessen the (already pretty tiny) risk of harm from terrorism, but the main legacy is a nastier country to live in. Closed countries are not safer, it's just that the chance of outside threat is replaced by the certainty of state oppression. Silly (extreme) example, I know, but there's very little insurgency in North Korea.

Don't know about the people you refer to, but you are quite right - accepting large numbers of immigrants (economic or refugee) will mean some criminally minded or sociopathic people will get in among them; such people can be found in every population group. The question is: would you prefer to ban them all or accept the inevitable problems that come with compassion? This isn't an easy question and everyone will draw a line somewhere. But societies that are intolerant or fearful of outsiders tend also to be intolerant to descent against the establishment by their own people, too. Balance the freedom:safety thing how you see fit.

Sounds like a terrible idea, are you seriously suggesting it?

Depends on the criteria. If you're unskilled and uneducated, but likely to be murdered by the state because they think you look like a wrong-un, that points system might not seem all that fair. It's easy to design systems if you aren't desperate to escape.

I gave up looking for any credibility at this point.

Still nobody knows what Brexit will look like, nevermind what the effects will be. David Davis said last week that it won't be a "Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction”. That annoys me as it's what I felt I was promised when I voted Leave. Re: John Major, I think he's probably been the best UK PM of my lifetime. Such a depressing thought.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with matelot, if not in sentiment then in fact, at least. Poorer economies always seem to suffer from the brain-drain to wealthier societies which encourage immigration. This is true with medical staff into the NHS, but is also visible within the UK itself: the brightest young people tend to go to London, depriving the regions. The easiest solution would be to refuse any migration for anyone of working age. Not a world I'd particularly like to live in, though.

If they need armed security at schools, it shouldn't be teachers doing it. It might be cost effective but I hate the idea of combining these roles. If you need a guy with a gun to protect your students, hire a security guard. Even if the teacher comes from a military background, their job now is to teach, and the students need to know that.

This is probably the biggest problem with what is a truly crazy idea for so many reasons. Need a gun? Find a teacher.

that is just gorgeous

This is true, a small, well equipped, professional military is the ideal. But national service, more widely defined, could include picking up litter, filling in potholes, chatting to people in care homes, and countless other tasks that at the moment don't get done but would unquestionably make our society better.

Re: universal basic income. It's a radical policy, not necessarily a leftist one, though. Robots and computers are going to replace people in so many jobs over the next quarter century, I think it is very probable that most governments are going to adopt something like ubi. It would certainly simplify the administration of benefits, tax collection and whatnot, but that is perhaps overstated as automation will continue to make all bureaucracy less expensive to administer. There will still be wealth generation from what is (physically) produced, but it will be less labour dependent. The solution will be to figure out a way of taxing the corporations generating the wealth, and redistributing it to the populace. Someone above described it as a dream for lazy people. It might be (aren't they already supported?), but it will also allow so many more of us to produce art, music, entertainment; care for the sick, elderly, lonely; spend more time raising our children; spend more time expanding our minds. It's not a socialist pipedream but it would serve society if more of us do not have to dedicate so much of our lives to chasing the paycheque we need to get through the next week. Loads of "ifs", I know.

quite possibly. mine was a 2ft drop onto laminate flooring, landing on corner of battery. it still worked until I came to charge it.

Buy euros.