# We won't save refugees by destroying our own country



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

I'm not particularly a great admirer of Peter Hitchens but his column in the MOS today was brilliant......

*We won't save refugees by destroying our own country*
By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday

Actually we can't do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.

It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

Every one of the posturing notables simpering 'refugees welcome' should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.

If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the 'living wage', and 'social housing', when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.

As William Blake rightly said: 'He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.'

Britain is a desirable place to live mainly because it is an island, which most people can't get to. Most of the really successful civilisations survived because they were protected from invasion by mountains, sea, deserts or a combination of these things. Ask the Russians or the Poles what it's like to live without the shield of the sea. There is no positive word for 'safety' in Russian. Their word for security is 'bezopasnost' - 'without danger'.

Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom. I have visited nearly 60 countries and lived in the USSR, Russia and the USA, and I have never experienced anything as good as what we have. Only in the Anglosphere countries - the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - is there anything comparable. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.

Our advantages depend very much on our shared past, our inherited traditions, habits and memories. Newcomers can learn them, but only if they come in small enough numbers. Mass immigration means we adapt to them, when they should be adapting to us.

So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as civilisation and generosity, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?

Having seen more than my share of real corpses, and watched children starving to death in a Somali famine, I am not unmoved by pictures of a dead child on a Turkish beach. But I am not going to pretend to be more upset than anyone else. Nor am I going to suddenly stop thinking, as so many people in the media and politics appear to have done.

The child is not dead because advanced countries have immigration laws. The child is dead because criminal traffickers cynically risked the lives of their victims in pursuit of money.

I'll go further. The use of words such as 'desperate' is quite wrong in this case. The child's family were safe in Turkey. Turkey (for all its many faults) is a member of Nato, officially classified as free and democratic. Many British people actually pay good money to go on holiday to the very beach where the child's body was washed up.

It may not be ideal, but the definition of a refugee is that he is fleeing from danger, not fleeing towards a higher standard of living.

Goodness knows I have done what I could on this page to oppose the stupid interventions by this country in Iraq, Libya and Syria, which have turned so many innocent people into refugees or corpses.

But I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.

You really think these crowds of tough young men chanting 'Germany!' in the heart of Budapest are 'asylum-seekers' or 'refugees'?

Refugees don't confront the police of the countries in which they seek sanctuary. They don't chant orchestrated slogans or lie across the train tracks.

And why, by the way, do they use the English name for Germany when they chant? In Arabic and Turkish, that country is called 'Almanya', in Kurdish something similar. The Germans themselves call it 'Deutschland'. In Hungarian, it's 'Nemetorszag'.

Did someone hope that British and American TV would be there? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: spontaneous demonstrations take a lot of organising.

Refugees don't demand or choose their refuge. They ask and they hope. When we become refugees one day (as we may well do), we will discover this.

As to what those angry, confident and forceful young men actually are, I'll leave you to work it out, as I am too afraid of the Thought Police to use what I think is the correct word.

But it is interesting that this week sees the publication in English of a rather dangerous book, which came out in France just before the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Submission, by Michel Houellebecq, prophesies a Muslim-dominated government in France about seven years from now, ushered into power by the French Tory and Labour parties.

What they want, says one of the cleverer characters in the book, 'is for France to disappear - to be integrated into a European federation'. This means they'd much rather do a deal with a Muslim party than with the National Front, France's Ukip equivalent.

If any of this sounds familiar to you, I wouldn't be surprised. It's amazing how likely and simple the author makes this Islamic revolution sound.

Can we stop this transformation of all we have and are? I doubt it. To do so would involve the grim-faced determination of Australia, making it plain in every way that our doors are open only to limited numbers of people, chosen by us, enduring the righteous scorn of the supposedly enlightened.

As we lack the survival instinct and the determination necessary, and as so many of our most influential people are set on committing a sentimental national suicide, I suspect we won't.

To those who condemn reasonable calls for national self-defence as bigotry, hatred and intolerance (which they are not), I make only this request: just don't pretend you're doing a good and generous thing, when you're really cowardly and weak.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Ugh... I don’t agree - at all...

Countries are just a figment of our imagination anyway - we’re all humans in the end and in the greater scheme of things, mother nature doesn’t give a fig about our “borders” be they physical or political. 
That native British happened to be born in the UK is a matter of luck, not any effort or intent on their part. So to say it’s even yours to give away is a fallacy too.

And let’s not forget the lessons of history. When Europe got overcrowded they just crossed the Atlantic and stole lands from the Native Americans and called it civilizing them. They completely changed the culture and landscape of the Americas, and now you’re worried about the UK changing because of an influx of “foreigners”. Oh the irony.... 

Guess what, change happens, whether we like it or not. Change is always messy, it’s always difficult, but it always comes to pass.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

thanks satori for summing up everything that i hate about humans in one post.

One day, perhaps, we may get attacked by aliens and on that day we may finally realise, if we're not too stupid, that we're a species living on a planet, rather than a collection of nations. When humans are wiped out, those nations cease to exist along with us. but the planet wont, cos the planet is an actual real thing, not just an idea in the minds of humans.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I might make more comments later, but a few thoughts for now....

Of the the child on the beach Hitchens says:


> The child is not dead because advanced countries have immigration laws. The child is dead because criminal traffickers cynically risked the lives of their victims in pursuit of money.


No.
The child is dead along with his brother and mother because his parents wanted to flee to a safer country for him.
Criminal traffickers of course bear some responsibility, but we need to go further back (and forward) to see the whole picture.
As to why leave Turkey?
I would guess that if you had fled a country in fear, you would want to get as far away from it as possible, rather than living still in fear in the country next door.

I agree with him on interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. But not with his assessment of some of the refugees.

Just because refugees are organised does not make them any less in need of help. If anything it makes them at least more sensible and aware of their surroundings and how to get their message across.
If I was a refugee, I know that I would prefer to travel in an organised group that has a plan, rather than make up things as I went along.

And as to writing about 'The Islamic Revolution', there were many similar arguments about Jewish populations pre WW2. The religion to demonise may have changed, but the ill-thought-out hysteria hasn't.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I just wonder if we will be able to cope more then anything.
Don't get me wrong I'm sympathetic to their plights and its a terrible thing too see, but asking the question will we be able to cope with finances and resources, and if we do manage it what is going to be the further knock on effect and problems.

Its already estimated that 13 million people already live below the poverty line in the UK.

The Trussell Trust who operate over 400 food banks in the UK already and say there is a drastic need for more during 2014/15 numbers were 1,084, 604 given at least 3 days emergency food.
In 2008//2009 it was 25,899 and has risen steadily and considerably over the years.

Reasons range from redundancy, to bills they cant pay on low incomes, to benefits not arriving and/or being cut amongst other things. Other reasons they state are
Rising food and fuel prices, static incomes, underemployment and changes to benefits are some of the reasons why increasing numbers are being referred to foodbanks for emergency food.

The stats are here.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats
http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects

Just find it amazing that in the 21st century things are already this bad, and how the UK will cope in the way of resources for still more. When there is vast numbers below the poverty line and having to rely on things like food banks already.


----------



## Little Zooey (Feb 4, 2014)

I have to go and blood test our diabetic cat in a little while, so I don't have time to read and digest. I couldn't, even if I wanted to. I have far too many things on my mind and I have neither the time, nor the energy to do my historical/political/religious homework. I go on gut feeling and my gut tells me everything I am seeing is wrong. No, that child didn't die because of our immigration laws. And no, he isn't dead because of the traffickers. Go one step further and the truth is that the traffickers had an opportunity to make money out of desperate people. Yes, Turkey is part of NATO and they are a generous people. I've been there, but they have the largest number of refugees in the WORLD and they've been saying for ages that they can't cope. How would you feel trying to bring up your children in a camp where there is a shortage of everything, including hope? No jobs, very little to no schooling, nothing to do for months or even years on end. That's not living. It's simply existing.

The refugees in Hungary weren't protesting until they had been pushed beyond what they could take. Some of them used the last of their money to buy train tickets which they were not allowed to use. They were kept waiting outside the station in Budapest for days and when a train finally did arrive, how do you think they felt? I know how I felt simply watching them. How then do you think they felt when that train stopped only a few kilometres away and they were faced with a horde of police with helmets and riot shields to force them to yet another camp? It strikes me they have borne the unbearable with little complaint. They waited and hoped until there was almost no hope left.

Frankly I am ashamed of my country. My parents fought in the Second World War, not so we could sit on our fat behinds for ever more because everything here is tickety boo. We got lucky in the lottery of life. Borders are simply a human creation. The reality is we are all sharing one planet and the sooner we learn to play nicely, the better it will be for all concerned. I would happily take a family into our home, but as a newly retired person with nearly 30 animals to care for, I am heartbroken that it can't happen. We have no spare room (we barely have a proper bedroom ourselves) and we don't even have a sofa. If things got really bad though, we would squeeze up and tighten our belts yet again and manage, because it would be the right thing to do...


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

The article title suggests we "cannot save refugees". Yet the article content focusses primarily on non-refugees. If you keep on getting the two mixed up put your pen down before you even start.

I also object to his incessant "we" and "you". I agree with some of his points but not with how he tries to make them. It's like a sickening right-wing call to arms.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

I love the ideology in this thread & I too wish that we were "one", the human species, all equal with no boundaries but the reality is that we're not & never will be... even an alien invasion wouldn't unite us IMO.
Now I might be a little cynical but I thought that a refugee ceased to be one as soon as they reached a place of refuge? Be that Hungary, Turkey, Italy or wherever.. I could be wrong though.
One problem I have is how do we separate the true refugees from the economic migrants, from the ISIS insurgents who will undoubtedly be amongst those wanting to get to western Europe & beyond.
The UK & Europe have, for 10s of years, accepted genuine refugees however the numbers being talked about now are beyond the scope of western Europe to manage in such a short time... the infrastructure simply isn't there to accommodate such a rapid, vast influx of people (certainly in the UK).


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> And let's not forget the lessons of history. When Europe got overcrowded they just crossed the Atlantic and stole lands from the Native Americans and called it civilizing them. They completely changed the culture and landscape of the Americas, and now you're worried about the UK changing because of an influx of "foreigners". Oh the irony....


I just have to comment on this.... Europe wasn't overcrowded by any means but merely following it's tradition of exploration with a little bit of "empire building" thrown in, us Brits were pretty good at "finding" new countries & civilising them, then putting them under our rule. The French, Spanish & Portuguese did much the same but they weren't as good at it


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

You know what I find interesting?
Almost all of the arguments being made against this influx of immigration are the exact same things said in the US during large waves of immigration. 
When the German, Polish, Irish and British immigrants came in the 1820’s there was the same worry that they would not adapt to “our” ways, that they would stress the infrastructure, that there wasn’t room. That the Irish would bring their Catholic ways and try to enforce their religion on us. (There are STILL people in the US who are highly suspicious of Catholics and think they’re not “real” Christians.)

When the Chinese Japanese, and other Asians came in the late 1800s early 1900’s, same thing. They wouldn’t learn our language, they would steal our jobs, they wouldn’t embrace our culture, they would bring their religion here and force it on us. There would be spies among them. (Which led to one of our most depressing decisions during WW2 to criminalize and entire race and put them in internment camps.)

Now it’s all about the Mexicans, how we’re all going to be speaking Spanish and eating burritos (Americans already do, but I guess it’s only okay if it’s on “our” terms), that they’ll steal our jobs, stress our infrastructure, have babies and get on welfare... 

Same old story for hundreds of years. About time we changed the tune if you ask me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

BlackadderUK said:


> I just have to comment on this.... Europe wasn't overcrowded by any means but merely following it's tradition of exploration with a little bit of "empire building" thrown in, *us Brits were pretty good at "finding" new countries & civilising them*, then putting them under our rule. The French, Spanish & Portuguese did much the same but they weren't as good at it


Are you being serious or sarcastic? I can't tell....


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

I know I shouldn't let anything on the Daily Mail rile me up so much but what Hitchens has written is inciting, ignorant, hateful, selfish, and plenty more words that I am too angry to write. Is the phrase he is too scared to say, "economic migrants"? As the child of economic migrants, I'm not sure people using that phrase really understand what that means.



> economic migrant
> _noun_
> plural noun: *economic migrants*
> 
> a person who travels from one country or area to another in order to improve their standard of living.


My parents moved here when I was five years old, leaving our entire family, our culture, everything we ever knew, because they wanted a better life for both them and me. Is that such a bad thing? Over the last 20 years, my dad first tried to start up a business but failed, re-educated himself and is now a tour guide, bringing in so much revenue for UK businesses - just one tour group of about 20 he had recently spent _millions_ of pounds just in Harrods. My mum works in education, and I work for a scientific society with charitable status. Did my family destroy the UK? Somehow I doubt it. How does anyone know that these dreaded economic migrants from Syria won't also do something similar? How many Einsteins, Curies, da Vincis, Mozarts are we missing out on just because they were born in Syria and humanity doesn't want to help?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Are you being serious or sarcastic? I can't tell....


Sarcastic


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Can somebody tell me what time it is ?

1845. Thankyou.

Err.. can I just clarify. You are referring to the time and not the year ?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

It deeply saddens me that this crisis/problem with immigrants (people of other nations) and refugees (desperate people of other nations) might not find a lasting solution, agreeable to everyone, unless we ultimately learn to live together in a world that belongs to all of us and not just the chosen few who, through power, privilege and exploitation thought to divide it up amongst themselves.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Ugh... I don't agree - at all...we're all humans
> A


Indeed we are.

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. JFK.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

smoking guns said:


> I know I shouldn't let anything on the Daily Mail rile me up so much but what Hitchens has written is inciting, ignorant, hateful, selfish, and plenty more words that I am too angry to write. Is the phrase he is too scared to say, "economic migrants"? As the child of economic migrants, I'm not sure people using that phrase really understand what that means.
> 
> My parents moved here when I was five years old, leaving our entire family, our culture, everything we ever knew, because they wanted a better life for both them and me. Is that such a bad thing? Over the last 20 years, my dad first tried to start up a business but failed, re-educated himself and is now a tour guide, bringing in so much revenue for UK businesses - just one tour group of about 20 he had recently spent _millions_ of pounds just in Harrods. My mum works in education, and I work for a scientific society with charitable status. Did my family destroy the UK? Somehow I doubt it. How does anyone know that these dreaded economic migrants from Syria won't also do something similar? How many Einsteins, Curies, da Vincis, Mozarts are we missing out on just because they were born in Syria and humanity doesn't want to help?


I feel your anger.
My grandparents were a mix of refugees and economic migrants and in both cases I can honestly say that they contributed to this country much more in their labour and enterprise (and fighting in the war) than they ever took out of it.
But over the years we have all have faced the 'go back where you came from' brigade first hand and the argument never really changes:
"they come over here and take our.....(whatever appears under threat at that time)"

It is an ignorant argument which shows no understanding of how the world really works. And I fear that until people in our society actually open their eyes and really look at the world, rather than taking their information second or third hand, nothing will change.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

@Satori Thank you for reminding why, when I sat next to a Daily Mail reader on the train, I'd want to hit them in the hope it would imbue some sense into their tiny little minds.There is a campaign to swop Katie Hopkins for refugees. I suggest Hitchens is also good trade.

Anyway, I'm curious, why do you admire what he has written?

As for space for our friends, The Independent has a few suggestions...
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...r-refugees-what-about-these-rooms--ZJZ8LtNsBe


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> @Satori Anyway, I'm curious, why do you admire what he has written?


Didn't say I admired what he wrote. I said it was brilliant.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Satori said:


> Didn't say I admired what he wrote. I said it was brilliant.


Brilliant in making points? Or brilliant to get a discussion going?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

The article is nothing but typical right-wing propaganda, mixing up refugees with migrants in order to foster ill-feeling against both in the general populace. It does not even have a basis in fact when it intimates that helping refugees would destroy our own country.

Britain is a wealthy country. We have more billionaires per head of population than any other country:

_More than 100 billionaires are now living in Britain - the first time the milestone has been reached.
According to this year's Sunday Times Rich List, 104 billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £300bn are now based in the UK - more than triple the number from a decade ago.
Britain has more billionaires per head of population than any other country, while London has more than any other city with 72_
http://news.sky.com/story/1259181/billionaire-britain-new-nation-of-super-rich

And it's no coincidence that the number of billionaires has tripled in the last decade - this government's policies are hell bent on taking from the poor and giving to the rich. If hey weren't, there would be enough money not only to care for our own people, but to help those unfortunate enough to have been hounded out of their own country through no fault of their own.

_The richest 1,000 families have more money than the poorest 40% of British households combined, according to the Equality Trust. Last year they saw their wealth increase by £28bn, the equivalent of £77m a day.

The annual increase is enough to foot the nation's council tax bills for a year, provide nearly 2m living-wage jobs for a year or 1m jobs paid at the average full-time wage of £27,195, said the trust.
http://www.theguardian.com/business...ains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis

_


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Bottom line is that the UK simply cannot house an endless stream of incoming people, wherever they're from and whatever reason has made them leave their country. Syria, Somalia and other countries appear to be emptying towards Europe. We don't have the room to cope with limitless immigration and we don't have the equivalent emigration. Bleeding hearts notwithstanding, where will we put 10000 people who are currently awaiting entry at Calais, particularly when they will promptly be replaced by another 10000 then another then another?

The NHS, we are forever told, is in crisis, there aren't enough staff and waiting lists are months long for essential and urgent operations. How will this institution cope with tens of thousands of new people? Multiple local schools were asked last year to take 32 extra 11 year olds because there was a local mini population explosion 11 years ago. We don't have the space, but we have to try because these children need a school. Where will we put a massive influx of other school age children?

On a slightly different note, I think many people in the UK are very insular, our mentality, in _some _cases, is positively xenophobic, probably because we are an island. Many people never learn a different language and can't see the point. We're probably the worst country in Europe for second language acquisition and English does seem to be taking over the world. Depressing in many respects.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

silvi said:


> Brilliant in making points? Or brilliant to get a discussion going?


A bit of both. I like the fact that he sticks his neck out and I do think his side of the argument has not been properly aired of late as politicians are competing to look cuddly for the camera. I think it's a great piece of popular journalism and, in fairness to the MOS, it was juxtaposed with an article of equal length setting out the opposite point of view.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Britain is a wealthy country. We have more billionaires per head of population than any other country:
> 
> _More than 100 billionaires are now living in Britain - the first time the milestone has been reached.
> According to this year's Sunday Times Rich List, 104 billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £300bn are now based in the UK - more than triple the number from a decade ago.
> ...


Makes yer proud to be British.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Bottom line is that the UK simply cannot house an endless stream of incoming people, wherever they're from and whatever reason has made them leave their country. Syria, Somalia and other countries appear to be emptying towards Europe. We don't have the room to cope with limitless immigration and we don't have the equivalent emigration. Bleeding hearts notwithstanding, where will we put 10000 people who are currently awaiting entry at Calais, particularly when they will promptly be replaced by another 10000 then another then another?
> 
> The NHS, we are forever told, is in crisis, there aren't enough staff and waiting lists are months long for essential and urgent operations. How will this institution cope with tens of thousands of new people? Multiple local schools were asked last year to take 32 extra 11 year olds because there was a local mini population explosion 11 years ago. We don't have the space, but we have to try because these children need a school. Where will we put a massive influx of other school age children?
> .


Fully agree with this.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> I feel your anger.
> My grandparents were a mix of refugees and economic migrants and in both cases I can honestly say that they contributed to this country much more in their labour and enterprise (and fighting in the war) than they ever took out of it.
> But over the years we have all have faced the 'go back where you came from' brigade first hand and the argument never really changes:
> "they come over here and take our.....(whatever appears under threat at that time)"
> ...


Reminded me off a meme I saw online


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Satori said:


> Makes yer proud to be British.


I don't really get this.
Is being British something you worked for or accomplished? Or was it just luck of the draw that you happened to be born in the UK? (I don't know you, for all I know you were an immigrant yourself and worked hard to come to the UK and gain citizenship - in which case, sure, be proud.)

But if your British-ness is a birthright, then It's like me saying "I'm proud to be tall" That I'm tall has nothing to do with anything other than genetic luck, it's not like I worked hard for it. 
If I then go and take my height as a reason to look down on those who are not tall and isolate myself from anyone who doesn't share my height it becomes really weird....


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> Bottom line is that the UK simply cannot house an endless stream of incoming people, wherever they're from and whatever reason has made them leave their country. Syria, Somalia and other countries appear to be emptying towards Europe. We don't have the room to cope with limitless immigration and we don't have the equivalent emigration. Bleeding hearts notwithstanding, where will we put 10000 people who are currently awaiting entry at Calais, particularly when they will promptly be replaced by another 10000 then another then another?
> 
> The NHS, we are forever told, is in crisis, there aren't enough staff and waiting lists are months long for essential and urgent operations. How will this institution cope with tens of thousands of new people? Multiple local schools were asked last year to take 32 extra 11 year olds because there was a local mini population explosion 11 years ago. We don't have the space, but we have to try because these children need a school. Where will we put a massive influx of other school age children?


But they're _not_ all coming here. Your use of the phrases "endless stream", "emptying towards Europe", "massive influx", for example, truly say a lot about certain perceptions. It really makes me want to headdesk when I read that some people in the UK actually think that if we accept more than the couple of hundred refugees we have so far, we would be overrun. They're not zombies, they're other humans who have nowhere else to turn.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

I thought this article was very interesting from a more global perspective. Who has taken on who. It certainly paints a very different picture of the UK housing an endless stream of immigrants.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/04/world/europe/europe-refugee-distribution.html

Also, I'm just curious as to why it matters if the immigrants are economic migrants or refugees? Just curious as to why one matters more than the other?


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Also, I'm just curious as to why it matters if the immigrants are economic migrants or refugees? Just curious as to why one matters more than the other?


My reading is that people use the term "economic migrants" with distaste on their tongues, as if those who are moving to seek a better life shouldn't because if where they live isn't war-torn then they should stay put. On the other hand, no one can argue that refugees genuinely need to flee to avoid persecution and death. And yet if the people with this sort of mentality have children and grandchildren who move abroad, I'm sure they wouldn't term them "economic migrants"...


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

I don't really know what the situation is in England but in my country we accept more and more what we call economic refugees and people who will never try and do something in return. All they want is take advantage of our social security system and other benefits. As soon as they get here they are waiting in line to get everything they can while people like my dad who worked all their life get almost nothing.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I read this fantastic statement on FB today! Really says it all for me! Also watched a clip of refugees being welcomed at Munich train station, you know the country that takes more people than ANYWHERE in Europe, people cheering and handing them presents.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Satori said:


> Didn't say I admired what he wrote. I said it was brilliant.


What did you think was brilliant? There's enough of goading on here with the other thread about another thread that really didn't need to be started again so I am curious. I do hate threads where someone puts up something arguably contentious and then doesn't say why or evades the answer.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Also, I'm just curious as to why it matters if the immigrants are economic migrants or refugees? Just curious as to why one matters more than the other?


You should probably take refugees whether your infrastructure can cope with them or not.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

diefenbaker said:


> You should probably take refugees whether your infrastructure can cope with them or not.


So basically one group is deserving of entry and the other group isn't? I'm not judging, just trying to clarify.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Satori said:


> I'm not particularly a great admirer of Peter Hitchens but his column in the MOS today _was brilliant......_
> 
> Britain is a desirable place to live mainly because it is an island, which most people can't get to. Most of the really successful civilisations survived because they were protected from invasion by mountains, sea, deserts or a combination of these things. Ask the Russians or the Poles what it's like to live without the shield of the sea. There is no positive word for 'safety' in Russian. Their word for security is 'bezopasnost' - 'without danger'.
> 
> Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom. I have visited nearly 60 countries and lived in the USSR, Russia and the USA, and I have never experienced anything as good as what we have. Only in the Anglosphere countries - the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - is there anything comparable. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.


You really thought_ brilliant? IMO _What a lot of b'llocks. I was just thinking of the notoriously poor places to live, which have no sea, mountains or desert to protect them, like Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Woe is on us. Anglosphere countries?? Poor Norwegians, they must be suffering so much too for not being Anglo. Germans are doing miserably too, as are Belgians. Lets not forget Swiss. or Monaco. No wonder we are all taught English at school, as the purpose must be to be able to flee and move to an Anglo country as soon as possible for better social security and that great Anglosphere...Yeh. Just packing now.

And what I think of the rest of the article. What a lot of b'llocks.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I
> Also, I'm just curious as to why it matters if the immigrants are economic migrants or refugees? Just curious as to why one matters more than the other?


Not sure what "economic" migrants are other than it's yet another right-wing phrase coined to fool people into thinking the current refugees are merely leaving their country to take money and/or jobs in another country.

As I understand it, migrants are people who choose to move to a different country for better prospects. Nothing wrong with that at all, but they have a choice on whether or not to emigrate. Refugees have no chioce - they are fleeing opression, excessive regimes, war, etc etc, and often their homes are destroyed and/or their lives are at risk if they don't flee to another country.

In a humanitarian world, you would think that aid to refugees should be instant and unquestioning and not subject to the same checks that migrants are subject to - eg numbers of migrant applications accepted, job prospects in the new country etc etc.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Britt said:


> I don't really know what the situation is in England but in my country we accept more and more what we call economic refugees and people who will never try and do something in return. All they want is take advantage of our social security system and other benefits. As soon as they get here they are waiting in line to get everything they can while people like my dad who worked all their life get almost nothing.


I've worked all my life and never claimed. I have also left my home with a suitcase for different but unexpected reasons. But I have never left my country with the clothes I stand up in as a result of a conflict I didn't start and walked miles with no hope of a solution. I can think of five relatives I'd happily trade for some decent human beings no matter where they were born (and isn't so much of this just about where one is born) purely because they'd struggle to walk from their sofa to work if they attempted to find a job anyway.



smoking guns said:


> But they're _not_ all coming here. Your use of the phrases "endless stream", "emptying towards Europe", "massive influx", for example, truly say a lot about certain perceptions. It really makes me want to headdesk when I read that some people in the UK actually think that if we accept more than the couple of hundred refugees we have so far, we would be overrun. They're not zombies, they're other humans who have nowhere else to turn.


Wish we had rep.

Anyway I'm still waiting for @Satori reasons for this being 'brilliant'...


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

Most of the Syrian refugees who come to my country are gypsies. They have no education whatsoever. And they first stop in another country, ask for benefits there, buy a car and then drive up here for more benefits.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Britt said:


> Most of the Syrian refugees who come to my country are gypsies. They have no education whatsoever. And they first stop in another country, ask for benefits there, buy a car and then drive up here for more benefits.


What country are you in?


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> @Satori Thank you for reminding why, when I sat next to a Daily Mail reader on the train, I'd want to hit them in the hope it would imbue some sense into their tiny little minds.There is a campaign to swop Katie Hopkins for refugees. I suggest Hitchens is also good trade.
> 
> Anyway, I'm curious, why do you admire what he has written?
> 
> ...


Lots of rooms... maybe they should pay bedroom tax...


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> Bottom line is that the UK simply cannot house an endless stream of incoming people, wherever they're from and whatever reason has made them leave their country. Syria, Somalia and other countries appear to be emptying towards Europe. We don't have the room to cope with limitless immigration and we don't have the equivalent emigration. Bleeding hearts notwithstanding, where will we put 10000 people who are currently awaiting entry at Calais, particularly when they will promptly be replaced by another 10000 then another then another?
> 
> The NHS, we are forever told, is in crisis, there aren't enough staff and waiting lists are months long for essential and urgent operations. How will this institution cope with tens of thousands of new people? Multiple local schools were asked last year to take 32 extra 11 year olds because there was a local mini population explosion 11 years ago. We don't have the space, but we have to try because these children need a school. Where will we put a massive influx of other school age children?
> 
> On a slightly different note, I think many people in the UK are very insular, our mentality, in _some _cases, is positively xenophobic, probably because we are an island. Many people never learn a different language and can't see the point. We're probably the worst country in Europe for second language acquisition and English does seem to be taking over the world. Depressing in many respects.


I agree putting everything else aside and just going back to basics, where will you house them. Its already been identified that there is at least 13 million people in the UK living below the poverty line. The following is based on Housing and demand need in England. There is a table for 2010/2014 split into individual years, and regions showing the estimated annual demand, how many were actually built and the shortfall gap, London alone the total shortfall for these years was 153,390
the South East was 85,950 all the other regions are substantial shortfalls of new housing being available too.

The National Housing Federation published a report in 2013 saying
*
The rate of housebuilding and the market's ability to meet demand

*
The National Housing Federation (NHF) published a report in December 2013, _Home truths 2013/14: the housing market in England_, in which it raised concern about the rate of house building, saying:

House prices are now so far out of reach that many local people and families are struggling to raise a deposit for a mortgage. Demand for homes remains as high as ever, but this isn't being matched by an increase in supply, pushing prices up more. England is already extremely short of housing and needs around 240,000 new homes a year just to meet demand. Currently we're not even building half that amount and the numbers are falling. In 2012/13, around 107,000 new homes were completed, 11% fewer than in 2009.22

Shelter commissioned a report in 2012 which says.

A report commissioned by the housing charity Shelter in 2012, _Understanding Supply Constraints in the Housing Market_, looked at constraints, beyond the planning system, that could be preventing enough homes from being built. It said:

A shortage of housing is likely to worsen as population growth continues and the supply response remains sluggish. Latest household projections suggest that housing supply would have to rise very significantly from its levels over the past twenty years in order to meet rising demand. The likely shortfalls are most notable in London and the South East.23

The report said, that: "The decline in local authority building is notable and suggests that the most vulnerable of society have been hit as private completions have not increased to meet this need".24 The report argued that, because the housing market responds to levels of demand rather than need (which incorporates household's preferences and social requirements), the Government still had a role to play in the provision of affordable housing.25

The report suggested that the housing market as it is currently structured would not be able ever to meet the housing requirements for the UK:

The full link is here
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06921/SN06921.pdf

Don't forgot too this is all before the current crisis.


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

ouesi said:


> What country are you in?


Belgium.

When my dad retired after working from his 17th until he was 62 all he had was 700€ to live while Syrian refugeesget 1500€ a month as soon as they get here.


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

Britt said:


> Belgium.
> 
> When my dad retired after working from his 17th until he was 62 all he had was 700€ to live while Syrian refugeesget 1500€ a month as soon as they get here.


I'm sorry your dad didn't get a very good deal but seriously are you begrudging refugees the chance to _not die in their own countries???????_


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Britt said:


> Belgium.
> 
> When my dad retired after working from his 17th until he was 62 all he had was 700€ to live while Syrian refugeesget 1500€ a month as soon as they get here.


I understand why that would make you resentful.

Do you know if they get that help forever or if there is a limit on it? Does that paycheck include other benefits as well? It's easy to look as plain numbers and see inequity, but sometimes if you put all the cards on the table, it's not quite so uneven after all. I don't know if that's the case here, just wondering out loud. 
And if it is that unequal, is that the fault of the Syrian refugees or is it the fault of the Belgian government?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I understand why that would make you resentful.
> 
> Do you know if they get that help forever or if there is a limit on it? Does that paycheck include other benefits as well? It's easy to look as plain numbers and see inequity, but sometimes if you put all the cards on the table, it's not quite so uneven after all. I don't know if that's the case here, just wondering out loud.
> And if it is that unequal, is that the fault of the Syrian refugees or is it the fault of the Belgian government?


They get a place to live (furnished apartment -- and believe it or not, they throw the furniture away to get new one, landlords have told me so that's a fact) and yes they get that help as long as they are refugees, there is no time limit.
We had a socialist government for years, that explains everything.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

The only point I can reasonably agree with to an extent is the one about some people getting high and mighty about the UK being obliged to accept refugees yet not being prepared to give up their own resources to help.

That's as far as it goes, I'm afraid.

Personally I am not proud to be British. I feel fortunate to live here - I wrote at length describing why on another thread which disappeared and I'm afraid I can't be bothered to type it all out again - but I'm not proud. I hate what patriotism seems to have become.

When I think of patriotism nowadays, my thoughts are unfortunately drawn to Britain First, the Knights Templar, the EDL and their kin. They wave Union Jacks and England flags while shouting for immigrants to be shot dead, places of worship to be burned to the ground and the deportation of people who were born here to 'their own country' because of the colour of their skin.

These people do not represent me. I loathe them.

Unfortunately, the kinder, non-extreme form of patriotism seems to have disappeared, either because it no longer exists or because it has been drowned out by the more vocal types.

As for our 1000 years of uninvaded peace, how fortunate we are that this has been the case while we as a nation have busied ourselves occupying the rest of the world and displacing - even abusing in some cases - their indigenous people. While none of us alive today are responsible for the likes of India and Australia and North America, we would do well to remember that our 'nice peaceful island' has wreaked a kind of havoc on other countries. It seems a little rich to stand back now and say 'wait a minute, you can't come here! This is our country!'

Besides, while these conflicts are multifactorial and I'm not suggesting they are entirely the fault of the UK, we have undeniable involvement in overseas wars such as that in Syria. Should we accept at least part of the responsibility of the normal civilians whose lives have been turned upside down by these conflicts? Shouldn't we help them escape the horrors that have ravaged their own countries?

I wonder what would happen if our country was in the same position. If thousands if not millions of us tried to escape to the continent only to be turned away everywhere? Where does one physically go, if staying in your own country would likely result in your death through no fault of your own?

I don't have the answer to the refugee or migrant problem. And maybe I am a hypocrite for believing we should open our borders while, admittedly, I would not really wish to install anyone in my spare bedroom. But the selfish attitude of a country that has stuck its fingers into so many other nation's business over the years seems inappropriate when people are now asking for our help.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Britt said:


> We had a socialist government for years, that explains everything.


Well our so-called fascist government isn't much better, so where does that leave us I wonder?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Britt said:


> Belgium.
> 
> When my dad retired after working from his 17th until he was 62 all he had was 700€ to live while Syrian refugeesget 1500€ a month as soon as they get here.


I don't think it's a straight forward as that. It's easy to think that's the case, thanks to propaganda like Hitchens does in his article that has influenced the absent @Satori.

From what I have read about Belgium there is a resettlement programme of refugees through the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (can you imagine, stateless?) and the Federal Agency. I think both are responsible for selection and screening, which if that's like the UK citizenship quiz then I'd fail to get into my country! I believe that there were plans to settle 100 people (prior to this latest crisis). They are selected by the Commissioner based on reports by the UN and had to go through a cultural orientation programme and 6 weeks in a reception centre.

So hardly just turning up after all and cramming off the state. It's easy to believe, lots of people think the same about this country. The reception centre near Cambridge closed down through malpractice and frankly dodgy (UK) staff. I've walked past Pentonville Prison and that looked nicer.

Perhaps the situation has changed and you have some links or news sites to back up your thoughts?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> The only point I can reasonably agree with to an extent is the one about some people getting high and mighty about the UK being obliged to accept refugees yet not being prepared to give up their own resources to help.
> 
> That's as far as it goes, I'm afraid.
> 
> ...


100% agree. Especially with the bit in bold. I am not proud to be British at all.


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

@MollySmith - we have always welcomed everyone here and people who ask for the Belgian citizenship do it for the wrong reason and don't even bother speaking one of our three languages .... That says it all.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

we drove through France 2 weeks ago, mile after mile of vast open spaces, why dont they all go there instead of living in squalor (even on benefits) in central London, easy pickings for gang bosses, working for £3/hour and then theres the weather......OMG


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

Britt said:


> @MollySmith - we have always welcomed everyone here and people who ask for the Belgian citizenship do it for the wrong reason and don't even bother speaking one of our three languages .... That says it all.


I wonder how many British expats learn Spanish fluently?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

MollySmith said:


> 100% agree. Especially with the bit in bold. I am not proud to be British at all.


Im English, England has welcomed every type of asylum seeker for centuries, and also many invaders, genuine cases are always welcome, can a whole population be genuine or just looking for better incomes? plus we already send aid abroad, what more can an island race - whose government is making economies already, whose housing market is on its ar5e too - do?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

@Colliebarmy Wait until the 12,000 who just got to Germany arrive in Britain


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

smoking guns said:


> I wonder how many British expats learn Spanish fluently?


Dos Cerveza grande por favor

job done


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Britt said:


> @MollySmith - we have always welcomed everyone here and people who ask for the Belgian citizenship do it for the wrong reason and don't even bother speaking one of our three languages .... That says it all.


All of them?! Any actual evidence for this claim?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Britt said:


> @Colliebarmy Wait until the 12,000 who just got to Germany arrive in Britain


Hope they bring some tents


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> As for our 1000 years of uninvaded peace, how fortunate we are that this has been the case while we as a nation have busied ourselves occupying the rest of the world and displacing - even abusing in some cases


How I would like to rep you for this post.

The once much celebrated British Empire founded upon land confiscation, systematic murder, stealing of resources and the total destruction of cultures.
Crimes once associated with empire building but now more commonly known as globalisation.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Im English, England has welcomed every type of asylum seeker for centuries, and also many invaders, genuine cases are always welcome, can a whole population be genuine or just looking for better incomes? plus we already send aid abroad, what more can an island race - whose government is making economies already, whose housing market is on its ar5e too - do?


I'm not sure Syrian refugees left Syria because they are are looking for better incomes. I think it's because they were having the s**t bombed out of them.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

smoking guns said:


> I wonder how many British expats learn Spanish fluently?


Indeed, how many British citizens can speak English? I'm getting lots of b*llsh*t


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> All of them?! Any actual evidence for this claim?


I can only speak of those I interviewed when they were asking for citizenship. I gave a negative advice but almost all of them they got it anyway.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

WW2 migrant....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciszek_Kornicki


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> Im English, England has welcomed every type of asylum seeker for centuries, and also many invaders, genuine cases are always welcome, can a whole population be genuine or just looking for better incomes? plus we already send aid abroad, what more can an island race - whose government is making economies already, whose housing market is on its ar5e too - do?


I don't think anyone is coming here by choice, mostly that they've had the crap kicked out of them and are homeless. As I said there are a lot of English who don't really deserve to be here.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Britt said:


> I can only speak of those I interviewed when they were asking for citizenship. I gave a negative advice but almost all of them they got it anyway.


I have no words. Are you really suggesting that you are partially responsible for immigration in Belgium?


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> As for our 1000 years of uninvaded peace, how fortunate we are that this has been the case while we as a nation have busied ourselves occupying the rest of the world and displacing - even abusing in some cases - their indigenous people. While none of us alive today are responsible for the likes of India and Australia and North America, we would do well to remember that our 'nice peaceful island' has wreaked a kind of havoc on other countries. It seems a little rich to stand back now and say 'wait a minute, you can't come here! This is our country!'


It sure does doesn't it?

I think we would all do well to remember that everything in this world is connected far more than we like to think. One action will spur a reaction that may take years to bounce back and affect us, but affect us it will. Whether we help others seeking assistance or turn them away, there will be long term consequences in one way or another.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> I have no words. Are you really suggesting that you are partially responsible for immigration in Belgium?


I would seriously hope not with the attitude in this thread! Jesus Christ I wonder if some people have an ounce of compassion in their bodies!

Although it shows what's really wrong with mankind, it gives power to those who have no right having them when they are so biased more so when they havr a say in someone future! Disgusting really!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Britt said:


> I can only speak of those I interviewed when they were asking for citizenship. I gave a negative advice but almost all of them they got it anyway.


With your attitude I am glad they "got it" because I very much doubt your opinion was not seriously biased no matter how genuine their claim was!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

smoking guns said:


> But they're _not_ all coming here. Your use of the phrases "endless stream", "emptying towards Europe", "massive influx", for example, truly say a lot about certain perceptions. It really makes me want to headdesk when I read that some people in the UK actually think that if we accept more than the couple of hundred refugees we have so far, we would be overrun. They're not zombies, they're other humans who have nowhere else to turn.


And equally, I want to headdesk when I see your interpretation of what I say. Where, seriously, do you think the estimated 10 000 people in the Jungle near Calais want to go? If they wanted to go elsewhere in Europe, they'd already be there. They've bypassed who knows how many other countries in order to try to get into the U.K. Do you think they won't be replaced if they get in here? I think that would be a naive hope.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

I’m sitting here trying to reconcile a whole lot of thoughts and feelings going on in my head....

I wonder what it must be like to be vulnerable and on benefits and worried about losing those benefits. How might I look at those who appear to be competing with me for those benefits.
I wonder what it must be like to be so desperate that you pack your whole family up with just your most precious belonging and travel to a place you’ve never been, surrounded by a language you’re not familiar with, seeing angry faces and helpful faces and not knowing what is going to happen next. 

Surely there is a way for us to be able to help anyone who is in need? Surely we need to find a way?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> I'm not sure Syrian refugees left Syria because they are are looking for better incomes. I think it's because they were having the s**t bombed out of them.





MollySmith said:


> I have no words. Are you really suggesting that you are partially responsible for immigration in Belgium?


Me? No, I'm not. The government is.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

You know, I'm not sure this forum is very typical of the way the majority of our country feels about migrants and those seeking asylum here. I have my own thoughts about it all, and after watching the Tonight programme on this very subject that hasn't changed. But I do think to be taken seriously proper channels should be followed.....

These people fleeing their own countries are not the only desperate people out there and I feel it's a fine line to tread on how much energy/time is put into helping these people without abandoning the very desperate people in the country already who are being ignored on a day to day basis.


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> And equally, I want to headdesk when I see your interpretation of what I say. Where, seriously, do you think the estimated 10 000 people in the Jungle near Calais want to go? If they wanted to go elsewhere in Europe, they'd already be there. They've bypassed who knows how many other countries in order to try to get into the U.K. Do you think they won't be replaced if they get in here? I think that would be a naive hope.


As far as I can find, the estimate is that there are around 5,000 people in Calais. Also, 5,000 amidst 64.1 million people (the population of the UK) is a drop in the ocean, so even if we accepted them all - which we won't - they will barely affect our social infrastructure, especially bearing in mind that asylum seekers accepted into the UK only get £36.95 per week to live on and are usually not allowed to work to supplement this sum. That means getting £1,921.40 a year. A lot of people in the UK earn more than that per month.

As you say, these 5,000 people may have decided that they will come to the UK. What about the 80,000 Germany are planning to accept by the end of 2015? 5,000 is nothing. Even 10,000 is nothing. To be honest I am embarrassed that our supposedly great and generous country is not even willing to save what in the grand scheme of things is a very small amount of people.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Britt said:


> I can only speak of those I interviewed when they were asking for citizenship. I gave a negative advice but almost all of them they got it anyway.


Well ain't you a prize.

What exactly is your official job description.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

smoking guns said:


> As far as I can find, the estimate is that there are around 5,000 people in Calais. Also, 5,000 amidst 64.1 million people (the population of the UK) is a drop in the ocean, so even if we accepted them all - which we won't - they will barely affect our social infrastructure, especially bearing in mind that asylum seekers accepted into the UK only get £36.95 per week to live on and are usually not allowed to work to supplement this sum. That means getting £1,921.40 a year. A lot of people in the UK earn more than that per month.
> 
> As you say, these 5,000 people may have decided that they will come to the UK. What about the 80,000 Germany are planning to accept by the end of 2015? 5,000 is nothing. Even 10,000 is nothing. To be honest I am embarrassed that our supposedly great and generous country is not even willing to save what in the grand scheme of things is a very small amount of people.


Last estimate on some news website put it at 10 000. That's just the ones at Calais. They will be replaced and hundreds more are arriving daily. Look at how many went to Austria today. How many do you think have Austria in mind as their final destination? And Germany is an awful lot bigger than us. There's now complaints from other European countries about Merkel telling them to accept tens of thousands of people: they're saying they can't cope.

Population density in some European countries:

The UK (ignoring tax havens such as Monaco and Jersey) has one of the highest population densities (people per km/2) in the world

The UK has a density of 256 (population 62million) of which England has a density of 413 (pop 54m) (Source ONS)
Germany 253 (pop 82m) (source WIKI)
Italy 192 (pop 60m)
France 111 (64m)
Spain 92 (47m)
Greece 81 (11m)

So Germany could take an extra 50 miilion people to get close to the density of England

France could double its population, an extra 64 million people, and still be nowhere near the density of the UK let alone England.

Ok, some of those countries can't cope economically with a huge influx, but I doubt our systems will cope well, either. Do you really think an extra 14 000 which is the figure bandied about today re how many we should accept would simply be integrated by the education and health systems? And what will these people be doing for jobs?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Well ain't you a prize.
> 
> What exactly is your official job description.


I'm a cop and one of our tasks is to interview people who ask for Belgian citizenship and see if their motivation is genuine. When you have been living in the country for five years, it is expected that you can at least understand the questions that are asked ....


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> Last estimate on some news website put it at 10 000. That's just the ones at Calais. They will be replaced and hundreds more are arriving daily. Look at how many went to Austria today. How many do you think have Austria in mind as their final destination? And Germany is an awful lot bigger than us. There's now complaints from other European countries about Merkel telling them to accept tens of thousands of people: they're saying they can't cope.


But... Why wouldn't they have Austria in mind? How do you know they don't?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

smoking guns said:


> But... Why wouldn't they have Austria in mind? How do you know they don't?


How do you know they do? Why do so many bypass safe European countries (bearing in mind they're supposed to stop in the first safe country they come to) to head elsewhere?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> How do you know they do? Why do so many bypass safe European countries (bearing in mind they're supposed to stop in the first safe country they come to) to head elsewhere?


Good question. Most of those who come here have stopped in France first, they asked for benefits there, got some but still decided to come to Belgium, maybe because of our social security system where you get a refund of all your medical expenses.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Which turns them from refugees to economic migrants.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Britt said:


> I'm a cop and one of our tasks is to interview people who ask for Belgian citizenship and see if their motivation is genuine. When you have been living in the country for five years, it is expected that you can at least understand the questions that are asked ....


So, you're a public servant who isn't concerned about or serving the publics best interests. Or are you? By doling out negative advice you serve the public you care about, people like yourself, but not the public you evidently resent.? People of other lands.

Oh, and I noticed your written English seems to have gotten more fluent all of a sudden?


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

OH’s a cop. He deals with immigrants. He learned Spanish. Problem solved.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I don't really get this.


Evidently.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Satori said:


> Evidently.


Clever.
You planning on answering any of the questions @MollySmith politely asked you or are you really just shit stirring?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Britt said:


> I'm a cop and one of our tasks is to interview people who ask for Belgian citizenship and see if their motivation is genuine. When you have been living in the country for five years, it is expected that you can at least understand the questions that are asked ....


Wow just wow!


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> So basically one group is deserving of entry and the other group isn't? I'm not judging, just trying to clarify.


Basically yes. One group is under imminent threat of death and the other isn't. Until such a time as the infrastructure can cope they will need to wait in the queue.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Zaros said:


> So, you're a public servant who isn't concerned about or serving the publics best interests. Or are you? By doling out negative advice you serve the public you care about, people like yourself, but not the public you evidently resent.? People of other lands.
> 
> Oh, and I noticed your written English seems to have gotten more fluent all of a sudden?


And the profile locked tighter than the Belgium welfare state for his/her countrymen (apparently)  Interesting that...!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> OH's a cop. He deals with immigrants. He learned Spanish. Problem solved.


So, let me get this right. Britt's other half is police officer whose fundamental duty it is to protect and serve. But not the most vulnerable amongst us who require the most protection.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> And the profile locked tighter than the Belgium welfare state for his/her countrymen (apparently)  Interesting that...!


Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Zaros said:


> So, let me get this right. Britt's other half is police officer whose fundamental duty it is to protect and serve. But not the most vulnerable amongst us who require the most protection.


No, @ouesi was talking about her OH. @Britt was talking about herself.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Clever.
> You planning on answering any of the questions @MollySmith politely asked you or are you really just shit stirring?


C'mon, reads the Daily Mail. That sums it up...unless @Satori can prove otherwise 



Zaros said:


> Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice.


I do believe I could believe in six impossible things before breakfast.

But Britt is rather challenging this


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> What did you think was brilliant? There's enough of goading on here with the other thread about another thread that really didn't need to be started again so I am curious. I do hate threads where someone puts up something arguably contentious and then doesn't say why or evades the answer.


It is so sharply observed, albeit a bit mischievous. Whichever side of the argument you are on, the points he raises ought to be considered before you jump to conclusions in this race to appear nicer than the next guy.

I particularly like his raising the demographic profile of the so-called refugees. I am highly suspicious whenever I see crowds of young men who supposedly are fleeing danger but seem to be willing to leave their wives and children behind to rot. Just what's going on there?

I also like seeing him take a position that our heritage, borders and national security count for something. Only an idiot would not see the dangers to all three, yet his is the minority view amongst the chattering classes. The view that we are one big world is infantile at best and dangerous at worst. There's more than property and wealth inside our borders, there's a way of life too. We have a secular, capitalist democracy and I'd just as soon see it remain that way thank you. Let's not forget that tens of thousands of 'refugees' left from an Islamic State controlled port and that IS had control as to who left and who didn't. I'll stop there on that argument......

Finally, the timing. This debate needed to be opened up right now. With Germany grandstanding and Cameron pliable and Parliment opening tomorrow, someone with a big audience needed to stop the flow biased reporting that we have seen over the last week or two.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> I'm not sure Syrian refugees left Syria because they are are looking for better incomes. I think it's because they were having the s**t bombed out of them.


...so they fled, leaving their wives and children behind. Nice.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

smoking guns said:


> they will barely affect our social infrastructure, .


Of course an influx of migrants …whether seeking asylum or simply a better life …will effect the social infrastructure of any country they move to.

Closing your eyes and pretending that nothing has to change and a country won't see any difference is as unhelpful as scaremongering.

Accepting that there *will be* a need for extra resources, extra housing, extra places in schools and extra medical care and looking to see how these resources can be met is vital if a country is to meet this need. Every county that is accepting migrants is having to do this. Without this planning and without finding funds (and they have to come from somewhere) chaos would ensue. It is also why there is an agreed differentiation between economic migrants and refugees fleeing conflict, so that those really in need can be processed and helped first.

Once established, immigrants (can and do) go on to make as solid contribution to a countries income as any citizen but those early months and years do have to be subsidised and the counties infrastructure built up to cope with the increased numbers.

It's how you deal with the situation that is important. It's here. Let's get on with it.

J


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Satori said:


> ...so they fled, leaving their wives and children behind. Nice.


Not all of them. There are plenty of female and child refugees leaving the country. Or are they figment of my imagination?


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> No, @ouesi was talking about her OH. @Britt was talking about herself.


Correct. My OH is a cop. One of the old-school ones who wanted to do something positive and help people. People like illegal immigrants who get totally taken advantage of because they are illegal and self-serving Americans think they can take advantage of them (and do). And the sad thing is, many just sit there and take it because they are just so grateful for the job and the paycheck that they take the abuse that comes with it. Of course many don't, but anyway... I digress...


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> Not all of them. There are plenty of female and child refugees leaving the country. Or are they figment of my imagination?


Come on. Seriously, watch the coverage. Syria is 2% women and 1% kids and virtually no old people. Yeah right.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Satori said:


> It is so sharply observed, albeit a bit mischievous. Whichever side of the argument you are on, the points he raises ought to be considered before you jump to conclusions in this race to appear nicer than the next guy.
> 
> I particularly like his raising the demographic profile of the so-called refugees. I am highly suspicious whenever I see crowds of young men who supposedly are fleeing danger but seem to be willing to leave their wives and children behind to rot. Just what's going on there?
> 
> ...


Thank you for coming back with a reply. I disagree but thank you for responding nevertheless


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> Basically yes. One group is under imminent threat of death and the other isn't. Until such a time as the infrastructure can cope they will need to wait in the queue.


Quoting my own post... what a doofus. Let's be quite clear here. I am not a politician. I am an IT geek designing a system for asylum and immigration on the fly under extreme duress. There will be bugs and ctrl-alt-del may need to be pressed several times.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> No, @ouesi was talking about her OH. @Britt was talking about herself.


Oh bugga!

So her fundamental duty is to protect and serve etc, etc, etc and blah, blah, blah. Negligent in responsibility and complete dereliction of duty.

What an eighty one tch!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> Thank you for coming back with a reply. I disagree but thank you for responding nevertheless


Been busy dis-proving Jamie's claims that delicious meals can be prepared in 15 minutes.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Satori said:


> Been busy dis-proving Jamie's claims that delicious meals can be prepared in 15 minutes.


ah now that we can agree on!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Satori said:


> Come on. Seriously, watch the coverage. Syria is 2% women and 1% kids and virtually no old people. Yeah right.


I think we've been watching/listening to different coverage. Seriously, I'm not just trying to be contrary.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Satori said:


> ...so they fled, leaving their wives and children behind. Nice.


I've been thinking this myself


Shoshannah said:


> Not all of them. There are plenty of female and child refugees leaving the country. Or are they figment of my imagination?


It was reported that at least 90% were single men


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2015)

Satori said:


> It is so sharply observed, albeit a bit mischievous. Whichever side of the argument you are on, the points he raises ought to be considered before you jump to conclusions in this race to appear nicer than the next guy.
> 
> I particularly like his raising the demographic profile of the so-called refugees. I am highly suspicious whenever I see crowds of young men who supposedly are fleeing danger but seem to be willing to leave their wives and children behind to rot. Just what's going on there?
> 
> ...


Thank you for replying.
Couple of things... 
I don't think the capitalist way is going to last. Not in the UK, not in the world. I think it's a system built on pretend money that doesn't exist and it will crumble. And when it does.... Syrian refugees will be the least of our worries.
I don't think it's infantile to see our planet as one big world. It is. Once global warming takes over or a good super volcano or a meteor hit, we will soon realize we are all residents of a planet, not countries. And again, Syrian refugees will not seem like that big of a deal. 
Religion - there I do agree with you. I would like to see an end to organized religion in all forms. Not a forceful end, but a natural extinction of a belief no longer needed.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rona said:


> It was reported that at least 90% were single men


I feel betrayed by Radio 4! Lol!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> I think we've been watching/listening to different coverage. Seriously, I'm not just trying to be contrary.


I would never think you would say that just to be contrary. We must really have been seeing different coverage.

I keep thinking of the Mariel boat-lift on a much more massive scale.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> I feel betrayed by Radio 4! Lol!


It was on a tv news report by a guy who was in Budapest. How accurate that is I couldn't say


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I've just looked up this subject and have found very different figures quoted. I haven't validated the sources but I put 'Syrian refugees women children' into Google and these are what came up. It seems that a fair proportion of the women are travelling alone or with their children, their husbands absent, but they're still coming.

"Women and children make up three-quarters of the refugee population."

"According to the U.N., more than half of all Syrian refugees are under the age of 18."

"According to the United Nation's refugee agency UNHCR, of the 2.1 million Syrian refugees who have fled to neighboring countries and been registered in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan or Lebanon, more than one million are younger than 18, and around 808,000 of the refugees are under the age of 12."

*"Jordan*
Females, ages 18 to 35 years, represent the majority of new arrivals (at nearly 30% of the total registered) with females of all ages comprising 53% of those registered."

*"Turkey*
Of all Syrian refugees in Turkey, 49.2% are female."

*"Lebanon*
25% of the Lebanese population is now comprised of Syrian refugees. Of these refugees, 52.3% are women."

Sources
http://www.humanityinaction.org/kno...dan-and-recommendations-for-improved-practice

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/syria.php

http://www.mercycorps.org.uk/articl...k-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

http://mashable.com/2015/09/03/syrian-refugees-children/


----------



## ItsonlyChris (Mar 12, 2013)

I honestly think that this refugee thing has been purposely blown out of proportion by our media in order to sell newspapers and win ratings but keep in mind that David Cameron wouldn't have allowed these people in if he couldn't benefit from it.

Besides, the vast minority of these people are actually ISIS insurgents. Most are coming here to avoid being beheaded for not believing in whatever sect of Islam these nutters have decided is the "proper" Islam.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> I've just looked up this subject and have found very different figures quoted. I haven't validated the sources but I put 'Syrian refugees women children' into Google and these are what came up. It seems that a fair proportion of the women are travelling alone or with their children, their husbands absent, but they're still coming.
> 
> "Women and children make up three-quarters of the refugee population."
> 
> ...


Excellent stuff. Thank you. Read as fast as I can. Struggling to interpret the data really. The references, within the links are old and may or may not reflect the breakdown of the current wave. Nevertheless, it's hard not to conclude that women and children migrate to other Islamic countries and men migrate to Europe.

One interpretation could be: Women and children were migrating to safety in neighbouring countries through 2011-2013 while men of military age fought ISIL. The latter, having now given up have to flee but are already estranged from their families? But then why Europe?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Most of the data did seem to concern regional migrants into neighbouring countries, so I expect it's different depending on which country one is looking at.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> Last estimate on some news website put it at 10 000. That's just the ones at Calais. They will be replaced and hundreds more are arriving daily. Look at how many went to Austria today. How many do you think have Austria in mind as their final destination? And Germany is an awful lot bigger than us. There's now complaints from other European countries about Merkel telling them to accept tens of thousands of people: they're saying they can't cope.
> 
> Population density in some European countries:
> 
> ...


I was looking at similar figures too, In mid 2013 the UK total population was 64.1 million, 84% of that 53.9 Million is just in England.
In 2012 alone 435,000 long term migrants arrived to live in England alone without the rest of the county.

In 2012, 435,000 long-term international migrants arrived to live in England, which is 87% of the total 498,000 long-term immigrants to the UK. Scotland received 34,000 long-term immigrants (7% of total), 16,000 people (3% of total) immigrated to Wales and 12,000 people (2% of total) immigrated to Northern Ireland. England, Scotland and Wales had more long-term immigrants than long-term emigrants in 2012, with net migration figures of 158,000,14,000 and 8,000 respectively. By contrast, Northern Ireland had more long-term emigrants than long-term immigrants, resulting in a net outflow of 2,000.

The population of the UK was already predicted to rise to 73.3 Million by mid 2037. Again with out this new crisis being taken into consideration.
Englands only 130,373 Kilometers square to start with. The whole of the UK 243, 610 Kilometers square (94,060 square Miles) so the whole of it is only about 57% the size of California in the states. May be totally over simplifying it but surely its got to get to a point where you cant fit a square peg in a round whole anymore space wise alone. .
There is already a shortage of housing affordable or otherwise, shortages of schools and the NHS is stretched to the limits, and the highest density I believe is located in London and the south east as it is.

The population of the UK is projected to increase to 73.3 million by mid-20371. Over this time period, the populations of all of the four constituent countries of the UK are projected to grow, with the highest average annual growth rate in England at 0.6%, followed by Northern Ireland at a rate of 0.4%, with Scotland and Wales at a slightly slower rate of 0.3%. The proportional contribution of the constituent countries of the UK to this total figure, as outlined above, is projected to remain broadly consistent in this period.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...tatistics/population-and-migration/index.html


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

"Satori said:


> One interpretation could be: Women and children were migrating to safety in neighbouring countries through 2011-2013 while men of military age fought ISIL. The latter, having now given up have to flee but are already estranged from their families? But then why Europe?


And why not the physically closer and more culturally suited middle Eastern countries? Who, btw, are at least, equally well set up to welcome massive influxes of new people as European countries?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

435 000 long term migrants per year? Plus however many more illegals that we can't quantify and the ones Cameron is allowing in, plus the ones waiting in Calais or making their way here now. Oh my.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> 435 000 long term migrants per year? Plus however many more illegals that we can't quantify and the ones Cameron is allowing in, plus the ones waiting in Calais or making their way here now. Oh my.


That was only to England in one year with Scotland and wales it was a total of 498,000.

As regards illegal, There is a FOI request to the office of national statistics requesting figures, there reply was:-

*Response*
By its very nature it is impossible to quantify accurately the number of people who are in the country illegally. For this reason ONS does not produce estimates on the size of the illegal migrant population. (AKA probably pretty clueless)

However they carry on with this.

In June 2005, the Home Office published the outcome of an assessment of whether methods used in other countries to estimate the size of the illegal population could be applied to the UK. The outcome estimated that the total unauthorised migrant population living in the UK in 2001 was 430,000. Please see the following reports for more information:


29/05 - Sizing the unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in the United Kingdom: 
http://css.escwa.org.lb/SD/1017/MIGRANTpop_in_UK.pdf

58/04 - Sizing the illegally resident population in the UK: 
http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/mru/docs/sizing_illegal_pop.pdf
So they seem to have come up with a possible 430,000 or it was in 2001.

Apparently the London school of economics did an estimate in 2007

A further report has been written by the London School of Economics, which estimates that in 2007 the number of 'irregular' migrants was 533,000.
That though was 8 years ago now.


Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK: 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/London/pdf/irregular%20migrants%20full%20report.pdf
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons...ation/illegal-immigrants-in-the-uk/index.html


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> "Satori said:
> 
> 
> > One interpretation could be: Women and children were migrating to safety in neighbouring countries through 2011-2013 while men of military age fought ISIL. The latter, having now given up have to flee but are already estranged from their families? But then why Europe?
> ...


 Thats what I have trouble understanding TBH. I mean we are an island at the very end of Europe and we dont border any war torn or strife ridden countries. I think if I was fleeing somewhere for fear of my life then I would try and settle in the nearest safe country I could find. Mind you, living in the SE probably does skew my perspective slightly!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

> The latest Government data on vacant dwellings shows over 610,000 empty homes in England with over 200,000 long-term vacant dwellings (that is homes unoccupied for over six months). .


source: http://www.emptyhomes.com/

Yet we cant possibly manage to find homes for the 10000 refugees waiting at calais can we? Neither for our homeless. cos money is more important than people, everyone knows that, if not you're a bleeding heart!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Britt said:


> I'm a cop


suddenly it all makes sense


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

porps said:


> suddenly it all makes sense


Yeah right. And the band played believe me if you like and I wasn't born yesterday.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

I think its important to help out others, but someone said something somewhere that made me concerned. From what they said there was a possibility that some of the people claiming refuge could actually be members of isis and taking advantage of whats currently going on to find a way to gain entry into our country and others.

I think we should allow them to refuge here and help them through educating etc and once their country has settled they all go back and are able to help them further their country for future generations.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

MrRustyRead said:


> I think we should allow them to refuge here and help them through educating etc and once their country has settled they all go back and are able to help them further their country for future generations.


Most of them have no intention of ever returning, what sticks in my throat is some come from countries where our troops (and our allies) have fought and died to remove dictators and evil regimes like the taliban and they still come and stop here...


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> Most of them have no intention of ever returning, what sticks in my throat is some come from countries where our troops (and our allies) have fought and died to remove dictators and evil regimes like the taliban and they still come and stop here...


And I expect it sticks in their throat that they have to seek refuge in one of the countries that bombed the shit out of their country and 'made' isis in the first place. I wonder how many deaths there are when you compare them? UK military / men women and children in those countries? Yet it doesn't stick in your throat that they were murdered in their own homes and streets?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Please watch this extraordinary, moving moment as German people shout 'Welcome' as Syrian refugees arrive in Munich airport. I would be so proud if I were German.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/640154181383229440
.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

brilliant stuff germany


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> Most of them have no intention of ever returning, what sticks in my throat is some come from countries where our troops (and our allies) have fought and died to remove dictators and evil regimes like the taliban and they still come and stop here...


How many refugees were there before we destroyed their countries ?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> How many refugees were there before we destroyed their countries ?


*Blame Blair! I dare you..............








*


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

porps said:


> source: http://www.emptyhomes.com/
> 
> Yet we cant possibly manage to find homes for the 10000 refugees waiting at calais can we? Neither for our homeless. cos money is more important than people, everyone knows that, if not you're a bleeding heart!


Ony problem is where are the majority of these homes?, probably not in the already densely populated areas like London and the south east. Even shelter confirm on the subject of vacant housing.

Shelter has found that there are 279,000 long-term privately owned empty homes in England, a real waste of housing when there are so many homeless families looking for somewhere to live.

However, with demand for homes reaching more than one million over the next five years, and many empty homes being in a different part of the country to where they are most needed, it's clear that we must build new homes as well.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/campa...ousing_crisis/building_more_homes/empty_homes
Don't forget too again all these figures and predictions were set before the new crisis.
It still comes down to basics, when you have a limited area that's built up and already densely populated there is only a certain amount you can do to it,
if not already if will become trying to stick a square peg in a round hole if the influx continues at the same or especially a higher rate.

Trouble is people still want to move to the more already densely populated areas and or settle here when they arrive. They don't want to move to some of the less densely populated areas. A lot of it is pprobably due to the fact that they assume places like London and the southeast will have less unemployment and there will be more jobs. Problem is that isn't the case a lot of the time, the denser a population becomes, the more strain on hospitals and schools and housing, and there is already limited space to build more in these areas as it is, never mind the funding to do it.

This telegraph article explains that although on paper and in theory it will solve the problem in practice it likely wont.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...-homes-will-not-solve-the-housing-crisis.html


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> *Blame Blair! I dare you.*


I blame the deluded. Particularly that lunatic Bush who told the world 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' 
Thing is, God failed to give the lying little 845t4rd a gun and put him on the front line.

It's about time those power hungry maniacs who desire war were made to fight the war they desired instead of hoodwinking the populace and then sending their children to do the dirty work.
If only they were to make that most honourable of gestures, I wonder how many shots would be fired in anger or aggression?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

@Sled dog hotel

couple of things to say about that - firstly, if these refugees would refuse homes because they happen to be in the north rather than the south east i would be extremely surprised.

second thing is, if the southeast is the only desirable place to live then we need new industry and opportunities in the rest of the country. I dont think the solution is just to keep building houses daaaan saaaarf while the north empties, i think the solution is to provide employment oop norf so that existing empty houses become more desirable.

To me, the fact is theres many homes empty. And while theyre empty i dont buy the "we're too full" argument. Fine, when we do get too full, thats a valid arguement, but clearly we're not right now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Colliebarmy said:


> Most of them have no intention of ever returning, what sticks in my throat is some come from countries where our troops (and our allies) have fought and died to remove dictators and evil regimes like the taliban and they still come and stop here...


Our troops (headed by our elected leaders) destabilized their country and destroyed their infrastructure. Please don't buy in to the propaganda that we went in there to remove the Taliban - that's the story that looks good on paper. It was all about keeping the people in power that we want to keep in power. Yet again history lessons evade us. The 60's 70's and 80's in Central America should have been a hint, but 40 years later we're back at it again.

As for "them", this Serb has an intention of returning. Why wouldn't someone want to return to their homeland?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...notebook/migrants/belgrade-volunteer-refugees


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> To me, the fact is theres many homes empty. And while theyre empty i dont buy the "we're too full" argument. Fine, when we do get too full, thats a valid arguement, but clearly we're not right now.


Then why is my local council being forced to build 800 new homes a year for the next 20 years? That's my local district council not the county one

No mention of infrastructure either


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Then why is my local council being forced to build 800 new homes a year for the next 20 years? That's my local district council not the county one
> 
> No mention of infrastructure either


Because people arent living in the ones that are already built? Because you live in a desirable area? i have no idea, i dont know where you live so it's hard for me to do anything other than hazard guesses


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Can I indulge in one more history lesson?


Satori said:


> But I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.


To be clear, the above quote is Peter Hitchens, not Satori.

For 800 years, up to 1492, Europe did merge it's culture with North Africa and the Middle East. They were the Moors that inhabited the Iberian Peninsula and brought with them advances in science, medicine, mathematics... Has anyone ever wondered why we use *Arabic* numerals when we write 1, 2, 3, 4, and not I, II, III, IV? We owe a lot of our culture, language, and understanding of the physical world to the Arab influence in Europe.

But just in general, what is so bad about the mixing of cultures? And why do we specifically want to avoid mixing with North Africa and the Middle East?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> But just in general, what is so bad about the mixing of cultures? And why do we specifically want to avoid mixing with North Africa and the Middle East?


There is nothing wrong with mixing cultures but it rarely happens. Like attracts like, be that Brit ex pats in Spain/France or Afghanis/Polish in the UK & it's quite understandable. While we talk about (& hope for) true integration between races, religions, cultures it's a pipe dream...
Certainly in the UK there are numerous areas that are almost exclusively white while others are pretty much Asian or afro Caribbean. It's natural that immigrants, whoever they are, will cluster together. Changing this will take generations, if it can actually be achieved at all...IMO


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> There is nothing wrong with mixing cultures but it rarely happens. Like attracts like, be that Brit ex pats in Spain/France or Afghanis/Polish in the UK & it's quite understandable. While we talk about (& hope for) true integration between races, religions, cultures it's a pipe dream...
> Certainly in the UK there are numerous areas that are almost exclusively white while others are pretty much Asian or afro Caribbean. It's natural that immigrants, whoever they are, will cluster together. Changing this will take generations, if it can actually be achieved at all...IMO


There are also numerous areas where many different cultures really are intergrated- i live in one of them so i know this to be true.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

porps said:


> There are also numerous areas where many different cultures really are intergrated- i live in one of them so i know this to be true.


I hope so as we are then taking the first step but I would like to know what we class as "integrated"?


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> But just in general, what is so bad about the mixing of cultures? And why do we specifically want to avoid mixing with North Africa and the Middle East?


First you will need to specify who "we" are. If I'm in "we" then "we" don't. If I'm not in "we" then "we" do. It's Xenophobia. I don't think it's particularly restricted to North Africa and the Middle East either. You can lump in Asia too.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rona said:


> Then why is my local council being forced to build 800 new homes a year for the next 20 years? That's my local district council not the county one
> 
> No mention of infrastructure either


Our city council has to find space for 1,200 homes, in the South East. The district council is building two new towns. PF has covered housing stock after the George Clarke Empty Homes programme which went into much more detail about the red tape surrounding this.

Anyway I'd counter the home building argument by saying a humanitarian crisis, no matter who is at risk, shows just how pointless the red tape is and it needs to stop now. It is stupid in the face of homelessness in this country and it's stupid in the face of the the global situation.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> I hope so as we are then taking the first step but I would like to know what we class as "integrated"?


When people stop writing stuff like post #135


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Trouble with threads like this is that emotions are normally one of the driving forces and people like to play the "moral high ground". Yes, we need to help these people but care must be taken. It's not simply a matter of opening arms wide and saying come on. The background infrastructure needs to be there and a plan to assist integration. Not simply take them and forget about them. That means looking at all sides of the issues including the ones which may not be "morally" acceptable for some.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> I hope so as we are then taking the first step but I would like to know what we class as "integrated"?


I'm struggling to explain it without using the word intergrated... maybe i should post this instead: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lish-second-language-home-migrants-globe.html

The community round here is actually better than anywhere else i've lived, i enjoy the mix of cultures, and it really _is _mixed... I suspect it would be a horrible place to live if someone was determined to "stick to their own kind".


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

porps said:


> @Sled dog hotel
> 
> couple of things to say about that - firstly, if these refugees would refuse homes because they happen to be in the north rather than the south east i would be extremely surprised.
> 
> ...


If that's the case then why do so many migrants come to the UK particularly England in the first place, no one dictates to them where to settle. These are for one year as an example.

In 2012, 435,000 long-term international migrants arrived to live in England, which is 87% of the total 498,000 long-term immigrants to the UK. Scotland received 34,000 long-term immigrants (7% of total), 16,000 people (3% of total) immigrated to Wales and 12,000 people (2% of total) immigrated to Northern Ireland. England, Scotland and Wales had more long-term immigrants than long-term emigrants in 2012, with net migration figures of 158,000,14,000 and 8,000 respectively. By contrast, Northern Ireland had more long-term emigrants than long-term immigrants, resulting in a net outflow of 2,000.

498,000 in one year, 435,000 of them in England. If you read the post about housing figures and areas in a previous post you would see the estimate that needed, how many which actually built and what the shortfall was. What do you really think is going to happen, if numbers like that are arriving in a short space of time, where there is already drastic shortfalls on housing and resources, not to mention limited land to put them on in the first place.

The link to shelter already said that yes whilst there is empty houses, a lot of these are in areas where housing isn't such an issue in the first place. If there isn't any employment and you did make use of the houses in these areas, what are they going to do for work, they cant get work then more strain on the benefits system.

Yes the ideal would be to make new opportunities for employment in these areas making them more attractive, but how many businesses have closed and are closing in the last few years especailly during the recession? Huge businesses that were around for years and once making profits folded, is there is a recession then businesses go under and new ones cant always take off.

You say that you would be surprised if refuges would refuse homes because they were up north, but don't forget many have to pass through lots of other countries who are possibly in better shape and not so densely populated. So it its just a case of being safe and wanting to be away from the conflict and not being that fussy there are other countries they are already in or passing through, that are willing and able to take them, why don't they stay there.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

diefenbaker said:


> When people stop writing stuff like post #135


Why?


----------



## Jellypi3 (Jan 3, 2014)

I'm actually quite shocked by what I've been reading. 

I for one have never been so ashamed of being British, especially in light of Germany and Austria's open arms recently. Who'd had thought Germany would be seen as the nicest country in Europe (no slight on German people, I love Germany!). 

At the end of the day, these people aren't leaving their homes and families to come to Europe to claim benefits. They are doing so to be safe. We are lucky that we live in a country that offers help to those in need, but you really think, in light of seeing family members killed, homes destroyed and all out warfare in their home countries these people give a toss about benefits? They just want to be safe, and people all over are saying we should deny them that priviledge. 

Totally gobsmacked. I just hope those of you commending this disgrace of an article never ever find yourself in a situation where you are fleeing for your families lives and come across the same level of hostilty that has been expressed here.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> First you will need to specify who "we" are. If I'm in "we" then "we" don't. If I'm not in "we" then "we" do. It's Xenophobia. I don't think it's particularly restricted to North Africa and the Middle East either. You can lump in Asia too.


"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
-Terry Pratchet


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> If that's the case then why do so many migrants come to the UK particularly England in the first place, no one dictates to them where to settle. These are for one year as an example.
> 
> In 2012, 435,000 long-term international migrants arrived to live in England, which is 87% of the total 498,000 long-term immigrants to the UK. Scotland received 34,000 long-term immigrants (7% of total), 16,000 people (3% of total) immigrated to Wales and 12,000 people (2% of total) immigrated to Northern Ireland. England, Scotland and Wales had more long-term immigrants than long-term emigrants in 2012, with net migration figures of 158,000,14,000 and 8,000 respectively. By contrast, Northern Ireland had more long-term emigrants than long-term immigrants, resulting in a net outflow of 2,000.
> 
> ...


Well heres one idea, and lets face it, theres smarter people than me out there so if i can come up with one idea of how to create many many jobs, surely oither smarter better informed people can come up with still more..

so here goes - Legalise cannabis.
Boom, new industry and employment created.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

porps said:


> I'm struggling to explain it without using the word intergrated... maybe i should post this instead: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lish-second-language-home-migrants-globe.html
> 
> The community round here is actually better than anywhere else i've lived, i enjoy the mix of cultures, and it really _is _mixed... I suspect it would be a horrible place to live if someone was determined to "stick to their own kind".


That's probably an example of how it should be, fair play... it's good to see people just getting along. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> How do you know they do? Why do so many bypass safe European countries (bearing in mind they're supposed to stop in the first safe country they come to) to head elsewhere?





catz4m8z said:


> And why not the physically closer and more culturally suited middle Eastern countries? Who, btw, are at least, equally well set up to welcome massive influxes of new people as European countries?





> Thats what I have trouble understanding TBH. I mean we are an island at the very end of Europe and we dont border any war torn or strife ridden countries. I think if I was fleeing somewhere for fear of my life then I would try and settle in the nearest safe country I could find. Mind you, living in the SE probably does skew my perspective slightly!


How long would these "safe" countries be "safe" for though? How long before war spreads into neighbouring (and therefore "safe") countries and the refugees find themselves in the same situation again? You say you would/they should settle in the first "safe" country they/you come across. Would you really do that if you're in a blind panic and fleeing for your life? Because if I were in their situation, I'd want to get as far away from my war-torn homeland and put as many "safe" countries between me and it as possible.

Why do I see all this ending in WW3?  Maybe I'm just being paranoid - I actually hope so.

ETA: The other thing worthy of note is, presumably, the "first safe country" these people come across will be more or less limited to a handful, correct? So if they all stayed in the same "safe" country they came to, how soon before that one really couldn't accept any more?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

One thing I dislike - apart from Peter Hitchens in general - is the claim that if I, or anyone, is serious about helping refugees then I should be prepared to welcome them into my home, and that if I'm not then my opinion is somehow invalid.

Of course I wouldn't invite them into my home. I'd be reluctant to invite my best friend into my home! I'd be happy if they moved in next door, though, so long as they obeyed the laws of the land, and I'd help them as neighbours as I would any other.

I don't see why that means my opinion can be dismissed by the likes of Hitchens.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> That's probably an example of how it should be, fair play... it's good to see people just getting along. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come


agreed.. and then i read the comments below the article and remember why i hate people. Oh ok, "some" people


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> Why?


The people of Birmingham seem to have a slight problem with this view of the world... some of the comments are very funny.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Further to illustrate the problem already here, St Mungos have published figures on rough sleeping. Figures went up 16% in 2014/15

In response to the publication today of London's yearly rough sleeping statistics, St Mungo's Broadway calls for more help to support rough sleepers off the streets, as the figures show an increase of 16% in people sleeping rough compared to 2013-14.

A total of 7,581 people slept rough during 2014-15 according to the CHAIN Greater London report 2014-15. This report presents information about people seen rough sleeping by outreach teams in London from the Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN), commissioned by the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Howard Sinclair, Chief Executive of St Mungo's Broadway, said: "The rise in the number of people seen sleeping rough is deeply concerning. This is a problem affecting many different groups. The number of people from the UK seen sleeping rough in 2014-15 increased by nine per cent to 3,212 people, but it is also clear that new groups of people are ending up on our capital's streets who have very different stories and reasons for being there, with migration from Romania being a significant driver in these most recent figures. We should be careful not to jump to conclusions on short term trends, but we do know that traditional routes off the streets are often not available or appropriate for these groups.

"We believe that people living on the streets following migration is an issue which requires a joined-up policy approach from the UK government and the European Union as much as from local government. We will be raising this at a European homelessness conference in Paris this weekend.

"Our outreach teams, along with others, continue to offer personalised support to help people as quickly as possible, particularly the most vulnerable, including reconnecting someone back with their home area in the UK or in Europe. The No Second Night Out hubs, commissioned by the GLA, are an important part of this approach. Last year 34 per cent of new rough sleepers attended No Second Night Out (NSNO) and 1,493 (86 per cent) of these people were not seen rough sleeping again in the year.

"These figures, however, demand scrutiny beyond the stark headline numbers. Worryingly, they show that the number of people who've previously slept rough and are returning to the streets is rising, this year by 20 per cent. We need to ask what more can be done for these people, what gaps need to be filled to prevent repeat homelessness.

http://www.mungosbroadway.org.uk/press_office/2305_rough-sleeping-in-london-still-on-the-rise


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

BlackadderUK said:


> There is nothing wrong with mixing cultures but it rarely happens. Like attracts like, be that Brit ex pats in Spain/France or Afghanis/Polish in the UK & it's quite understandable. While we talk about (& hope for) true integration between races, religions, cultures it's a pipe dream...
> Certainly in the UK there are numerous areas that are almost exclusively white while others are pretty much Asian or afro Caribbean. It's natural that immigrants, whoever they are, will cluster together. Changing this will take generations, if it can actually be achieved at all...IMO


Didn't read past this, so if someone already replied, please excuse my repetition.

"It rarely happens"? Uh, quite the contrary. Cultural mixing and blending is pretty much ubiquitous throughout the world throughout history. None of us - unless we're living in some remote Amazonian jungle are immune from cultural blending. The language you speak, the religion you practice, the food you eat, the way you raise your children, are all a blend of the cultures that have influenced yours before you came along.

If you would like a more modern example, may I introduce you to the good old US of A with the national motto "E Pluribus Unum". Out of many, one. The early republic knew this would be a country of immigrants and for all the US's many (many) faults, it has manage to unify an incredible diversity of cultures and peoples in to one successful nation.

So no, not a pipe dream, not a pipe dream at all.

Perhaps though, this is part of the problem. If folks are looking at their own backyard as an example of how the world works, no wonder there is so much confusion and, I hate to say it, but xenophobia. We really do need to step outside of our comfort zone and explore the possibilities outside our own small experiences.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> The people of Birmingham seem to have a slight problem with this view of the world... some of the comments are very funny.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims


Those comments are brilliant!


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> So no, not a pipe dream, not a pipe dream at all.


I'm dreaming the pipe baby. I have no idea what this means. But it sounds hip and cool.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

diefenbaker said:


> I'm dreaming the pipe baby. I have no idea what this means. But it sounds hip and cool.


Or stoned


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

We're not a big as country as France & Germany though so it's understandable they can 'welcome' more people in. We have people in our own country who are being ignored/jobless/homeless etc etc. It just creates more demand that can't already be fulfilled. I don't see any workable solution as things stand at the moment.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

Maybe we should try looking after the needy we already have like those soldiers coming back from war


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

1. If you are trying to escape Muslim extremists, would you run to another Muslim country next door to the one you just dropped everything to save your family from, where it is possible the extremists could spill into at any moment? No. You would run to somewhere you believe to be safe, you would run to be as far as possible, you would do anything to protect your children.

2. A lot of people are aiming for a specific place because they already know people there, eg. relatives who immigrated a decade ago, who are saying there is somewhere to stay for them there (as in, with the relatives, not as in, "come here and claim all the benefits and get free stuff!!!").

3. When you arrive in the first country you get to after fleeing war, and they are telling you there is no space for you and the refugees who arrived before you, and they don't want you there and are trying to fob you off to the next country along, why would you even bother to stop? You would keep moving, see if the next country, or the next country will allow you refuge.

4. Is it really that confusing that some people will be heading towards a place where they already speak a bit of the language? I read an article (but can't remember where) where an independent journalist went and interviewed a bunch of refugees. Most of them say that they are aiming for eg. France because they speak a bit of French, or they think the UK would be good for them because they speak a bit of English.

By the way, I'm not saying open the gates and let all and sundry in, obviously our country needs to work it out and gear ourselves up to be able to take care of all these extra people. It's the commenters going on clearly _pretending_ they care about the infrastructure when it's pretty obvious by what they're saying that they are just incredibly xenophobic. Sorry not sorry about being a bleeding heart.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

tinaK said:


> Maybe we should try looking after the needy we already have like those soldiers coming back from war


Isn't that what Help for Heroes does ? There is nothing to stop people doing both.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> We're not a big as country as France & Germany though so it's understandable they can 'welcome' more people in. We have people in our own country who are being ignored/jobless/homeless etc etc. It just creates more demand that can't already be fulfilled. I don't see any workable solution as things stand at the moment.


But the UK is not hurting for resources as has already been pointed out. If there are houses sitting empty, and perfectly good food being thrown away, that is not an issue of resources, but an issue of distribution of resources. How do we know that bringing these people in won't be the catalyst that causes those resources to be distributed more evenly?

Basically the way I see it, there are two options. One, put your smart people to work figuring out how to keep these people out. Two, put your smart people to work figuring out how to include these people and provide for them. I'm thinking if efforts go in to option two, that will also ameliorate the situation for the needy already in the UK, because it's based on a different premise. If all efforts go in to keeping people out, I'm just seeing more resources being diverted away from the needy in order to keep the status quo. (I'm not articulating this as clearly as I would like, so I hope it makes sense!)


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Just an example of the difficulties as we have a "camp" nearby. Volunteers went to donate stuff and assist. End result fighting broke out. Wasn't desparation or everyone out for themselves, it was due to ethnic tension. Now this is one of the multiple problems which need to be considered. If they can't stop ethnic fights how are they going to integrate? Hopefully not unsolveable but one which demonstrates it's not a case of "let them in and it will work out".


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> But the UK is not hurting for resources as has already been pointed out. If there are houses sitting empty, and perfectly good food being thrown away, that is not an issue of resources, but an issue of distribution of resources. How do we know that bringing these people in won't be the catalyst that causes those resources to be distributed more evenly?
> 
> Basically the way I see it, there are two options. One, put your smart people to work figuring out how to keep these people out. Two, put your smart people to work figuring out how to include these people and provide for them. I'm thinking if efforts go in to option two, that will also ameliorate the situation for the needy already in the UK, because it's based on a different premise. If all efforts go in to keeping people out, I'm just seeing more resources being diverted away from the needy in order to keep the status quo. (I'm not articulating this as clearly as I would like, so I hope it makes sense!)


I just believe the governments should get our house in order before opening the doors to offer help to others. Provisions need to be in place prior to doing so, not hastily/half heartily put into place afterwards IMO.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

tinaK said:


> Maybe we should try looking after the needy we already have *like* those soldiers coming back from war





diefenbaker said:


> Isn't that what Help for Heroes does ? There is nothing to stop people doing both.


i believe Tina used that as an example, she could just have easily have said the homeless, the disabled, those using food banks or a multitude of others in our society who are struggling. I know it's not the same as fleeing for your life but infrastructure, homes and funding do need addressing


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

rona said:


> i believe Tina used that as an example, she could just have easily have said the homeless, the disabled, those using food banks or a multitude of others in our society who are struggling. I know it's not the same as fleeing for your life but infrastructure, homes and funding do need addressing


So... who are "we"... and what is it that you think you know about what I do for any of those groups ? What you may actually find is that those who are sympathetic to the plight of the refugees are also doing other things that you do not know about. Helping one group of people is not mutually exclusive to helping another group of people.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> So... who are "we"... and what is it that you think you know about what I do for any of those groups ? What you may actually find is that those who are sympathetic to the plight of the refugees are also doing other things that you do not know about. Helping one group of people is not mutually exclusive to helping another group of people.


Eh, where did that come from?

I've no idea why you think I've judged anyone

Oh I see that Tina used we..........could we possibly mean us as a nation?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I really don't know the answer & of course would never want to turn away those in desperate need. I do think we should take refugees & have a duty to do ... but I do also think we need to look at how we are going to fund those who come here.

I do also think that we can't ignore that there are tensions towards people of different ethnicities in some areas, to simply write them off as bigoted is ignoring their concerns & the problems they may also be facing. I don't think it helps that there are so many incorrect/exaggerated stories or that fly around on social media that serve no purpose except to encourage a xenaphobic attitude.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It's not my country, I just live here. I don't own a country, or even a small part of one. I pay my taxes and I'm more than happy for my taxes to be used to help those worse off than I am, including, but not exclusively, refugees from war torn countries who could have done with a bit more help a lot earlier. I'm not happy for my tax money to be used to kill badgers, or support dictatorships, or a billion other things it's used for that I don't agree with. But not only do I not own a country, I don't run one either and as far as I'm concerned, most of the people who do are people I wouldn't give the time of day and the more I read about them, the less I like them. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, they say. I'm more inclined to think those who aspire to power are corrupt already, they don't need any help. They just manipulate, or terrify the masses into doing what they want them to. Ours were trying to manipulate us into lack of sympathy and dismissal of the refugees, calling them swarms etc. now they're trying to manipulate us into believing that the powerful are also compassionate. My lord, they might lose the next election, can't have that. :Vomit Theirs threaten them with 'off with their heads' instead. Of course they're running, so would I. Europe (and the US and the wealthy arab countries and a thousand other places and peoples) can easily afford to help genuine refugees, they shouldn't have needed to pay people smugglers in the first place. It's ridiculous that their homelands are destroyed by war, terror and (false) religion in this day and age. What is the matter with people?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Elles said:


> It's ridiculous their homelands are destroyed by war, terror and (false) religion in this day and age. What is the matter with people?


You might have been more honest with the above statement and prefixed war and terror with the word false too. All these things are man made and man made the pandemonium (humanitarian emergency) as a consequence of his falsehoods.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

rona said:


> Eh, where did that come from?
> 
> I've no idea why you think I've judged anyone
> 
> Oh I see that Tina used we..........could we possibly mean us as a nation?


No comment on the point in question then.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> If you would like a more modern example, may I introduce you to the good old US of A with the national motto "E Pluribus Unum". Out of many, one. The early republic knew this would be a country of immigrants and for all the US's many (many) faults, it has manage to unify an incredible diversity of cultures and peoples in to one successful nation.
> 
> So no, not a pipe dream, not a pipe dream at all.


Having never been to the USA I'll have to ask... are you saying that there are no mainly Mexican (Hispanic), Chinese, African American (insert other) areas in your cities?


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

BlackadderUK said:


> Having never been to the USA I'll have to ask... are you saying that there are no mainly Mexican (Hispanic), Chinese, African American (insert other) areas in your cities?


Of course there are, Chinatown in NY and San Fran are awesome. But what does that have to do with not integrating?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> I really don't know the answer & of course would never want to turn away those in desperate need. I do think we should take refugees & have a duty to do ... but I do also think we need to look at how we are going to fund those who come here.
> 
> I do also think that we can't ignore that there are tensions towards people of different ethnicities in some areas, to simply write them off as bigoted is ignoring their concerns & the problems they may also be facing. I don't think it helps that there are so many incorrect/exaggerated stories or that fly around on social media that serve no purpose except to encourage a xenaphobic attitude.


I think you have a point.

I live in a city that has a bit of a reputation as being tough and somewhere you really wouldn't want to live if you had a choice.
We have relatively high unemployment, a crisis in affordable housing stock, a very poor educational reputation, real poverty, and a disproportionately large number of UKIP councilors. All our lives my family have faced racial bigotry (and yes, most of it _is_ bigotry) and to be honest, it is only family ties that brought us back here.

Over the weekend, this city made the news for their collection for refugees, which took off so quickly and was so generous that many locals were actually astounded. Perhaps attitudes had changed?

Then I looked at the news reports and saw the comments underneath. Most of them were ignorant, uninformed and in some cases downright cruel. In fact, the kind of comments you hear uttered in many pubs here on a Saturday night (then to be taken outside with drastic consequences...).

We have a pretty wide cultural mix here, but we don't have the wide cultural acceptance to go with it.

If I was a refugee sent here, I think I would want to leave again pretty quickly.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't accept refugees and I'm not saying that we shouldn't accept economic migrants either (particularly as many of them have added a richness in culture and employment to this city). But I do think that a real strategy has to be worked out which not only encompasses immigrant needs, but also takes account of the needs of people who already live here. Because at the moment many of the people living here have very little hope for their families. And this has already turned into racial and ethnic hatred which at the moment can only get worse.

So yes, please help the refugees. But help local people as well.
It is possible to do both.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Of course there are, Chinatown in NY and San Fran are awesome. But what does that have to do with not integrating?


If most of the Chinese in New York live/work in one area known as "Chinatown" is that really integration?


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

Why don't countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Spain, Greece and others don't take any refugees? I just heard on TV that the number of refugees depends on how big the country is and how strong the economy is. That might explain it. The European Union wants us to take more than 4,000 .... France and Germany should get about 20,000 each.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> No comment on the point in question then.


I haven't a clue what you are on about,


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I cant work out how folk who slag off the government, berate the benefit cuts and carp on about the housing shortage want the country to take in 100,000 extra bodies to house, feed and care for, even I can work out the cake wont slice any better..........


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

rona said:


> I haven't a clue what you are on about,


Oh no. Has Alfie found out your password again ?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> I cant work out how folk who slag off the government, berate the benefit cuts and carp on about the housing shortage want the country to take in 100,000 extra bodies to house, feed and care for, even I can work out the cake wont slice any better..........


No. But if the fat cat politicians cut thinner slices for themselves they'd be more to go around for everyone else.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> Oh no. Has Alfie found out your password again ?


Are you on something?  

Why don't you just tell me what you meant?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> Having never been to the USA I'll have to ask... are you saying that there are no mainly Mexican (Hispanic), Chinese, African American (insert other) areas in your cities?


Practically the whole of the USA aside from the original native peoples was made up of migrants any way, different nationalities colonised different areas of the states. The difference though I should imagine was that there was nothing much particularly there in the first place when they arrived. Don't normally Like to use Wiki as a reference but in this case its a convenient one to explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

rona said:


> Are you on something?


Yes.


rona said:


> Why don't you just tell me what you meant?


No. If you want to know why certain debating tactics annoy me you can PM me.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Britt said:


> Why don't countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Spain, Greece and others don't take any refugees? I just heard on TV that the number of refugees depends on how big the country is and how strong the economy is. That might explain it. The European Union wants us to take more than 4,000 .... France and Germany should get about 20,000 each.


They are not objects!


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> I cant work out how folk who slag off the government, berate the benefit cuts and carp on about the housing shortage want the country to take in 100,000 extra bodies to house, feed and care for, even I can work out the cake wont slice any better..........


Where are you getting the 100,000 from? Did you pluck it out your @ss?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> Yes.
> 
> No. If you want to know why certain debating tactics annoy me you can PM me.


No thanks, got slightly more important things to deal with


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Something's wrong I agree with Colliebarmy...... what's happening to me?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.w...-crisis-simplified-for-idiots-and-xenophobes/


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

BlackadderUK said:


> If most of the Chinese in New York live/work in one area known as "Chinatown" is that really integration?





BlackadderUK said:


> If most of the Chinese in New York live/work in one area known as "Chinatown" is that really integration?


No, you misunderstand. Chinese immigrants don't all live in Chinatown. They live all over the place, and people who aren't Chinese may even live in Chinatown. It's an exchange of cultures, immigrants infuse some of their culture in while also adopting the resident culture. Ever heard of the "melting pot"? We all kind of blend in together. 
Despite what Hollywood and mainstream media portray, we do manage our incredible diversity well. It's pretty cool actually. Just spent most of the day at a Fall festival, and there was definitely a diversity of peoples and languages and foods, but we were all out there having fun together.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Muze said:


> Something's wrong I agree with Colliebarmy...... what's happening to me?


that happened to me the other day too. I know it's scary, but stay calm, it will pass.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Like calls to like, so if a group of one ethnic minority sets up in say Streatham (Columbian community) then their friends, relatives and other Colombians will follow and want to live there. Saw it when I worked there, every fortnight, more Columbians arrived. My South American Spanish improved exponentially.

When I was growing up, the bus to town went through a certain area which was predominantly Pakistani. The French kids at school all go to a Saturday school together. It's human nature, you go to what is familiar because others like you have arrived, set up the relevant community, including shops that sell familiar items and an area is created which contains many of the same nationality, like Costa del Britain to be seen in certain Spanish towns. There may be the relevant place of worship, too, or maybe the correct religious school nearby.

The world may be one nation as some are trying to say, but people with the same language and heritage will inevitably set up areas and live there because of the need for familiarity when moving elsewhere. Integration is *not *really occurring.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.w...-crisis-simplified-for-idiots-and-xenophobes/


great article.. particuarly liked this bit...



> Getting back to the point about sending off our own unwanted xenophobes on reverse-journey boats, it's beginning to seem like a more and more viable solution. It could be a sort of _exchange_; we take a thousand refugees in and send off a thousand readers of _The Sun_ to live in Libya or Syria or Iraq or Eritrea; everything is nicely balanced that way.
> 
> *Or better yet, everyone who was in favour of the war on Libya or the invasion of Iraq can be sent to livein post-war Libya or post-war Iraq*. That's poetic justice, surely. David Cameron would _love_ a weekend in Gaddafi's old home-town of Sirte - ISIS only executed 100 people there last week; those are decent odds. And there's got be a Baghdad bungalow with Dick Cheney's or George Bush's name on it, just waiting for them to move in.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.w...-crisis-simplified-for-idiots-and-xenophobes/


That's an excellent article.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-this-to-you-but-youre-an-idiot-10489719.html


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hang on just a minute. People who fought in Iraq were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was using biological warfare on his own people, of course they were in favour. They went to liberate the people. They didn't go to take the country for religious fanatics and terrorists. They risked their lives and died to improve the lives of others. I'm sorry, but I don't agree we're to blame for ISIL. ISIL are to blame for ISIL and Saddam Hussein was a dictator. We can do without either of them.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Muze said:


> Something's wrong I agree with Colliebarmy...... what's happening to me?


He created a logical fallacy for you to believe and you went for it. Or maybe it was just because he mentioned cake.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Elles said:


> Hang on just a minute. People who fought in Iraq were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was using biological warfare on his own people, of course they were in favour. They went to liberate the people. They didn't go to take the country for religious fanatics and terrorists. They risked their lives and died to improve the lives of others. I'm sorry, but I don't agree we're to blame for ISIL. ISIL are to blame for ISIL and Saddam Hussein was a dictator. We can do without either of them.


There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush & company lied.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

deleted


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Elles said:


> Hang on just a minute. People who fought in Iraq were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was using biological warfare on his own people, of course they were in favour. They went to liberate the people. They didn't go to take the country for religious fanatics and terrorists. They risked their lives and died to improve the lives of others. I'm sorry, but I don't agree we're to blame for ISIL. ISIL are to blame for ISIL and Saddam Hussein was a dictator. We can do without either of them.


The argument is that undesirable as these regimes were, they were keeping a lid on things, and what's come up in the aftermath is actually much worse.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> The argument is that undesirable as these regimes were, they were keeping a lid on things, and what's come up in the aftermath is actually much worse.


Much worse for who? I'm not sure that is always the case. Depends who you are

What about a Kurd...............


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush & company lied.


Bush and company didn't fight in Iraq or risk their lives.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Elles said:


> Hang on just a minute. People who fought in Iraq were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was using biological warfare on his own people, of course they were in favour. They went to liberate the people. They didn't go to take the country for religious fanatics and terrorists. They risked their lives and died to improve the lives of others. I'm sorry, but I don't agree we're to blame for ISIL. ISIL are to blame for ISIL and Saddam Hussein was a dictator. We can do without either of them.


Saddam was indeed a dictator. There was also a vendetta simmering amongst the Bush dynasty. GHW wanted rid of him but failed so that legacy was passed on to little George W4nker...Sorry I mean George Walker Bush. Of course the fact that he was a dictator disguised their real reasons for getting rid of him.

Texas Black Gold aka OIL.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Lol probably the cake..... or maybe because I feel like I've doing the 'right' thing for so long and have got nowhere. 

The people at the bottom in the UK are being shredded, however hard they try, you can hardly blame them for being a bit resentful that suddenly several billion £ and plentiful housing is available to support middle class Syrians.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

diefenbaker said:


> Bush and company didn't fight in Iraq or risk their lives.


Nope, they sent wide-eyed young men and women to die under false pretenses. Which I one of the reasons I liked that article @MollySmith posted. Let's send them back over.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

rona said:


> Much worse for who? I'm not sure that is always the case. Depends who you are


It's not a question of who. It's a question of how many. The death tolls before and after are in the hundreds of thousands. Whichever way you look at it it's uncomfortable reading.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Zaros said:


> Saddam was indeed a dictator. There was also a vendetta simmering amongst the Bush dynasty. GHW wanted rid of him but failed so that legacy was passed on to little George W4nker...Sorry I mean George Walker Bush. Of course the fact that he was a dictator disguised their real reasons for getting rid of him.
> 
> Texas Black Gold aka OIL.


That an just having a foothold in that part of the world. Seriously, did no one pay attention to what happened in Central America in the 70's? It's almost a carbon copy of old white men putting who they want in power and making up stories for why they have to get involved. Except back then they did it under the radar and let the CIA handle it. 
There really is a global "old boys network" that runs things exactly the way they want to.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Nope, they sent wide-eyed young men and women to die under false pretenses. Which I one of the reasons I liked that article @MollySmith posted. Let's send them back over.


What about National Service/Conscription for able bodied migrants between 18 and 45? (seems to be most of them) and raise a "Free Syrian regiment"

It was good enough for the Poles in WW2


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Yeah, and for the French forced labour sent to Germany during WW2. Let's send them straight back to Syria to fight ISIL, fab idea!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> That an just having a foothold in that part of the world. Seriously, did no one pay attention to what happened in Central America in the 70's? It's almost a carbon copy of old white men putting who they want in power and making up stories for why they have to get involved*. Except back then they did it under the radar and let the CIA handle it.*
> There really is a global "old boys network" that runs things exactly the way they want to.


The world's had a sleep since then Ouesi. Things look completely different by the morning.

Although I'm learned that the CIA was the brainchild of none other than Prescott Sheldon Bush. A family firm of hired henchmen ready, willing and quite able to do their dirty work.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Zaros said:


> The world's had a sleep since then Ouesi. Things look completely different by the morning.
> 
> Although I'm learned that the CIA was the brainchild of none other than Prescott Sheldon Bush. A family firm of hired henchmen ready, willing and quite able to do their dirty work.


Meh... I wouldn't give him any credit for having a brainchild. The CIA existed well before WWII, just under a different name.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Practically the whole of the USA aside from the original native peoples was made up of migrants any way, different nationalities colonised different areas of the states. The difference though I should imagine was that there was nothing much particularly there in the first place when they arrived. Don't normally Like to use Wiki as a reference but in this case its a convenient one to explain.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States


Technically every country in the world except for one tiny section of central Africa is made up of migrant humans. We are all migrants who have travelled the world in search of land and resources and bettering our lot. Nobody is a native. 
IOW, the world has always been ever changing and humans have too.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Clearly large numbers of ordinary civilians in all of these countries want a peaceful and pleasant life, or they wouldn't be killing themselves trying to get to Europe to find it. We can do without dictators, tyrants, terrorists and violent religious fanatics in the world, our own politicians are bad enough. Saddam Hussein and his cronies slaughtered thousands of people, mainly Kurds, but others too and used some pretty horrible ways to do it. They were no better than ISIL. There's others still around that are just as bad, but we leave them to it, they have nothing we want and don't inconvenience us with terror attacks.

Crap isn't it.

(of course I know we were lied to, I haven't been hiding in a bunker.  )


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.w...-crisis-simplified-for-idiots-and-xenophobes/


I'm not quite sure what to make of that artcle tbh .... whilst I agree with some points made I am slightly confused by certain sections ... but then I am quite tired so it may just be me!

The author ackonowledges that anti-migration feelings are running high & attacks on immigrants have increased (it has also been reported lately that attacks on muslims in the UK has dramatically increased) .... so why is this not adressed & any answers of how to prevent this given? Not all these people are ignorant thugs, some are misinformed, some believe right wing propaganda, some will fear jobs/housing will be taken especially if they are likely to be affected .... I just don't think that disregarding these fears is partiuclarly helpful & if this is a growing trend then surely this needs to be addressed now

Also, one of the sentances in the last paragraph .... '*Or better yet, everyone who was in favour of the war on Libya or the invasion of Iraq can be sent to live in post-war Libya or post-war Iraq*.' ... may be meant tongue in cheek but alot of people really did think that the war would help to liberate people (from what theywere fed by the media). Alot of people died on both sides & I can't help but feel it's a bit disrespectful ....


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> I just don't think that disregarding these fears is partiuclarly


I totally agree that the fear people feel at seeing a mass influx of strangers is very real. I don't know how to assuage that fear, I don't know what the solution is, but I do agree that those feelings need to be acknowledged and addressed also. 
And no, not everyone who is unsure about all this is an ignorant thug either. But it's a very dangerous climate, for sure... It's the sort of climate that allows for extremists to rise to power. And that worries me....


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> ... but then I am quite tired so it may just be me!


No. Not just you.

Personally, I thought the article was sophomoric drivel.

Or maybe even soporific drivel; which would explain the tiredness at least.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Odd article. How does the author propose that the refugees make their way to America or Australia who should be taking in hundreds of thousands of people?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Meh... I wouldn't give him any credit for having a brainchild. The CIA existed well before WWII, just under a different name.


Indeed it was but the CIA is an organisation we're all more familiar with back here in blighty.

I'm sure there'll always be ocassion for an individual's intelligence to be brought into question just as will their motives in life.

Now I would never tell me grannie how to suck eggs and nor would I advise a psychopath or serial killer to a more efficient method of killing and disposing of his victims, that would only serve to deprive him of his pleasure and enjoyment, but I believe it might be worth noting that the Bush brethren have enjoyably been orchestrating wars for over a century. During WW1 Samuel P Bush aka 'The Merchant Of Death' and head honcho of an arms and ammunition industry (Remington & Co - horts) not only made arms but sold them to the vast majority on both sides.
However, not to apportion the entire blame on any single nation, British Vickers was also guilty of similar crimes.

During WW1 the Germans were the most proficiently armed military force in the world, thanks to Sam and his profiteering fellow warmongers.
After WW1 Germany was stripped bare of her armaments yet Bush was rewarded because he was allowed to hang on to his massive fortune of blood money.

And then, bugga me, we saw the exact same cunning during WW2. It will never cease to astound me how and why so many are willing to sacrifice their lives just so that a few obscenely rich and powerful men can swell their fortunes.

No matter, the rich and the powerful have always sought to hire thugs to protect their interests and investments and some are so rich and powerful they have the means at their disposal to hire entire bleedin' countries.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> What about National Service/Conscription for able bodied migrants between 18 and 45? (seems to be most of them) and raise a "Free Syrian regiment"


I believe the idea is to find a lasting end to war CB. Not find ways to perpetuate it.

Of course I would be quite willing to finance a Rambo kit just for you and then send you out into the big wide world so that you can personally give the despotic, lying, murdering politicians a war they won't ever believe.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Zaros said:


> I believe the idea is to find a lasting end to war CB. Not find ways to perpetuate it.
> 
> Of course I would be quite willing to finance a Rambo kit just for you and then send you out into the big wide world so that you can personally give the despotic, lying, murdering politicians a war they won't ever believe.


Unfortunately, I don't believe we'll ever have peace, unless or until the most powerful actually do acheive world domination. :Nailbiting :Nailbiting War is just too lucrative.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I think much like the OP posted the original article, I thought the link I posted would be an interesting counterpoint. @Satori 's response is interesting because the link posted goes against what Hitchen's says.

I have been trying to to locate an article that is more 'middle ground' as it feels like the this thread has - as most subjects like this - two viewpoints that are millions of miles apart in terms of outcome. Usually I can or other contributors can, but there isn't much at all that's accessible. Perhaps that's the subject matter?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I was under the impression that DC had stated we would be taking in 4,000 refugees from the official refugee camps. 

To me, that seems reasonable. Far better to go to a camp where there is some hope of shelter, food, water, clothes, medical care etc. albeit it's a less than ideal situation, but far better than sleeping on the streets which is what is happening to the many that are making their own way.

It also means that necessary checks can be made and people can be placed somewhere that would best suit them, maybe they have family in a particular part of the UK so to send them somewhere nearby would be sensible. It also means they can be sent to places that have been set up to receive them and can offer an acceptable level of support and assistance and without impacting negatively on local people, especially those in need themselves, which could create conflict. Local communities can then be called upon to help with donations of clothes, household items, etc.

We have to be able to offer these people a viable alternative - which takes planning and coordination.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> I think much like the OP posted the original article, I thought the link I posted would be an interesting counterpoint. @Satori 's response is interesting because the link posted goes against what Hitchen's says.
> 
> I have been trying to to locate an article that is more 'middle ground' as it feels like the this thread has - as most subjects like this - two viewpoints that are millions of miles apart in terms of outcome. Usually I can or other contributors can, but there isn't much at all that's accessible. Perhaps that's the subject matter?


I should think a lot is the subject matter, and in all honesty I don't think there is an answer anyway or not a 100% one that will solve everything and alleviate concerns totally. Not even sure if there is a middle ground or a plausible one to start with to be honest just solely due to existing and the continued situations and nature of them.
Even if there were, there isn't the time or resources to put anything in place to probably ease the situation that much.

The current situations and problems we have in the UK, as regards to 13 million under the poverty line, shortness of houses, schools, crumbling NHS, increase in the numbers of sleeping rough according to charities like St. Mungos and crisis, and the increasing need needing and using food banks and that more still are needed
according to the Trussell trust food bank charity, which also confirm its used by people made redundant, in low incomes amongst other things, doesn't indicate that the UK as it is, is exactly having an easy time or comfortable place to be for a large number of people already.

There is also it seems going to be conflict, wars, differing politics with different agendas, and different religions which often cause the conflicts and war in the first place, therefore there will always likely be refugees and asylum seekers, not to mention further economic migrants and the large numbers present here already that have vastly increased numbers.

True refugees need and have to have somewhere to go too, there isn't any denying the fact. Maybe the government should have put tighter controls on economic migration in the first place, not to mention tighten up on controls for illegal immigration, no one knows how many are in the UK even national statistics confirmed that in one of the previous link, but the one estimate they did a good few years ago based on methods other countries use was over 400,000 although one by the London school of economics seemed to believe it was probably nearer 550,000 even way back.

It still though has to come down to you can only do so much with what you have already, and the more you exceed it and try to make it stretch, without improvement and more resources the worst its likely yo get. The ones in power and that are supposed to be the ones to balance everything don't seem to be doing a right lot to improve previous and current situations as it is, never mind ones for the future.

Personally I cant see a middle ground only a lot of problems and dire situations where people for various reasons need help, be it the ones using the food banks,
the ones already sleeping rough, or the refugees.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> I think much like the OP posted the original article, I thought the link I posted would be an interesting counterpoint. @Satori 's response is interesting because the link posted goes against what Hitchen's says.
> 
> I have been trying to to locate an article that is more 'middle ground' as it feels like the this thread has - as most subjects like this - two viewpoints that are millions of miles apart in terms of outcome. Usually I can or other contributors can, but there isn't much at all that's accessible. Perhaps that's the subject matter?


That's how I read it also. The article in the OP was one extreme, the one you posted was the other extreme but they're both pretty one-sided and hard hitting, just from different angles.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> The current situations and problems we have in the UK, as regards to 13 million under the poverty line, shortness of houses, schools, crumbling NHS, increase in the numbers of sleeping rough according to charities like St. Mungos and crisis, and the increasing need needing and using food banks and that more still are needed
> according to the Trussell trust food bank charity, which also confirm its used by people made redundant, in low incomes amongst other things, doesn't indicate that the UK as it is, is exactly having an easy time or comfortable place to be for a large number of people already.
> .


Does anybody really think that if we dont accept refugees the politicians will instead help reduce poverty in our country? course they wont. they are the ones creating it in the first place, if they wanted to do something about that they wouldnt be doing everything in their power to ensure the transfer of wealth from poor to rich continues to accelerate. it's not a case of "we either help refugees or help our own poor people", its more like "we either help people or we help ourselves".. and its obvious which choice they made. Same one they always make.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> Does anybody really think that if we dont accept refugees the politicians will instead help reduce poverty in our country? course they wont. they are the ones creating it in the first place, if they wanted to do something about that they wouldnt be doing everything in their power to ensure the transfer of wealth from poor to rich continues to accelerate. it's not a case of "we either help refugees or help our own poor people", its more like "we either help people or we help ourselves".. and its obvious which choice they made.


That was at the base of my post really.
I want us to help the refugees any way we can, but I also want to see more help for the poor in this country too.
And I don't think it should be an 'either, or' question. If this country's wealth was balanced more fairly both would be possible.
But while a vast proportion of wealth is in the hands of the few, that isn't going to happen.

People will argue back that this just wouldn't be possible, that "we need to encourage big business, entrepreneurs, whatever...", but that is because they only think of one economic system - Capitalism - and they cannot see that this is the very system that is not only constantly widening the gap between rich and poor and creating more displaced people, but is also reaching a crisis where very few of us at all will be able to say that we have a good life.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

porps said:


> Does anybody really think that if we dont accept refugees the politicians will instead help reduce poverty in our country? course they wont. they are the ones creating it in the first place, if they wanted to do something about that they wouldnt be doing everything in their power to ensure the transfer of wealth from poor to rich continues to accelerate. it's not a case of "we either help refugees or help our own poor people", its more like "we either help people or we help ourselves".. and its obvious which choice they made.


I certainly don't think that if we don't accept refugees the politicians will instead help to reduce poverty in this country, if they were doing or even trying the need for food banks, and more homeless people sleeping rough would be going down instead of up for starters. Like you say its not a case of we help refugees or ourselves either as you say, because both need help, but if you cant already help and solve the problems you already have, how will you solve it when even more is added it becomes a bigger problems still, and will likely get worse instead of better or easier.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I certainly don't think that if we don't accept refugees the politicians will instead help to reduce poverty in this country, if they were doing or even trying the need for food banks, and more homeless people sleeping rough would be going down instead of up for starters. Like you say its not a case of we help refugees or ourselves either as you say, because both need help, but if you cant already help and solve the problems you already have, how will you solve it when even more is added it becomes a bigger problems still, and will likely get worse instead of better or easier.


you're right, but i suspect it wont be worse for the refugees.. having nothing and being safe is probably better than having nothing and being in danger


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

I've just seen a poll on a UK site, asking Do you think the UK should accept more refugees? and so far 922 people have voted, out of those 922 people 65% say no.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Animallover26 said:


> I've just seen a poll on a UK site, asking Do you think the UK should accept more refugees? and so far 922 people have voted, out of those 922 people 65% say no.


I saw one the other day asking the same question, and 91% said no.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

so doing the right thing is unpopular? So what, popularity isnt everything.

Also which sites were they exactly? I'm sure there are sites where you could do a survey and get a completely opposite result. The readership of a wesbsite doesnt necessarily represent the views of a country.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

porps said:


> so doing the right thing is unpopular? So what, popularity isnt everything.
> 
> Also which sites were they exactly? I'm sure there are sites where you could do a survey and get a completely opposite result. The readership of a wesbsite doesnt necessarily represent the views of a country.


I'm not saying it did, just thought it interesting to see a wider thought range.

My site was GFK Mediaview


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

im not saying you were saying... i was just saying!  Thanks for providing the source.

My first thought about gfk mediaview having googled it is thats its a site which will primarily be frequented by people who watch a lot of tv. People who have subjected themselves to the agendas of the media. Therefore it comes as no surprise to me that the vote would go that way.

Yes im a cynic, you should all know that by now.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

porps said:


> im not saying you were saying... i was just saying!  Thanks for providing the source.
> 
> My first thought about gfk mediaview having googled it is thats its a site which will primarily be frequented by people who watch a lot of tv. People who have subjected themselves to the agendas of the media. Therefore it comes as no surprise to me that the vote would go that way.
> 
> Yes im a cynic, you should all know that by now.


It is a site where you give feedback about any TV you have watched or/and any radio programmes you have listened to. I think it's to give feedback to the BBC. 
Don't know if that would make a difference?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

the BBC are the worst of the lot, cos many people actually believe them to be impartial and so trust their lies more than a commercial channel.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

porps said:


> so doing the right thing is unpopular? So what, popularity isnt everything.
> 
> Also which sites were they exactly? I'm sure there are sites where you could do a survey and get a completely opposite result. The readership of a wesbsite doesnt necessarily represent the views of a country.


Absolutely agree.

Depends on the demographic and the target, most agencies who set up these polls aim it to a select audience. I've not be asked in any poll. Have you?


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2015)

Talking numbers is interesting. African countries still bear the lion´s share from the 60 million refugees.Turkey has about 1.6 million refugees already. Finally Finland has started to act like a civilized nation and will take 15 000 refugees this year. This is still way too little, but we are getting there. Germany agreed to take 500 000 refugees every year. Sweden takes about 100 000 per year. Austria takes about 60 000 per year.

More statistics for those interested in facts. Did you know e.g. that "last year, 51% of refugees were *under 18 years old. *This is the highest figure for child refugees in more than a decade." http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html .

Now, the really interesting point is this: How come Germany, Sweden and Austria are doing so well economically? Could these countries actually benefit from the high number refugees? Or is it the tolerant attitude toward non natives, which helps also the economy to boom? I read that many economist claim that the high number of refugees actually create growth and is good for business. Maybe Britain might need to think a bit more what to do with the refugees in the end? Britain might actually lose a chance to improve their economy, and the poor will stay poor and pay the price for the hard attitudes toward those most vulnerable. To be honest, despite the appreciation I have for the British people, I think your government is one the hardest and coldest toward the ordinary people, who face difficulties. The fact that Britain is a very rich nation and at the same time, it refuses to help those in need, I just cannot understand this. What I do understand is that it´s not the amount of money your country has, it´s what the country is doing with it. Something is not right in the UK. You shouldn't have any poverty stricken people, who are not making even the basic living. Refugees have nothing to do with it. It´s only your politics, which have created the problem.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

MrsZee said:


> Talking numbers is interesting. African countries still bear the lion´s share from the 60 million refugees.Turkey has about 1.6 million refugees already. Finally Finland has started to act like a civilized nation and will take 15 000 refugees this year. This is still way too little, but we are getting there. Germany agreed to take 500 000 refugees every year. Sweden takes about 100 000 per year. Austria takes about 60 000 per year.
> 
> More statistics for those interested in facts. Did you know e.g. that "last year, 51% of refugees were *under 18 years old. *This is the highest figure for child refugees in more than a decade." http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html .
> 
> Now, the really interesting point is this: How come Germany, Sweden and Austria are doing so well economically? Could these countries actually benefit from the high number refugees? Or is it the tolerant attitude toward non natives, which helps also the economy to boom? I read that many economist claim that the high number of refugees actually create growth and is good for business. Maybe Britain might need to think a bit more what to do with the refugees in the end? Britain might actually lose a chance to improve their economy, and the poor will stay poor and pay the price for the hard attitudes toward those most vulnerable. To be honest, despite the appreciation I have for the British people, I think your government is one the hardest and coldest toward the ordinary people, who face difficulties. The fact that Britain is a very rich nation and at the same time, it refuses to help those in need, I just cannot understand this. What I do understand is that it´s not the amount of money your country has, it´s what the country is doing with it. Something is not right in the UK. You shouldn't have any poverty stricken people, who are not making even the basic living. Refugees have nothing to do with it. It´s only your politics, which have created the problem.


Totally agree, I think the governments here have either been a walk over - promising the world and then failing to support anyone - or colder than the arctic. It's assumed that it's going to be a disaster but how can we know unless we try. But that means placing faith in those in power and I can see how anyone would be terrified of that prospect no matter what party was occupying Downing Street (all 100 rooms of it...)


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MrsZee said:


> Talking numbers is interesting. African countries still bear the lion´s share from the 60 million refugees.Turkey has about 1.6 million refugees already. Finally Finland has started to act like a civilized nation and will take 15 000 refugees this year. This is still way too little, but we are getting there. Germany agreed to take 500 000 refugees every year. Sweden takes about 100 000 per year. Austria takes about 60 000 per year.
> 
> More statistics for those interested in facts. Did you know e.g. that "last year, 51% of refugees were *under 18 years old. *This is the highest figure for child refugees in more than a decade." http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html .
> 
> Now, the really interesting point is this: How come Germany, Sweden and Austria are doing so well economically? Could these countries actually benefit from the high number refugees? Or is it the tolerant attitude toward non natives, which helps also the economy to boom? I read that many economist claim that the high number of refugees actually create growth and is good for business. Maybe Britain might need to think a bit more what to do with the refugees in the end? Britain might actually lose a chance to improve their economy, and the poor will stay poor and pay the price for the hard attitudes toward those most vulnerable. To be honest, despite the appreciation I have for the British people, I think your government is one the hardest and coldest toward the ordinary people, who face difficulties. The fact that Britain is a very rich nation and at the same time, it refuses to help those in need, I just cannot understand this. What I do understand is that it´s not the amount of money your country has, it´s what the country is doing with it. Something is not right in the UK. You shouldn't have any poverty stricken people, who are not making even the basic living. Refugees have nothing to do with it. It´s only your politics, which have created the problem.


I agree..
only thing i disagree with is when you say sweden is tolerant. I'm not entirely sure where the goverment stands regarding immigration so i cant comment on that, but amongst the population theres actually a lot of intolerance towards immigrants, i was really surprised by it. Theres the same kind of "coming over here taking our jobs" crap being spouted and lapped up in sweden as we have in the UK. I would guess (and have been told) it's the same in most of the economic powerhouse countries in europe.


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

I'm not big on politics and I don't know what the solution to any of this is. I can sort of see both sides. Obviously these people need help but at the same time I feel like people here need help too. As a country we are extremely over populated in my opinion. Maths 64million people divided my 94,000 square miles 680 people per square mile. Seems like a lot to me? I read all the time that schools are overcrowded, nhs is in crisis, benefit cuts and there are housing shortages. Surely this will get worse with more people? From scanning this thread I think I read that we only take a small percentage of refugees but aren't we tiny in comparison to other countries? Surely we aren't expected to take in the same amount as say Germany who are a lot bigger? I also read that we have a lot of empty houses? Are these council owned or not? I presume a lot are empty because people can't afford to raise a mortgage in this country and some may be second homes? I'm not sure what can be done about these empty houses, for councils to house refugees I presume they need to buy them if they don't own them? If we need to keep building more houses are we going to destroy our countryside or build upwards so we all live in apartments? 

Yet another question...while I understand that these people need out quick do we do any sort of checks on them before housing them? My concern is that not ALL of them are genuine some maybe rapists/murderers/isis which we really don't need more of. Do we just risk it? 

A lot of questions I know but I feel like they are constantly floating around in my head and I feel I need to be more educated on this subject.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

MrsZee said:


> Something is not right in the UK. You shouldn't have any poverty stricken people, who are not making even the basic living. Refugees have nothing to do with it. It´s only your politics, which have created the problem.


When I think of what Great Britain meant I think of industry and technology. Now it seems to me that Britain has been asset stripped. My gold standard example of this is always the automotive industry. So many marques just disappeared because of awful management.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> What about National Service/Conscription for able bodied migrants between 18 and 45? (seems to be most of them) and raise a "Free Syrian regiment"
> 
> It was good enough for the Poles in WW2


Are you seriously suggesting that the Poles in WWII formed an army in Syria ?

Actually they did.. but as far as I can tell it was the remnants of their existing army and not conscripted civilians. The Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade. I doubt any of them are still there.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> Totally agree, I think the governments here have either been a walk over - promising the world and then failing to support anyone - or colder than the arctic. It's assumed that it's going to be a disaster but how can we know unless we try. But that means placing faith in those in power and I can see how anyone would be terrified of that prospect no matter what party was occupying Downing Street (all 100 rooms of it...)


I believe that Britain has more chances of succceeding than many other nations, as you are already very internation and English is such a widely spoken language. But that would need to have a different attitude toward providing for the needed. That would help everybody, which again, will boom economy. That is what I believe. It can´t be a coincident that Germany and Sweden tackled the recession so fast without cutting the benefits much and taking in the high number of refugees.



porps said:


> I agree..
> only thing i disagree with is when you say sweden is tolerant. I'm not entirely sure where the goverment stands regarding immigration so i cant comment on that, but amongst the population theres actually a lot of intolerance towards immigrants, i was really surprised by it. Theres the same kind of "coming over here taking our jobs" crap being spouted and lapped up in sweden as we have in the UK. I would guess (and have been told) it's the same in most of the economic powerhouse countries in europe.


Sweden as a country is tolerant, as it is still taking in the high numbers and providing for them. Naturally there are racists or intolerant people etc, or just people, who are not used to living with people from different countries. And that "coming over and taking our jobs" is common all over. Still, most Swedes agree with their government to welcome refugees. Finland is much worse, unfortunately, and we have a lot to learn. But at least now we are starting! Brits are better than we I believe, and I have respected so much the general non racist opinions on PF too. I believe that British people are better than their government in this respect.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Everyone could still have the same slice of cake if you bought the ingredients from Aldi instead of Waitrose.


----------



## Iheartcats (Aug 25, 2011)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=849076995169988



Excuse the expletives in the video but he sums up EXACTLY how I feel about certain bogots of a certain generation.


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

Junker just said that Europe must take 160,000 refugees and that all countries have to accept them. Not sure Greece and the others will. And it seems that Northern Europe isn't too keen either.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Britt said:


> Junker just said that Europe must take 160,000 refugees and that all countries have to accept them. Not sure Greece and the others will. And it seems that Northern Europe isn't too keen either.


http://www.provo.gr/video-mytilene-refugees-welcome/


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

porps said:


> http://www.provo.gr/video-mytilene-refugees-welcome/


Is that Russian? I can't read it.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Britt said:


> Junker just said that Europe must take 160,000 refugees and that all countries have to accept them. Not sure Greece and the others will. And it seems that Northern Europe isn't too keen either.


And how many have you given negative advice to today?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Britt said:


> Is that Russian? I can't read it.


I cant read it either, but the play button looks the same in russian, english and greek.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

smoking guns said:


> I wonder how many British expats learn Spanish fluently?


Exactly!


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

I really, really pray I never find myself in a situation where I´m fleeing for my life and people in other countries don´t want me there. It must be terrible. At the end of the day for the government, it´s just playing politics and well meaning individuals will be the ones to take care of a vast number of refugees.
100 billionaires in UK, who could actually do something useful with their money instead of buying islands, cars, houses... but no, it´s always the citizen struggling to make ends meet that will buy a can of soup and take it to the nearest food bank. I hope my parish takes in the two families suggested by The Pope, I know they will be taken care by all the community, they always respond when people are in need.
I do have to make an exception to the billionaires, here in Spain, one of our aristocrats took in two Syrian families. One of them is a doctor who was quite wealthy in Syria, had various clinics that were bombed and destroyed, he is even helping him to validate his title. I was glad to know that this man is more than appearing on the cover of celebrity magazines. We need to stop thinking people´s problems are no concern of ours, because when the tables turn, we will definitely not like to be a the receiving end.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

A lot of the UKs richest living in the UK were born outside the UK and also made their fortunes abroad and in their native countries, out of the top ten richest only one is a native born Briton. It would seem that it has its advantages too according to the interesting point below:-
Low tax rates
Britain's top tax rate of 45% is fairly average by European standards. But because non-British people living in the UK are not taxed for anything they earn outside the country, it is an attractive place to live for those whose financial interests stretch around the globe.

http://theday.co.uk/free/foreign-billionaires-top-britain-s-rich-list


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Low tax rates
> Britain's top tax rate of 45% is fairly average by European standards. But because non-British people living in the UK are not taxed for anything they earn outside the country, it is an attractive place to live for those whose financial interests stretch around the globe.
> 
> http://theday.co.uk/free/foreign-billionaires-top-britain-s-rich-list


And that's the problem and why so many people living in the UK get away with paying all the tax they should pay.

For an example, if you live in Spain (Spanish national or not) and you earn money outside the country, you still have to declare it to La Hacienda (gov tax collection service). If you have already payed tax on that money outside of Spain, but that amount is less than you would have paid in Spain, under Spanish tax laws, you will still have to pay the difference to the Spanish tax collector.
The argument for this is, you are still living in Spain and taking advantage of government and local investments there in Welfare, Education, Health, Security, etc, so why shouldn't you pay as much as anyone else who lives there?

Seems pretty fair to me and I really can't see why the UK can't assess tax payable in the same way.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

silvi said:


> And that's the problem and why so many people living in the UK get away with paying all the tax they should pay.
> 
> For an example, if you live in Spain (Spanish national or not) and you earn money outside the country, you still have to declare it to La Hacienda (gov tax collection service). If you have already payed tax on that money outside of Spain, but that amount is less than you would have paid in Spain, under Spanish tax laws, you will still have to pay the difference to the Spanish tax collector.
> The argument for this is, you are still living in Spain and taking advantage of government and local investments there in Welfare, Education, Health, Security, etc, so why shouldn't you pay as much as anyone else who lives there?
> ...


Exactly, which is why we are probably in such a state in the first place, because the ones that can afford it and live in luxury can get away with murder, and the ones at the bottom don't get the help and assistance they need so more and more are living below the poverty line even though they are working too in a lot of cases. This government doesn't look after the ones that do need it most of the time. Even if you have paid in all your life, things like retirement age and the age you previously could get your pension is going up and up. No wonder there are old people who are frightened to turn on their heating in winter because they are afraid they cant afford too. The National office of statistics state that in in 2012/13 there were an estimated 31,100 winter deaths that occurred in England and Wales a 29% increase on the previous year, makes you wonder why doesn't it. The majority were 75 and over, comes to something we cant even look after our old ones who have given so much
who are already here even.


An estimated 31,100 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales in 2012/13 - a 29% increase compared with the previous winter.

As in previous years, there were more excess winter deaths in females than in males in 2012/13.

Between 2011/12 and 2012/13 male excess winter deaths increased from 10,590 to 13,100, and female deaths from 13,610 to 18,000.

The majority of deaths occurred among those aged 75 and over; there were 25,600 excess winter deaths in this age group in 2012/13 compared with 5,500 in people aged under 75.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subna...ional--and-2011-12--final-/stb-ewm-12-13.html

Even if you are lucky enough to get things like health insurance as part of your employment package you are taxed on it, even though its of benefit to the government and lessens the drain on the NHS as you wont be needing it should you need a referral or procedures that would heavily cost the NHS otherwise, you still have to pay your full national health contributions and full tax like everyone else too which I'm not complaining about, yet this still isn't enough for them, they want extra tax off you on top for having the health insurance.

No wonder the gap between the have and have nots are continuing to increase, and the ones at the bottom continue to have less.

Again don't get me wrong the refugees need help of course they do, but it would seem that the UK might not be so cash rich and the land of plenty and able to help as some people automatically think we are in the first place, or not when there is already so many in dire need already. Statistics and facts after all cant lie when it comes down to it.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Germany to reintroduce border controls

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34239674

Seems there's somewhat more to the father of the drowned 3 year old than first meets the eye

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

negative creep said:


> Seems there's somewhat more to the father of the drowned 3 year old than first meets the eye
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html


What a truly vicious article by the Mail.
It produces examples of the family's life and shows the hardship they suffered, and that the father really struggled to do his best for them....and then it accuses him of being 'possibly' part of the people smuggling network and says he was an economic migrant, as if this is a crime and that it is his fault that his family died.
WTF!
His family died, but the DM, in their rush to fit in with their readership's prejudices, tries to make out the father was the villain of the piece.
Disgusting!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

We created this mess with our illegal wars, selling arms to Saudi & god knows where, so as far as I'm concerned its our moral duty to help these poor desperate people.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Does anyone know about this footage that apparently shows refugees throwing away food & water that is being given to them by aid workers/police (I can't remember)? Someone mentioned it at training today & I didn't know what it was, if it was real/fake or whatever?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

negative creep said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html


The gutter press gang!unch What an absolute effin disgrace!:Rage A father's pain made all the more raw by the deliberate and malicious attempt to deflect the blame from those who are truly responsible for this heartbreaking tragedy. Malignant, cold-hearted politicians.

Listen to the ocean
As it laps upon the shore
Its constant plaintive rhythm
Laments for evermore
Shame...shame...shame...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> What about National Service/Conscription for able bodied migrants between 18 and 45? (seems to be most of them) and raise a "Free Syrian regiment"
> 
> It was good enough for the Poles in WW2





cinnamontoast said:


> Yeah, and for the French forced labour sent to Germany during WW2. Let's send them straight back to Syria to fight ISIL, fab idea!


We obliterate their country & you'd force innocent people to fight in the mess we created. I find that pretty heartless tbh.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> Does anyone know about this footage that apparently shows refugees throwing away food & water that is being given to them by aid workers/police (I can't remember)? Someone mentioned it at training today & I didn't know what it was, if it was real/fake or whatever?


The one I saw was on the BBC News.
But it showed refugees that had been coerced into a 'containment' camp refusing food and water because they had been tricked into going there (it was after many refugees boarded a train after being told it was for Germany and it was taking them to the camp instead).


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I saw it on the news. They were refugees who were waiting at a station for trains. They were up in arms that there weren't enough trains, so when they were given food and water, they threw it onto the rail tracks as a protest.

It irritated me seeing it, as there were children among them whom, I'm certain, would have been very hungry and thirsty.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sweety said:


> I saw it on the news. They were refugees who were waiting at a station for trains. They were up in arms that there weren't enough trains, so when they were given food and water, they threw it onto the rail tracks as a protest.
> 
> It irritated me seeing it, as there were children among them whom, I'm certain, would have been very hungry and thirsty.


I saw that one too. It followed on from the one I mentioned.
Now it makes me think that if I had just heard that the only train that went anywhere was going to a refugee camp, but I wasn't allowed on the others in any case, I would wonder about the food and water they were providing too. 
Confusion, fear and desperation does strange things to people.

But I agree, the children did need that food and water. Just wish that the complete lack of communication and ****up that happened at that station hadn't got to the state it did.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Anyone unsure of Britains role in the Middle East, this letter brilliantly explains it.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Lots of videos around that purport to show trouble, but difficult to verify without context














Merkel's policy has been a complete, but not unexpected, disaster. By basically announcing to the world that the borders are open she has encouraged hundreds of thousands to risk their lives coming here and given people smugglers free reign to cash in on their suffering. Now how are we going to separate the ones who genuinely need help and asylum from the economic migrants, criminals or IS agents?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

negative creep said:


> Now how are we going to separate the ones who genuinely need help and asylum from the economic migrants, criminals or IS agents?


Treat them all like human beings first?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Anyone unsure of Britains role in the Middle East, this letter brilliantly explains it.


I think so. The Government needs us to have an enemy and live in fear so that we will look to them for our protection and then in an attempt to strengthen support they orchestrate the murder of innocent people who had believed in them. The government then blames it on fake terrorism and influences everyone to fall for the deception and believe like wise and the roundabout goes round and round and round and round.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

And so It begins...ISIS Flag Among Refugees in Germany Fighting the Police [Pictures]

Just found this, one of these vidios shows them throwing away food, and water .


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Honeys mum said:


> And so It begins...ISIS Flag Among Refugees in Germany Fighting the Police [Pictures]
> 
> Just found this, one of these vidios shows them throwing away food, and water .


The article comes originally from conservativepost (not giving it link because I refuse to link to that site).
It's a place with 'community driven conservative news'. And I find it pretty vile to be honest.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

silvi said:


> The article comes originally from conservativepost (not giving it link because I refuse to link to that site).
> It's a place with 'community driven conservative news'. And I find it pretty vile to be honest.


I have no idea were it comes from,I just found it on someones website who lives in our area. Although you could be right as he is a conservative, ( which doesn't mean I am.) I'm afraid I find it quite disturbing, but as Cleo38 asked if anyone had seen it, i thought I would put it on.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I watched one video last night (not seen them all as I am at work) but just wanted to understand what was happening. I realise that some can be taken out of context & manipulated, etc ... so wanted to understand why people were acting like this ... tbh I am still quite shocked by it


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I think in any situation you can find images of a minority.

http://www.thelocal.de/20150911/mass-refugee-arrivals-dont-scare-germans


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> I think so. The Government needs us to have an enemy and live in fear so that we will look to them for our protection and then in an attempt to strengthen support they orchestrate the murder of innocent people who had believed in them. The government then blames it on fake terrorism and influences everyone to fall for the deception and believe like wise and the roundabout goes round and round and round and round.


Sounds almost Orwellian doesn't it Zaros?. But that's how they control the masses - & the mainstream/corporate media is the govts propaganda machine. We've been involved in perpetual wars for decades. I don't fear IS or Russia, I fear my own Government & the US war machine.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

That partly explains Corbyn support if you really think Russia isn't to be concerned about. We'll ignore examples like Georgia, Ukraine and even Syria.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> That partly explains Corbyn support if you really think Russia isn't to be concerned about. We'll ignore examples like Georgia, Ukraine and even Syria.


This is the problem with listening to mainstream media - they never tell the whole picture so you're unable to make informed opinions. http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-...=7199068&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

_Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato Enlargement Project. Reneging on a promise made to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand "one inch to the east", Nato has, in effect, militarily occupied eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato's expansion is the biggest military build-up since the Second World War.

A Nato Membership Action Plan is Washington's gift to the coup-regime in Kiev. In August, "Operation Rapid Trident" will put American and British troops on Ukraine's Russian border and "Sea Breeze" will send US warships within sight of Russian ports. Imagine the response if these acts of provocation, or intimidation, were carried out on America's borders...._


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> That partly explains Corbyn support if you really think Russia isn't to be concerned about. We'll ignore examples like Georgia, Ukraine and even Syria.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

The fact I find most concerning about the government controlling us through artificial creation of an enemy and so on, is that the government changes every few years, yet apparently each new one is as evilly Machiavellian as the last. Not one PM or leading government figure has been principled enough to say what's actually happening. Every last one of them buys in to deceiving the public on a massive and sinister scale.

Unless, of course, it's not actually happening.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Honeys mum said:


> And so It begins...ISIS Flag Among Refugees in Germany Fighting the Police [Pictures]
> 
> Just found this, one of these vidios shows them throwing away food, and water .





silvi said:


> The article comes originally from conservativepost (not giving it link because I refuse to link to that site).
> It's a place with 'community driven conservative news'. And I find it pretty vile to be honest.





Honeys mum said:


> I have no idea were it comes from,I just found it on someones website who lives in our area. Although you could be right as he is a conservative, ( which doesn't mean I am.) I'm afraid I find it quite disturbing, but as Cleo38 asked if anyone had seen it, i thought I would put it on.


The photo is a proven lie. Just more nasty scaremongering by right wingers. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nd-is-a-lie-10501290.html?cmpid=facebook-post

_A picture that purports to be of refugees carrying Isis flags and attacking police has been shared widely on social media this week - but the picture is old, probably doesn't show an Isis flag, and has nothing to do with refugees.

The image has been picked up by a range of right-wing outlets, including the Conservative Post, and has been shared tens of thousands of times since. That site said that it was a "new leaked picture" that "confirmed" its claims about Isis smuggling in agents among refugees._



.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Oh wow Nouskha, you read it and have seen it on the internet, must be true. Doesn't help the Syrians does it. Then again we are safe in the country with Russia so far away. Doesn't affect us. Invasion of Georgia didn't happen, it was a figment of media propaganda.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> *Sounds almost Orwellian doesn't it Zaros*. But that's how they control the masses - & the mainstream/corporate media is the govts propaganda machine. We've been involved in perpetual wars for decades. I don't fear IS or Russia, I fear my own Government & the US war machine.


_I think there's more truth in Orwell's 1984 than can be found in any of what the media presents to us as truth today. I also believe everyone should read it and then ask themselves does it, in any way, reflect the society in which we live in today.

Who knows, perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, George may well be regarded as a prophet. 

Anyways, the Orwellian definition of Totalitarianism;

'A society living by and for continuous warfare in which the ruling caste have ceased to have any real function but succeed in clinging to power through force and fraud'

*
*​_


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Oh wow Nouskha, you read it and have seen it on the internet, must be true. Doesn't help the Syrians does it. Then again we are safe in the country with Russia so far away. Doesn't affect us. Invasion of Georgia didn't happen, it was a figment of media propaganda.


Well I have a lot more faith in the likes of John Pilger than I do the mainstream/corporate media, that's for sure  Do you understand the significance of the petrodollar in the war on Syria & the whole of that region? Who said the invasion of Georgia didn't happen? You'd make a very good spin doctor you would lol

This is why Corbyn is so popular, because unlike the right wing war mongers he seeks a peaceful solution to conflict. What is extreme about that?








Zaros said:


> _I think there's more truth in Orwell's 1984 than can be found in any of what the media presents to us as truth today. I also believe everyone should read it and then ask themselves does it, in any way, reflect the society in which we live in today.
> 
> Who knows, perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, George may well be regarded as a prophet.
> 
> ...


Blimey, how chillingly accurate was he?

And just look at this what I found -


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> And just look at this what I found -


I said in the Corbyn thread that the media is an issue that the Left has to address.
The Left will want to address other issues which are, in human terms, more important. But if we don't find an alternative way to address ordinary people (and not just those of us who go on Twitter and FB), then the Left will always be on the back foot and unable to fully address those issues which are important to us.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

"This is why Corbyn is so popular, because unlike the right wing war mongers he seeks a peaceful solution to conflict. What is extreme about that?"

History has lessons for many..


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> This is why Corbyn is so popular, because unlike the right wing war mongers he seeks a peaceful solution to conflict. What is extreme about that?


Nothing extreme about it - _but_ you have to bear in mind that in order to have a peaceful resolution, all sides must desire it _and_ mean it. Based on historical evidence through the ages, quite frankly if anyone genuinely believes that such harmony of vision will ever be achieved, they are seriously deluded.

The moment you encounter a faction who is not genuinely interested in a peaceful resolution, or will quite happily play at peace until they are in a strong enough position to kick your butt, seeking a peaceful resolution will be either impossible from the start, or lead to a false sense of security followed by a very nasty shock.

This is not to say that World Peace isn't a good dream to have - it is. Just as long as it is appreciated that it *IS* a dream, and reality is likely to be a lot less pretty. The skill lies in knowing when a potential peaceful resolution is the real deal, and when you need to keep both your eyes and some options open just in case.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Nothing extreme about it - _but_ you have to bear in mind that in order to have a peaceful resolution, all sides must desire it _and_ mean it. Based on historical evidence through the ages, quite frankly if anyone genuinely believes that such harmony of vision will ever be achieved, they are seriously deluded.


ISIS show no signs of avoiding extremism


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

MIND YOU...

Maybe when we are happy that all the Syrians who can/want to leave Syria the opportunity then exists to nuke ISIS


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> MIND YOU...
> 
> Maybe when we are happy that all the Syrians who can/want to leave Syria the opportunity then exists to nuke ISIS


Then we could send all the refugees back


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> I said in the Corbyn thread that the media is an issue that the Left has to address.
> The Left will want to address other issues which are, in human terms, more important. But if we don't find an alternative way to address ordinary people (and not just those of us who go on Twitter and FB), then the Left will always be on the back foot and unable to fully address those issues which are important to us.


Its going to be so tough with most media outlets serving the right - equally worrying are the Blairites within the labour party. Just look at this Silvi 

_"Shadow cabinet member told Gary Gibbon on __#*c4news*__ bust-up "will have to be brutal, putting the left in a box for 30 yrs or out of party"
_
I read some article that said if the Blairites fail to take back the party, some might jump ship to the Tory party ! Its all falling into place now. This is why they weren't calling out all the repeated, blatant lies tory ministers kept repeating post GE. Because some in new labour are so right wing that they are as tory as the tories - so a Conservative govt suits them fine.



Jesthar said:


> Nothing extreme about it - _but_ you have to bear in mind that in order to have a peaceful resolution, all sides must desire it _and_ mean it. Based on historical evidence through the ages, quite frankly if anyone genuinely believes that such harmony of vision will ever be achieved, they are seriously deluded.
> 
> The moment you encounter a faction who is not genuinely interested in a peaceful resolution, or will quite happily play at peace until they are in a strong enough position to kick your butt, seeking a peaceful resolution will be either impossible from the start, or lead to a false sense of security followed by a very nasty shock.
> 
> This is not to say that World Peace isn't a good dream to have - it is. Just as long as it is appreciated that it *IS* a dream, and reality is likely to be a lot less pretty. The skill lies in knowing when a potential peaceful resolution is the real deal, and when you need to keep both your eyes and some options open just in case.


Do you think NATO wants a peaceful solution? The mainstream media portrays NATO as some kind of global police force when nothing could be further from the truth. NATO creates conflict, wars are a lucrative business, it plunders other countries oil & recourses, wipes out counties that threaten the petrodollar . The US war machine is a corporate entity, it isn't defending humanity, it destroys it. Just look at all the evidence.

Chomsky with a bit of background information on the Russian situation.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Do you think NATO wants a peaceful solution? The mainstream media portrays NATO as some kind of global police force when nothing could be further from the truth. NATO creates conflict, wars are a lucrative business, it plunders other countries oil & recourses, wipes out counties that threaten the petrodollar . The US war machine is a corporate entity, it isn't defending humanity, it destroys it. Just look at all the evidence.


I don't believe I mention NATO, or the US - or anyone in particular, come to that. Nor even hinted at them. It was a _general_ observation making a _general_ point about _the world in general_ - and not just now or for specific entities, but throughout history and on ALL sides.

As Catherine Willows once put it "Wake up and smell the species..."


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> I don't believe I mention NATO, or the US - or anyone in particular, come to that. Nor even hinted at them. It was a _general_ observation making a _general_ point about _the world in general_ - and not just now or for specific entities, but throughout history and on ALL sides.
> 
> As Catherine Willows once put it *"Wake up and smell the species*..."


Well I'd say that's exactly what Corbyn has done . And why he thinks rather than NATO ramping up the anti potentially risking nuclear war, this should be left to the UN to negotiate & try to de-escalate. Don't you agree that's the smartest, safest move?

Just to add, Russia is always portrayed as the aggressor, the axis of evil, but can you imagine the reaction if the tables were turned & Russia surrounded the US with their military bases?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Well I'd say that's exactly what Corbyn has done . And why he thinks rather than NATO ramping up the anti potentially risking nuclear war, this should be left to the UN to negotiate & try to de-escalate. Don't you agree that's the smartest, safest move?
> 
> Just to add, Russia is always portrayed as the aggressor, the axis of evil, but can you imagine the reaction if the tables were turned & Russia surrounded the US with their military bases?


Well, if NATO are increasingly anti potentially risking nuclear war, maybe they're going to be less of a problem than they usually are. Although, to return once again to my original point, de-escalation only works if all parties genuinely agree and participate, and ALSO genuinely trust that all the other parties are genuinely participating.

As to nuclear war, do you really think any of the major democratic powers is ever going to pull the trigger? It's called MAD for a reason. Plus, starting a nuclear confilct is hardly going to get you (or your mates) re-elected, and not only do dead people not buy arms, but neither do victors with no remaining enemies. Assuming anyone survives, that is, which brings us back to the MAD part.

But none of that is actually really related to my original point, which was more along the lines of no country is going to disband its armed forces and dedicate themselves to peace, love and agriculture whilst they consider that there are still people out there who are keeping their Big Sticks and might use those Big Sticks against them given half a chance. Unless you want to risk the very nasty shock part, anyway. I didn't say I LIKE that it was that way, incidentally (my personal creed is "as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all"), just that this is how it is, and given the course of history so far then although I would like to see this change and hope it can happen, I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

it isnt countries that dont trust each other enough for peace to some day break out, it's politcians. And ofc that actually makes sense, all politcians are liars therefore it would be stupid for any politcian to trust any other politcian. Their very existence ensures that mistrust (and so war) continues.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Its going to be so tough with most media outlets serving the right - equally worrying are the Blairites within the labour party. Just look at this Silvi
> 
> _"Shadow cabinet member told Gary Gibbon on __#*c4news*__ bust-up "will have to be brutal, putting the left in a box for 30 yrs or out of party"
> _
> I read some article that said if the Blairites fail to take back the party, some might jump ship to the Tory party ! Its all falling into place now. This is why they weren't calling out all the repeated, blatant lies tory ministers kept repeating post GE. Because some in new labour are so right wing that they are as tory as the tories - so a Conservative govt suits them fine.


Exactly.
And that's why, despite the need to address so many pressing concerns, the Left really have to address a way of dealing with the media or of finding an alternative that works.
Speak to many Labour Party members and they feel the same. While the media message is controlled by the Tories (either subtly, or overtly), no opposition party stands a chance of power....unless it suits the powers that be at that particular time - hence Blair's success.
But no one appears to know what to do about this, rather than simply telling us what we already know - a true Labour Party is ****ed because of its treatment in the media.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

silvi said:


> Exactly.
> While the media message is controlled by the Tories (either subtly, or overtly), no opposition party stands a chance of power....


i dont think it matters who controls it, what matters is who believes it, who reads it, who buys into it. I dont think the answer is for labour to control an equal share of the media for example, i think the answer is to teach people that the media cant be trusted. i live in constant amazement that so many people still havent managed to figure that out for themselves. Russel Brand was going the right way about it with his trews series.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> Russel Brand was going the right way about it with his trews series.


The problem is, he only reached the people who wanted to listen to him.

I agree that there has to be a way to show people that the media is biased and cannot be trusted, and you would think that enough of them realise that by now. But obviously they don't. When you get high ratings for all the 'benefit scrounger' programs, together with people actually believing that Channel 4 is 'left wing' and that the BBC is 'unbiased', you know you have a long way to go.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

silvi said:


> The problem is, he only reached the people who wanted to listen to him.
> 
> I agree that there has to be a way to show people that the media is biased and cannot be trusted, and you would think that enough of them realise that by now. But obviously they don't. When you get high ratings for all the 'benefit scrounger' programs, together with people actually believing that Channel 4 is 'left wing' and that the BBC is 'unbiased', you know you have a long way to go.


indeed, people are idiots and tend to choose reassuring lies over uncomfortable truths more often than not. Thats probably one of the main reasons why democracy fails.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> indeed, people are idiots and tend to choose reassuring lies over uncomfortable truths more often than not. Thats probably one of the main reasons why democracy fails.


Agreed....sadly.
But I'm still hopeful that a way can be found to reach people. After all, the lies must be seeming more and more hollow to many of them.
I guess I just think that it's no good us moaning that the media is biased and not trying to do something about it.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Scotland showed how to reach people last year and Corbyn is trying. You talk to people where they are and in the medium they prefer rather than to journalists before everyone else. I watched PMQ and then read about it - felt like two different occasions. We will need brighter journalists if they are to discuss policy in detail rather than the colour of JC's tie.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Well, if NATO are increasingly anti potentially risking nuclear war, maybe they're going to be less of a problem than they usually are. Although, to return once again to my original point, de-escalation only works if all parties genuinely agree and participate, and ALSO genuinely trust that all the other parties are genuinely participating.
> 
> As to nuclear war, do you really think any of the major democratic powers is ever going to pull the trigger? It's called MAD for a reason. Plus, starting a nuclear confilct is hardly going to get you (or your mates) re-elected, and not only do dead people not buy arms, but neither do victors with no remaining enemies. Assuming anyone survives, that is, which brings us back to the MAD part.
> 
> But none of that is actually really related to my original point, which was more along the lines of no country is going to disband its armed forces and dedicate themselves to peace, love and agriculture whilst they consider that there are still people out there who are keeping their Big Sticks and might use those Big Sticks against them given half a chance. Unless you want to risk the very nasty shock part, anyway. I didn't say I LIKE that it was that way, incidentally (my personal creed is "as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all"), just that this is how it is, and given the course of history so far then although I would like to see this change and hope it can happen, I won't be holding my breath.


Yes actually Jesthar, I do think the 'major democratic powers' that be would pull the trigger. I also think 'major non democratic powers' given enough provocation from 'the major democratic powers that be' would pull their trigger too!. They don't care if they leave us with an apocalyptic world, if they did they would stop plundering the earth for oil right now! - and that's what these wars are about - control of the worlds oil supply. And the US petrodollar can be found at the heart of all these conflicts.

(And just look at this for off the scale hypocrisy -

August 19: Obama allows Shell to drill in the Arctic
Sept 1: Obama urges other nations to save Arctic from climate change. WTF??? Kill us with climate change, kill us with bombs - they don't give a damn as long as they have control of all the oil. They're insane)

According to former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, the West ignored a Russian offer of a peaceful solution in Syria. http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-assad-step-aside?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet Why? Could the real reason for nato intervention be the West want control of that region & its oil? Russia's only navel base is in Syria. Is Syria really a proxy war? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42873.htm#.VftuMlzoPrs.twitter

Does NATO have the moral high ground? Its vital we find out what we're 'not' being told before its too late. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40537.htm








silvi said:


> Exactly.
> And that's why, despite the need to address so many pressing concerns, the Left really have to address a way of dealing with the media or of finding an alternative that works.
> Speak to many Labour Party members and they feel the same. While the media message is controlled by the Tories (either subtly, or overtly), no opposition party stands a chance of power....unless it suits the powers that be at that particular time - hence Blair's success.
> But no one appears to know what to do about this, rather than simply telling us what we already know - a true Labour Party is ****ed because of its treatment in the media.


Its so depressing. I can barely watch the news anymore - if its not blatantly biased its being subtly so. Makes me so angry. This isn't how a democracy is suppose to be :/


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> i dont think it matters who controls it, what matters is who believes it, who reads it, who buys into it. I dont think the answer is for labour to control an equal share of the media for example, i think the answer is to teach people that the media cant be trusted. i live in constant amazement that so many people still havent managed to figure that out for themselves. Russel Brand was going the right way about it with his trews series.


Its a pity people who were ridiculing Brand couldn't look past the man & listen to what he was saying. Because he was only informing us what the media either omits to tell us or blatantly spins.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

How quickly civilized countries forget the past and how they acquired some of their wealth.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> You'd make a very good spin doctor you would lol


Funny that considering that is all someone else does 

I should be grateful that around the 1940's attitudes were different. Similarly to now, it wasn't one sided in terms of problems/mistakes/cause. However singing kum-by-yah around a campfire would have been a mistake. Germany would have loved to talk to the UK to "resolve differences" and avoid conflict.

Sometimes you need to have access to a stick, not simply a carrot. I for one do not trust the US to represent us as having the only stick around.



noushka05 said:


> Its a pity people who were ridiculing Brand couldn't look past the man & listen to what he was saying. Because he was only informing us what the media either omits to tell us or blatantly spins.


When you have proven you are a obnoxious person, you cannot expect people to simply listen because you make a couple of youtube videos.

Back to the topic of migrants though.. I wonder how far back any of us can trace our background. Although impossible to trace, how many of us would go back as far as the beaker people in the UK?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Back to the topic of migrants though.. I wonder how far back any of us can trace our background. Although impossible to trace, how many of us would go back as far as the beaker people in the UK?


exactly. not many of us..





"i liked it when there was nothing, remember? the old nothing days?"


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

porps said:


> exactly. not many of us..
> 
> "i liked it when there was nothing, remember? the old nothing days?"


Hahaha, I LOVE Stewart Lee ... & Chris Morris .... hilarious!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

porps said:


> exactly. not many of us..


This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. 

Not f**kin' worldwide then is it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Zaros said:


> This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
> 
> Not f**kin' worldwide then is it.


I know, sorry about that, dont know why but it seems to be like that for most stewart lee clips (i've tried to link several to my gf and she had the same trouble)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Funny that considering that is all someone else does
> 
> I should be grateful that around the 1940's attitudes were different. Similarly to now, it wasn't one sided in terms of problems/mistakes/cause. However singing kum-by-yah around a campfire would have been a mistake. Germany would have loved to talk to the UK to "resolve differences" and avoid conflict.
> 
> ...


Well I do at least tend to provide links to credible sources for my 'spin' - as you never do, one can only assume your spin comes directly from the MSM  Of course I could be wrong, so feel free to provide references?

Well, well, well, guess what ?? *'The US military begins talks with Russia on Syria' **http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/world/europe/us-to-begin-military-talks-with-russia-on-syria.html?_r=1* 

If only the US & UK had seriously pursued talks with Russia 'before' NATO intervened perhaps we wouldn't now be witnessing all this suffering, death & destruction & the Syrian refugee crisis could have been prevented.

Perhaps this could have been resolved 3 years ago when a Russian offer of a carrot was ignored by the West! - . http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-assad-step-aside?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

Peoples idea of what makes an obnoxious person are clearly very different. For me an obnoxious person is one who is so morally bankrupt that they would crush the most vulnerable in society because they have the power to do so. Or someone who kills animals for fun or because they hate them. An obnoxious person for me, is someone so vile that they would see our world destroyed with their insatiable greed. That's my personal feelings on what makes someone obnoxious.

This was a great article on Brand.

https://shamocracy.org/2014/12/08/hatred-russell-brand-irrelevant/

*Still, how you or anyone else feels about Russell Brand as a person is irrelevant*. You should instead take interest in what he's talking about. If you can't do that, then the media has successfully swayed you into caring about the wrong things, which is basically the intention. It doesn't matter how you feel about one British comedian; economic inequality matters, governmental corruption matters, *media brainwashing matters*, and things like TTIP most certainly matter - Russell Brand is talking about all of it, and he's simply using his fame to spread the facts. Brand's house price or hairdo doesn't directly affect you, but the aforementioned all do. *His concerns are your concerns; ignore that at your peril.*

.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

The UK is FULL. 
We have people living in bed and breakfast or on the streets as we can't house them some of them ex-military, people having to use food banks as they don't have enough money to feed their families and not enough jobs, surely we should look after them first. 
For everyone we take in, it will make some of our peoples lives worse, just because they aren't a refugee they should have rights as well.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

merlin12 said:


> How quickly civilized countries forget the past and how they acquired some of their wealth.


Links well to this brilliant Frankie Boyle article - http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...itish-government-migrants-camps-frankie-boyle

_David Cameron visited__a refugee camp in Lebanon on Monday__. Our prime minister, a man who can normally muster all the moral authority of Roman Polanski's penis, has discovered his soul. Amazing what a three-week break away from parliament can do. It only took David Cameron six years to finally come out and take a moral stand, and all it took was the death of one toddler. You may call the Tories' glacial crawl towards respecting human life a political and personal train crash. I call it compassion.

In Europe we have the stereotype that Africans view life cheaply, but we've spent much of the summer watching van loads of Syrians being washed in by the tide and all we worried about was whether this meant the beach might be closed during the October holidays. There were Greek kids incorporating human remains into their sandcastles and yet the big story here was that the drinks trolley didn't make it down the Eurostar. One dog locked in a car on a sunny day - Britain goes apeshit.__Seventy-one dead migrants roasted in a truck__- oh that reminds me, Bake Off's on tonight_.

_It seems we are naive about the workings of this modern culture, where people Skype each other masturbating before a first date, and forget that the general populace now don't believe children are dying unless you show them a closeup picture of a dead child.__The Kurdi family__were trying to get from Turkey to Kos, so many people said, "Why would they want to leave Turkey? Turkey is nice!" Turkey is nice if you're a sunburnt Brit with a taste for overpriced kebabs, cheap jeans and waterslides. It's not so nice for a member of their oppressed minority who speak a language that's been banned by law. What we haven't heard is that children get washed up on the shore at Bodrum every single day. What are Turkish journalists doing? Generally about two to four years' hard labour.
Of course there are many people who say we shouldn't be helping refugees when there are homeless people here that we can do nothing to help first. Indeed Britain may have entirely forgotten how to be welcoming. We'll probably welcome refugees by putting the word Syrian in the sidebar of xHamster. We are only taking people from camps - we don't want refugees already in Europe as they cheated and didn't wait to shout "What's the Time Mr Wolf?" We don't want any refugees who are already close to us, like there's some kind of humanitarian offside rule_

_Of course when __parliament was asked to bomb Syria__ as part of Operation Hornets Nest it was to avert a humanitarian crisis. Now that there actually is a humanitarian crisis, our government doesn't seem to care. We were going to bomb Assad, soon we will be asked to bomb the forces fighting Assad. The_ only _difference between our lives and those of the workers in 1984 is that at least their jobs had breaks for drinking gin. Perhaps I'm being cynical, and the way to bring stability to a region is to bomb both sides in a bitter civil war, creating a power vacuum to be filled by moderate groups like The Screaming Sword of Allah or Superjihadi Endgame. Bombing would be an interesting response to a refugee crisis, resting as it does on the theory that Syrians are fleeing not because their country is at war, but because the war itself is not big and dramatic enough to really hold their interest.

I certainly don't want to see__Islamic State__in a war with our troops because - let's be honest - they are just impressionable young men who have been manipulated into a life of murder by those who teach hate, and Isis isn't much better. Still, at least Britain is briefly considering the morality of its actions abroad rather than obeying the usual propaganda limits, where liberal elements debate the practicality of our involvement in various international horror stories, and more honest elements the strategic importance._

_Both sides know that it's rude to mention the money. Enjoy our ethical renewal while it lasts. Already we are killing our own citizens with drones, and the argument is quickly turned into a legal rather than a moral one. We live in a country where moral arguments are largely reserved for white people, so there's a brief, legalistic debate about whether the missile should have to scream "You Have the Right to Remain Dead!" before it goes off, then the whole thing will be forgotten till the next time._

*The Dirty Dozen was classic psychological projection; it's not the troops who are corrupt but the ranged forces of politicians, arms manufacturers, intelligence agencies, Gulf State despots, and oil companies who send them in. Yes, Britain is a beautiful place to live, and we are lucky to be born here. Because of other people's oil, other people's sugar, other people's tea, other people's money. You weren't born in a country - you were born in a getaway car, and the victims have been chasing you down ever since by boat, by lorry, and on foot.*


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> The UK is FULL.
> We have people living in bed and breakfast or on the streets as we can't house them some of them ex-military, people having to use food banks as they don't have enough money to feed their families and not enough jobs, surely we should look after them first.
> For everyone we take in, it will make some of our peoples lives worse, just because they aren't a refugee they should have rights as well.


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...le-who-would-never-help-anyone-20150907101741

I'll just leave this here...The UK isn't even close to being "full", we have empty houses all over the country


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Well I do at least tend to provide links to credible sources for my 'spin'


Credible sources = what you agree with, you dismiss anything else as not being credible.



> If only the US & UK had seriously pursued talks with Russia 'before' NATO intervened perhaps we wouldn't now be witnessing all this suffering, death & destruction & the Syrian refugee crisis could have been prevented.


Possibly with how much suffering being performed in the country? Are you saying Russia wouldn't have been supporting Assad and would have left everything alone? What about Ukraine? I do not know the true situation in Syria and will never know. It wasn't a civil war simply as the US and UK decided to have fun. Should we ignore the use of chemical weapons on civilians?

Life isn't black and white but often murky grey. As a result, I am prepared to admit I do not know, despite whatever media I read. I do know simply pretending the world is a happy place where everyone can get along with eath other is a fantasy land and that governments have to deal with people in reality. Should we have talked and ignored German concentration camps? I don't agree with cuts in defence. I don't agree with the lack of support for our troops. I don't agree with being the US lapdog but at the same time, I do not agree with the idea that the UK should never get involved.



> Peoples idea of what makes an obnoxious person are clearly very different.


Anyone who earns money by taking advantage of others with no consideration is obnoxious. Then again, what you are saying is that because he says what you agree with he isn't. How much money has he made from his books etc demonising those who make money?

You complain about media brainwashing while only accepting media which says what you want dismissing anything else.

Then again, once again, that isn't the issue. The issue isn't about your propaganda. The thread is about the situation now in regards to refugees. It's about potentially millions of people who are trying to find another home and their suffering now. It's not about trying to gain polical capital at their expense.

As for the UK is FULL. How many empty houses are owned by foreign millionaires in London? How many empty houses are there in UK in general? I know a rumor has been going around Germany (no idea of truth) that empty holiday homes may be confiscated for use by government. Wonder how much housing something like that would free up in the UK. However Germany does have a falling population whereas the UK population is growing which is why it could be said immigration is a boon. Then again, declaring the UK is full isn't correct after all you do not restrict people having children? How are you going to cope with a growing population in the future?

How much of the issues are not population related, but governmental policy related (not simply the current one)? Food banks and jobs are examples. Previous studies in Germany have shown that migrants produce a positive, not negative effect actually creating new jobs and income including for the "native" population. Many of the refugees are well educated and motivated.

The main issue I see isn't directly related to the immigrants themselves. It's the PC brigade. We need to stand up and not be afraid to say, you are in the UK and this is how we do it and you will have to do it that way to.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Why do Russell Brand and Frankie Boyle and other celebrities have access to information that no-one else does? They talk about 'people', as though they're everyone but themselves. I might agree with some of what Russell Brand says though not everything, but I don't need my opinion validated by a celebrity and he seems to think he already knows what my opinion is, I'm a 'people', I must be, because I'm not him. Hence I can't think for myself, I'm spoon-fed by whatever the Daily Mail says and other propaganda, naive and hating in my Ivory Tower.

I have as much of a problem with some celebrity telling me what I think, as I do with some newspaper journalist telling me what I should think. Generalisations are seldom warranted and just rankle.

None of it matters. The nuclear war didn't happen, so I put my doors back on their hinges, but there's a comet about to wipe us all out and if that doesn't the sky is falling anyway, it's just a matter of time.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Elles said:


> None of it matters. The nuclear war didn't happen, so I put my doors back on their hinges, the sky is falling anyway, it's just a matter of time.


Aye, so it is. But it will only fall on those who are considered 'not economically viable' such as the sick, the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, the impoverished, the destitute, the dispossessed, the old and infirm and anyone else who represents a drain on the system.

If you're not a member of The Club Of Rome/Bilderberg Group etc, etc, etc, you won't have much of a bright future.

Apart from the instantaneous one they'll drop on a strategically condensed population early one morning. :Nailbiting


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Goblin said:


> As for the UK is FULL. How many empty houses are owned by foreign millionaires in London? How many empty houses are there in UK in general? I know a rumor has been going around Germany (no idea of truth) that empty holiday homes may be confiscated for use by government. Wonder how much housing something like that would free up in the UK. However Germany does have a falling population whereas the UK population is growing which is why it could be said immigration is a boon. Then again, declaring the UK is full isn't correct after all you do not restrict people having children? How are you going to cope with a growing population in the future?


Of course the UK isn't full in the literal sense but when it comes to the infrastructure, hospitals, schools, amenities, roads etc then we are already "full". The NHS is at breaking point for example.
Natural population growth due to childbirth is a gradual increase, one that can be pretty much predicted & managed (in theory).

The sudden influx of possibly millions of people is different &, IMO, beyond the capability of western Europe to manage in such a short space of time...


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> Of course the UK isn't full in the literal sense but when it comes to the infrastructure, hospitals, schools, amenities, roads etc then we are already "full". The NHS is at breaking point for example.
> Natural population growth due to childbirth is a gradual increase, one that can be pretty much predicted & managed (in theory).
> 
> The sudden influx of possibly millions of people is different &, IMO, beyond the capability of western Europe to manage in such a short space of time...


But millions won´t be entering UK... they will be shared between countries in the European Union.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

worth watching.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/20/world/europe-migrant-crisis/index.html


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

merlin12 said:


> But millions won´t be entering UK... they will be shared between countries in the European Union.


I did say western Europe....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

[QUOTE="Elles, post: 1064312985, member: 1291226"*]Why do Russell Brand and Frankie Boyle and other celebrities have access to information that no-one else does? * They talk about 'people', as though they're everyone but themselves. I might agree with some of what Russell Brand says though not everything, but I don't need my opinion validated by a celebrity and he seems to think he already knows what my opinion is, I'm a 'people', I must be, because I'm not him. Hence I can't think for myself, I'm spoon-fed by whatever the Daily Mail says and other propaganda, naive and hating in my Ivory Tower.

I have as much of a problem with some celebrity telling me what I think, as I do with some newspaper journalist telling me what I should think. Generalisations are seldom warranted and just rankle.

None of it matters. The nuclear war didn't happen, so I put my doors back on their hinges, but there's a comet about to wipe us all out and if that doesn't the sky is falling anyway, it's just a matter of time.[/QUOTE]

I don't think they do. They have the same information as the rest of us, the difference being that they are able to look at it from a different persepctive - ie not the perspective the government and their controlled media spoon-feed to the sheeple. I don't look on it as them trying to tell me what to think - it's merely another perspective, one that often rings more true than the "accepted" story.

And in a country where the media is coming more and more under governmental control, the more differing perspectives that arise, the better. Perhaps having a different take on current affairs just might make some people think. (I've always been an optimist!)


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

merlin12 said:


> But millions won´t be entering UK... they will be shared between countries in the European Union.


All those migrants who refuse to register anywhere but Germany or Sweden will be pretty annoyed when that happen s.......


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

negative creep said:


> All those migrants who refuse to register anywhere but Germany or Sweden will be pretty annoyed when that happen s.......


Angela Merkels 'open door' policy (which encouraged many of the migrants to travel and which in fact was actually closed very quickly) was in reality hard business sense as German have the lowest birth rate in the world and it's still falling. A recent report had stated that this would effect their future income. But since they started to arrive in numbers Germany has closed their doors and tightened their acceptance policy. Quite a few will be disappointed I think.



BlackadderUK said:


> Natural population growth due to childbirth is a gradual increase, one that can be pretty much predicted & managed (in theory).


Absolutely. Growth in birth population plays a large part in allocating future budgets from schools to houses. Sudden influxes require money already allocated to be redirected. The same dynamics as running a business. It can be done. It's the funds that are tapped in to when there are disasters in the world. But it has to come from somewhere .... at the moment aid is being sent to the camps though not the migrants on the move.

J


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

That was my point Spellweaver, I just made it badly.  They don't have access to different information, they have the same access to the same information. If we want to we too can draw our own conclusions and theories. Goblin made a good point. We don't actually know. I've never met a Syrian refugee, for all I know they're cgi'd by someone with a hidden agenda. I'm surprised that no-one's (the mail) reported yet that they're carrying some dreadful disease that we don't want here. 

If I'm interested in a subject tbh I usually have a look at source pages, so I'd look at pages on the 'net that aren't government or general media, or I might have a look at what they're saying in Australia or America, just out of interest. I probably wouldn't follow a link to what Russell Brand says about it, because I'd be looking for as near factual reports as possible, not someone else's opinions and conclusions drawn from observing the same factual reports I can, whether I'd agree with them or not. I probably give more 'people' more credit than a celeb might.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Can I indulge in one more history lesson?
> To be clear, the above quote is Peter Hitchens, not Satori.
> 
> For 800 years, up to 1492, Europe did merge it's culture with North Africa and the Middle East. They were the Moors that inhabited the Iberian Peninsula and brought with them advances in science, medicine, mathematics... Has anyone ever wondered why we use *Arabic* numerals when we write 1, 2, 3, 4, and not I, II, III, IV? We owe a lot of our culture, language, and understanding of the physical world to the Arab influence in Europe.
> ...


Because we are a tribal species and because suspicion of the different has been in our survival toolkit longer than we've been playing civilized.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Because they'll have us wearing burkas and praising allah before you can say infidel. They have nice horses over there though.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Credible sources = what you agree with, you dismiss anything else as not being credible.
> 
> Possibly with how much suffering being performed in the country? Are you saying Russia wouldn't have been supporting Assad and would have left everything alone? What about Ukraine? I do not know the true situation in Syria and will never know. It wasn't a civil war simply as the US and UK decided to have fun. Should we ignore the use of chemical weapons on civilians?
> 
> ...


I've yet to see 'any' sources from you credible or otherwise, I don't dismiss anything, hence why I asked to see some references that led you to form YOUR opinion.

I've formed my opinions reading & listening to people I trust such as Noam Chomsky, Diana Johnstone, world renowned investigative journalists such as John Pilger. Those who seek the truth. And no, I don't think US/UK intervention has been for 'fun' - I think its all been for $$$$$$$$$. Can you honestly say our interventions all over the Middle East have made the situation better for those people ??



Our new Shadow Chancellor on The War Machine -






Here are some links for you to have a look at - http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/13/road-to-damascus-and-on-to-armageddon/

http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue

http://www.mintpressnews.com/noam-c...-iraq-war-enforces-imperialist-agenda/205663/

Actually Russell Brand donated the profits from his book, Revolution, to help people in the community. In fact he got of his backside to help lots of people suffering under this governments awful policies - from families facing eviction due to the social cleansing happening in London to Firemen facing massive govt cuts - he tried to help them all. Not as obnoxious as the MSM portrayed him, hey? 

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/mar/26/russell-brand-donates-profits-book-hackney-cafe

I believe you've aimed the part ive highlighted at the wrong person, I haven't said the UK is full. And I agree with much of your response to that.. But you cant pin the blame anyone but tories for the spiralling use of foodbanks, homelessness or poverty - its all down to their ideological austerity cuts!



Elles said:


> Why do Russell Brand and Frankie Boyle and other celebrities have access to information that no-one else does? They talk about 'people', as though they're everyone but themselves. I might agree with some of what Russell Brand says though not everything, but I don't need my opinion validated by a celebrity and he seems to think he already knows what my opinion is, I'm a 'people', I must be, because I'm not him. Hence I can't think for myself, I'm spoon-fed by whatever the Daily Mail says and other propaganda, naive and hating in my Ivory Tower.
> 
> I have as much of a problem with some celebrity telling me what I think, as I do with some newspaper journalist telling me what I should think. Generalisations are seldom warranted and just rankle.
> 
> None of it matters. The nuclear war didn't happen, so I put my doors back on their hinges, but there's a comet about to wipe us all out and if that doesn't the sky is falling anyway, it's just a matter of time.





Elles said:


> That was my point Spellweaver, I just made it badly.  They don't have access to different information, they have the same access to the same information. If we want to we too can draw our own conclusions and theories. Goblin made a good point. We don't actually know. I've never met a Syrian refugee, for all I know they're cgi'd by someone with a hidden agenda. I'm surprised that no-one's (the mail) reported yet that they're carrying some dreadful disease that we don't want here.
> 
> If I'm interested in a subject tbh I usually have a look at source pages, so I'd look at pages on the 'net that aren't government or general media, or I might have a look at what they're saying in Australia or America, just out of interest. I probably wouldn't follow a link to what Russell Brand says about it, because I'd be looking for as near factual reports as possible, not someone else's opinions and conclusions drawn from observing the same factual reports I can, whether I'd agree with them or not. I probably give more 'people' more credit than a celeb might.


Where information is concerned Brand had a team of fact finding researchers, he interviewed experts ( Naomi Klein even!) - he was informing us of things the MSM should be telling us but aren't. If MSM were doing their job than the masses would be clear that we face a far greater threat from climate change than we do from ISIS (many aren't even clear CC is real nevermind dangerous!). They would know about all about TTIP - most people I've mentioned it to don't even have a clue what I'm talking about. Russell Brand was giving us the facts & exposing the way MSM frame things to fit govt agenda. Pity people didn't listen really, because many of the topics he spoke about, like climate change & TTIP will most certainly affect us in one way or another.

The reason the likes of Boyle & Brand resonate with me is not because they're celebrities lol its because they appear to share my values. So to be clear - no one' tells me how to think' - ask my hubby I simply respect people with humanitarian & environmental principles. That is all.

I love Frankies articles - heres a snippet from another he wrote on the refugees (& the article in full http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...g/03/cameron-swarm-plague-god-migrants-calais )



As for your last sentence on the 1st quote - it might not matter to you (because a comet might strike) - but the here and now matters to plenty others. Before a comet strikes TTIP will affect you, it will affect us all. Climate change will affect us, our children & future generations will suffer if we fail to address it. I fear 'the age of stupid' has become reality :/ At least Russell Brand tried his best to warn us...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

There's a subtle difference between what I said and how two of you guys have edited it. I said "they tell me what I think", not what to think.

There are many people out there in the real world situations helping where they can. Doctors working 80 hour weeks, volunteers handing out water at the borders, people signing petitions, lobbying the government, donating money and goods. These people didn't invade Iraq and nor did I. Many don't just listen, they research, work and get involved. They don't need a Russell Brand implying that everyone but him and his placard holders are in the dark, which is how I see it.

Tell me the facts as you see them, or what you've found out and let me make up my own mind. Give information. Don't tell me what I think and most certainly don't blame me for world crises, I'll tell you where to go, not join you. Rally the troops, don't shoot them down.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> There's a subtle difference between what I said and how two of you guys have edited it. I said "they tell me what I think", not what to think.
> 
> There are many people out there in the real world situations helping where they can. Doctors working 80 hour weeks, volunteers handing out water at the borders, people signing petitions, lobbying the government, donating money and goods. These people didn't invade Iraq and nor did I. Many don't just listen, they research, work and get involved. They don't need a Russell Brand implying that everyone but him and his placard holders are in the dark, which is how I see it.
> 
> Tell me the facts as you see them, or what you've found out and let me make up my own mind. Give information. Don't tell me what I think and most certainly don't blame me for world crises, I'll tell you where to go, not join you. Rally the troops, don't shoot them down.


I've have put quite a few links & videos on here already, Ironically though Russell Brands 'Trews' is a pretty good place to start if you want to find out about what we're not being told by the media lol I mention TTIP & Climate change (a lot), so just check these out Elles. (I really hope you can look past Russell lol )


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Have no idea how to delete posts :/


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Maybe I'm just too old. 

He doesn't do himself any favours does he? Laughing at US newsreaders and making sexist remarks regarding the females is hardly going to endear him to the American public. Anyone interested in Climate Change will need America, China and India on their side for a start. It's far too big a subject for the UK alone.

When he interviews people who have something real to say, interrupting them half way through a sentence and talking over them I find very irritating.

Localisation is very nice, so long as it doesn't go too far and we don't all end up toiling in the fields from dawn to dusk. I would imagine that most people would rather not do that these days.

Moderation all the way for me, I don't think Mr Brand is very moderate in either opinion or ego. 

Like I said, I'm probably too old, but at least I tried.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Maybe I'm just too old.
> 
> He doesn't do himself any favours does he? Laughing at US newsreaders and making sexist remarks regarding the females is hardly going to endear him to the American public. Anyone interested in Climate Change will need America, China and India on their side for a start. It's far too big a subject for the UK alone.
> 
> ...


Big respect to you Elles for watching them (all be it through gritted teeth ). My hubby never use to like Russell Brand either & he still cant be doing with his humour lol However after watching the Trews videos he has change his tune about the man, Russells altruistic nature won him over.

Brands opinions are only reflecting the facts hes seen. Because he has spoken to experts, he knows for a fact we are almost at the point of no return & runaway climate change is almost upon us - and he knows we can avoid this because there are eco-friendly solutions. The current economic model (neoliberalism) is unsustainable & will ultimately be the death of the earth we know and love. You may not think Brand has very moderate opinions but what could possibly be more extreme than killing our life support system for greed? :/

Its the UK/US moral duty to lead the way on climate change solutions, we are wealthy countries, we have the technology, historically we are responsible for the most emissions. China is actually doing more than we are to combat CC. There are major talks in Paris later this year, but this government are hopeless, they have already put, as Caroline Lucas says, a wrecking ball through solar - and onshore wind. This government are pulling all the stops out to enable the dangerous fracking industry. They are in bed with the fossil fuel industry. Corrupt to the core.

Here's what CIWF says about TTIP Elles - http://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/6305116/ttip-a-recipe-for-disaster-booklet-dec-2014.pdf I know you care about the welfare of livestock so just see how dire is going to get for them. Scary stuff

Anyway I really do appreciate you taking the time to watch the videos - thank you 

,


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I think most people already know it's pretty bad, they probably just hope that like Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones, the rich and powerful will want a future for their families too. There's no point in having a big, successful business if there's no-one left and they've cut down all the trees. Though maybe the rich and powerful think the poor and powerless will die off first and leave just enough to keep them in the manner to which they've become accustomed while the planet repairs itself.

CIWF is one of my bookmarks. 

This thread is about refugees though. Refugees are people, people affected by those in power even worse than we are atm, they're just people. Boring, ordinary people don't destroy countries. Boring, ordinary people are offering their spare rooms to put them up and trying to do what little they can to help, not launching remote controlled missiles. Though some boring, ordinary people wouldn't mind doing that either, they don't get the chance.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I've yet to see 'any' sources from you credible or otherwise, I don't dismiss anything, hence why I asked to see some references that led you to form YOUR opinion.


Given plenty in the past which you have dismissed as it's not left wing or the guardian. Thing is I take as many different sources from all sides and trust none of them to form an opinion, not simply ones I agree with. They are all biased. That's how I form the opinion that life isn't black and white, that there are more than one side to a story and people need to base ways forward in reality.

As far as celebrities go, they have little information which isn't freely already available. What they are doing is trying to use their status to influence people, effectively telling people what to think. That's why celebrities are wanted by politicians to back them up, well maybe not Justin Bieber or the Kardashians 

I don't think intervention in places like Syria was about purely $$$$ although it's easy and convenient when used for political purposes. In a trouble filled region, influence, not relating directly to $$$$ is more important. Yes influence can lead to financial advantages but it also has far more wide reaching effects especially when it comes to a region which has been in turmoil for so long.

That doesn't help of course the refugees and I don't see the solution for their "homeland" anytime soon even if the west simply pulled out. So, what is the solution? I don't agree with the "too full already" argument for the UK. After all, a different government can solve all the problems, NHS/food banks etc or so we are told. Using that logic, it stands to reason that additional numbers could also be catered for with a different government. There are issues however (although many are not politically correct). My personal issues are too many single males and totally different culture which does and I admit it, include religion. Not necessarily islam but the current interpretation of islam in many circles.

Probably now going to really annoy some people more than usual. Christianity also went through problems. When I grew up in the UK I was brought up in an environment where what church didn't matter. Went to church = christian. I couldn't comprehend what on earth the problems with catholic vs protestant was about in Northern Ireland. I still do not understand it. When I moved to Germany however I experienced left overs of the same thing. When going to a pharmacy, "no we go to this one".. "why?"... "it's the catholic one". Remnants are still around and this is after how long? However they are being solved.

I feel the problems with integration are solvable with acceptance of differences on all sides. Question is.. can those pushing islam accept others? That's a question I cannot answer but I think the religious aspect is one of the main fears of people, it's simply not one about which people are "allowed" to speak about. If the same numbers of people were in flight who looked western european and were of a similar culture, would there be so much resistance against helping some of them?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> I think most people already know it's pretty bad, they probably just hope that like Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones, the rich and powerful will want a future for their families too. There's no point in having a big, successful business if there's no-one left and they've cut down all the trees. Though maybe the rich and powerful think the poor and powerless will die off first and leave just enough to keep them in the manner to which they've become accustomed while the planet repairs itself.
> 
> CIWF is one of my bookmarks.
> 
> This thread is about refugees though. Refugees are people, people affected by those in power even worse than we are atm, they're just people. Boring, ordinary people don't destroy countries. Boring, ordinary people are offering their spare rooms to put them up and trying to do what little they can to help, not launching remote controlled missiles. Though some boring, ordinary people wouldn't mind doing that either, they don't get the chance.


World leaders, Obama & Cameron, fully accept the science on climate change - ( Obama: _*"no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future* *generations than a change in climate*". _The President warned that this was * "*_*the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that* *can do something about it*."_http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33764762) ...

They know this but do nothing to stop & everything to facilitate the fossil fuel industry - they clearly cant care that much for their progeny & future generations, can they?. They'd rather live in Armageddon than save the planet (Al Gore Attacks Cameron For Environment U-Turns, Tempted To Accuse PM Of 'Betrayal' Gore; "_There are very few of those great moral questions that we have encountered in the past, from abolition [of slavery] to womens' suffrage, to civil rights and gay and lesbian rights, there are very few of these questions where the UK has not been heard loudly and clearly. *This is such a question. Because it involves the survival of humankind." *_ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ameron-for-environment-u-turns_n_8175340.html ) Obviously short term gain is priority over life on earth.

I know the thread is about refugees. The war machine/climate change = the refugee crisis we're witnessing - neocon ideology is at the root cause Elles.



Goblin said:


> Given plenty in the past which you have dismissed as it's not left wing or the guardian. Thing is I take as many different sources from all sides and trust none of them to form an opinion, not simply ones I agree with. They are all biased. That's how I form the opinion that life isn't black and white, that there are more than one side to a story and people need to base ways forward in reality.
> 
> As far as celebrities go, they have little information which isn't freely already available. What they are doing is trying to use their status to influence people, effectively telling people what to think. That's why celebrities are wanted by politicians to back them up, well maybe not Justin Bieber or the Kardashians
> 
> ...


What a cop out! lol Even if you have given me references before (which I do not remember lol) how would they relate to this topic? tut tut tut And I don't believe I've given you any links to a guardian article on this thread?? But just to enlighten you about the Guardian (incase you're unaware) journalists such as George Monbiot, Glenn Greenwald for example write for the Guardian because they have total editorial freedom to publish what they like. Which means they have full editorial independence & nobody can edit their articles before they are released  How many other MSM outlets can you say that about? I look at lots of sources but I am fully aware many journalists tow the editorial line, so of course I'm very interested to know where you get most of your information from?? . As an environmentalist & socialist, I'm obviously on the left of politics - you on the other hand are blatantly NOT  Your opinions tend to be extremely 'mainstream' lol

Listen to what Ex - US Marine/Gulf war veteran Ken O'Keefe has to say on Syria, Iraq, Saudi, the Bankers!- & the duplicity & hypocrisy of the West!


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Iheartcats said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=849076995169988
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse the expletives in the video but he sums up EXACTLY how I feel about certain bogots of a certain generation.


He says in this video that people of a younger generation grew up and went to school with Poles and Lithuanians and that makes them more tolerant than people of an older generation, who do not have this experience. This is not strictly true (he clearly does not know his history) because at the end of the Second World War thousands of Polish, Ukranian, Lithuanian etc., refugees of war took up residence in the UK as they were invited over here by the British government due to a shortage of men who had been killed during the war and their children (all British born, so British citizens) are now aged in their 50s, 60s and early 70s, so the older generation do have the same experience of growing up with children of dual nationality and not all people of this generation do have the attitude he so despises. Two of my best friends' parents were Polish and Lithuanian. I think to label everyone of a certain age as a bigot is a generalisation and whilst some are bigots, there are many others who are not. Just as there will be some people among the younger generation who are bigots and some who are not. Quite often, bigots and xenophobes give birth to bigots and xenophobes because it is learned behaviour. I find his labelling of the older generation as bigoted is as bigoted as the bigots he so despises.

Just to add, people are frequently affronted by racism and sexism and yet ageism is often accepted and ignored a fact that amazes me, tbh. Whilst none of us can change our race and very few change their sex or religion, we all, if we are lucky, will one day be old. I wonder how those who practice ageism will feel when they are no longer part of the younger generation and have to suffer negative ageist attitudes that the more mature among us do today?


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Refugees complain about poor living conditions inside camps | MWorld | News | Daily Express

Just saw this, makes interesting reading.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Honeys mum said:


> Refugees complain about poor living conditions inside camps | MWorld | News | Daily Express
> 
> Just saw this, makes interesting reading.


Nothing in that racist rag interests me. The Katie Hopkins link on the bottom of that article turns my stomach. That woman is repulsive.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Nothing in that racist rag interests me. The Katie Hopkins link on the bottom of that article turns my stomach. That woman is repulsive.


I can totally agree with you regarding that woman, but she didn't write this articl. My OH just happens to have the Daily Express every day
However I find it distasteful that they complain. When our homeless people (including some armed forces) get very little help.Also some of the comments at the end say it all.


----------

