Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 05:28 PM

Anyone feel that the current much reported immigration issue is an example of doing something when we shouldn't (Iraq) and not doing something when we should (Syria)? Or is is this a more complex and multifaceted issue. People see what an open society we have compared to their own lot and want a taste of it too? An unintended consequence of an open boarder policy?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 1 2015, 06:32 PM

No, you were right first time. We went into Iraq on the knowingly false pretext of "weapons of mass destruction" when the sound military and humanitarian analysis was that regime change would likely destabilise the region and cause more suffering than it solved, and that a US-led regime change would further alienate the Muslim world against the West.

The suffering of the people fleeing Syria is appalling, and the callousness with which we call these refugees "immigrants", so that we don't think about their children drowning on the shores of the Adriatic but can focus instead on the benefit-scrounging avoided, will be one of those defining horrors which people will read about 100 years from now with incredulity.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 07:40 PM

Immigration is just my 'cover all' reference.

My feeling is that it is more about cultural and religious distrust than benefits (although I'm sure benefits is a part of it too). I think post 911 and attitudes to Islam in the west has put back cultural integration by some margin. I can't help but think that if it was a 'developed' community seeking sanctuary, that things might be a little different.

Of course, all this doesn't help in the Monster Raving Tory's quest to cut benefit bills and the impending EU referendum, etc.

Another factor might be the perception that recent immigration has been too great.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 1 2015, 08:23 PM

We simply don't like any 'immigrants', no matter where they are from. After all, prior to this latest situation, there was a huge disquiet about immigration from Eastern Europe. Poland isn't undeveloped or Muslim. It's often claimed that over the years the UK has traditionally welcomed immigrants, but even a cursory glimpse at history suggests this isn't exactly true. I suspect it's really down to living on an island which makes us rather insular. Let's face it, as we've often seen in this very forum, we don't even like local 'incomers'!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 08:45 PM

The polish aren't refugees (which was my original point).

Immigrants are sometimes seen as a threat and the more immigrants differ (accent, language, culture, appearance, etc) from the local populous then the greater that concern.

I don't think we are much different to anywhere else. Many people who travel could tell you of their unpleasant experiences in other regions and countries, but they might also tell you about the good people too.

Perhaps humans are naturally bigoted - maybe hard coded - but some can deal with it easier than others.

Interesting program: http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/

Posted by: On the edge Sep 1 2015, 09:15 PM

You've lost me I'm afraid. I can't see where you have mentioned 'refugee'. In any event, in reality, there is often very little difference in the effect or how we treat. I've also traveled widely and yes, many cultures are wary of new people, but I've not seen it quite in the same scale as it is reported in some of the more hysterical press. I'd also say we aren't naturally bigoted, a number of close relatives who work with young children in multi cultural situations will attest to this; young kids simply ignore or accept difference. Bigotry is a learned, or given behaviour.

People, even fit youngsters, don't leave their homes, families and familiar surroundings simply for an adventure. I'd argue that the problem we face right now is a World issue so I'm a bit surprised no one has yet thought of involving the UN. It's clear that, for whatever reason, living conditions in the home countries are intolerable. Why can't we have a World peace initiative to sort that?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 09:21 PM

I didn't, but I did write: "I can't help but think that if it was a 'developed' community seeking sanctuary, that things might be a little different."

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 09:25 PM

I don't think we should conflate an hysterical press with what people are like in the community.

As for bigoted, science seems to say we all have it, but we learn to see through it. It is there as a behaviour to help protect us and to enable us make swift decisions; it seems. Humans are 'quite good' at seeing things that are not really there.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 09:29 PM

http://www.mercycorps.org.uk/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

"Is there enough assistance to reach everyone?

In December 2014, the U.N. issued its largest ever appeal for a single crisis — according to their estimates, £5 billion is necessary to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis, both inside and outside Syria, an increase from last year's £4 billion. Yet that previous appeal was only funded less than 50 percent.

Many humanitarian organisations, including Mercy Corps, are partnering with the U.N., using both private contributions and funding from the international community to actively address the needs of Syrians caught in this terrible disaster. But so much more must be done."

Posted by: On the edge Sep 1 2015, 09:40 PM

Clearly not observational science!

As for the press, why, for instance, does the Daily Mail have such a huge sale? Do people really pay good money for things they don't empathise with? The hysterical reaction to 'strangers' is readily observed round here, for instance when anyone dares suggest a new housing development...!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 09:53 PM

There is only one true science.


As I suggested, being bigoted is a human trait, but not just human, it exists in other species too. However, we are also hypocritical, and when we boil it down, we can harbour prejudice but still work together in relative peace too.


The hysteria behind that I'm sure is not solely down to a fear of strangers, it is more than that. I think it is more about being in control, or not losing control.

I think for better examples of bigotry, one only has to look at the views expressed on here about subjects like: the council, council/association tenants, immigrants, benefit claimants, travellers, etc.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 1 2015, 10:55 PM

We've never been a particularly welcoming nation. The signs saying 'No dogs, no blacks, no Irish' were not just folklore, they were put up by otherwise normal God-fearing, church-going nice old land-ladies who saw nothing wrong in it. Bangladeshis in the early 70s, Kenyan Asians around the same time and Ugandan Asians kicked out by Idi Amin were all as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit at the time.

More recently it's the 'Travelling community' that have been unwelcome for most people if they happened to wake up one morning and found them living in the field next door.

But there's a lot of hypocrisy about the current crisis. It's all well and good for the Guardian readers or the "disgusted of Newbury" hand wringers to moan and say that something must be done but it would be very interesting to see if they changed their tune if a property next to them opened up to accommodate these people.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2015, 11:14 PM

Being welcome and tolerating are different things. While we might read a lot of things in the local paper and read what is posted here, BUT, anecdotally, I'd say Newbury is pretty cosmopolitan from a racial point of view.

The things that have been highlighted above are behaviours that you will find all over the world. Having said that, I suspect you will more readily see those thing in places where people feel they have something to lose.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2015, 06:19 AM

These people? They're just people.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 2 2015, 08:04 AM

The demographic profile of Newbury is almost exclusively Caucasian. If by 'Cosmopolitan' you're referring to the fashion magazine, which seems to only feature and cater for white people, then I'd agree.

Other than Friday prayers when the mosque on Pound Street generates relatively small numbers of men in the town wearing their taqiyah skullcaps, dishdash and flip flops, or when the Vodafone bus picks up on London Road then Asian faces are seldom seen and we have a very small black community.


We're a million miles from being similar to the likes of Reading.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 2 2015, 08:14 AM

Do read my sentence again and advise me what word I should have used instead. Grammar and Spelling police already patrol these forums and now we have Syntax and Context Police.


Anyway if 'these people' arrive in numbers around Newbury I rather hope they're housed closer to you than they are to me....

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 08:37 AM

Thank God (not Allah)!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2015, 08:52 AM

Yes Master.



.....but the Earth still spins.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 2 2015, 08:58 AM

Don't you mean,

"Yeth Mathter"!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2015, 09:51 AM

Being 'Caucasian' doesn't necessarily make one locally sourced, besides, colour is only one aspect: there are plenty of foreign residents, visitors, students and workers in the district.


Who said...

a: It was a competition.
b: Reading should be seen as the paragon of integration.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2015, 09:54 AM

They're the same thing.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 10:15 AM

Not in my book matey boy! My Bible tends not to mention Allah much.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2015, 10:44 AM

They are still one of the same; regardless of your opinion. Both words refer to the same deity.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2015, 10:52 AM

You're making a distinction between "these people" (Syrian refugees) and other people, and I don't recognise the distinction, I just see people.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 10:54 AM

You won't once your surrounded by them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2015, 10:58 AM

In point of fact the Bible doesn't tell you the name of the Abrahamic deity.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 2 2015, 11:15 AM

I'll bet Satan and all his little imps have a special treat lined up for you!

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 2 2015, 11:18 AM

Maybe they called him "Burning Bush" in those days...A bit prophetic
ce

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 11:20 AM

For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God!

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 2 2015, 11:21 AM

Knew a girl like that once!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2015, 11:48 AM

Hmm...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2015, 12:40 PM

Pubic lice?

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 2 2015, 02:30 PM

Surely the debate over terminology is relevant to the current crisis? The conditions in Europe must be drawing people seeking a better life, who are from regions where their rights are not endangered, as well as genuine asylum seekers whose lives are threatened of they stay where they are.

We need some migrants to keep our economy working but how many and with what skills? And how many genuine asylum seekers can we afford to take? Probably far more than we are currently taking but there surely must be a limit?

It seems to me that we need to put an organised, controlled system in place and that building higher fences around the Calais terminals and providing more sniffer dogs is not the answer. We also need to deter the opportunists who we don't need here. Surely we should make it clear that anyone who enters the country illegally will be returned to their country of origin (or a friendly third country which is willing to take them, perhaps for payment), regardless of their status. Genuine asylum seekers and those wanting to work here will be processed at the borders.

I can see this would be difficult but what other options do we have? Should we accept all comers and be done with it? Seems to me that Cameron and May are burying their heads in the sand, pandering to public opinion and applying sticking plaster measures or suggesting measures which are impossible to implement such as May's suggestion that only economic migrants who already have job offers should be allowed to come here.

This entire situation is very like the crisis facing the NHS - for one reason or another there is no proper debate and we only talk about symptoms or emotive aspects of the problem.

Posted by: GMR Sep 2 2015, 03:29 PM

First of all you can’t blame the immigrants. No doubt, we would do the same in their position.

Secondly, governments must answer some questions before letting anybody into their country.

• Do we have enough dwellings for the extra people we want to take in, and if not what is going to be done about it?
• Who will support them if they can’t get work straight away.
• Do we have the room and if we do what is our capacity (what is our limit when we have to say, enough is enough).
• Are your hospitals, schools, communities efficient and capable to take the extra work loads?
• How will this effect on communities? Will they receive new people in with kindness and open arms?

Another point; the more we take the more others will see it as an open house and also want to come. In other words accepting them will encourage others to take the chance.

Posted by: motormad Sep 2 2015, 03:35 PM

Both are the same, in that neither exist.

Next.

Posted by: GMR Sep 2 2015, 04:24 PM

There is only one God and they are accepted by the Jews, Muslims and Christians. They go under many different names: Yahweh, Allah, Lord, God, etc., but whatever you wish to call It/ Him, they all refer to the same person/ or entity/ or fictional character/ or part of ones imagination.




Actually the Bible, or Your Bible mentions God/ Allah all the time. You obviously never read it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2015, 05:49 PM

Deuteronomy 10:17. Curious. There's no nation on earth more familiar with the plight of the refugee than the Jews, and Moses wrote Deuteronomy after the Nation of Israel had been wandering in the wilderness for forty years. He goes on to say in the next verse:

"He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing."

Just saying, He's your god, not mine.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 2 2015, 06:10 PM

I didn't realise He worked for Oxfam. Every day a school day.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 06:43 PM

God yes, never seen Allah though.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 06:45 PM

So, who is your god? Apart from Monty Don of course.

Posted by: Petra Sep 2 2015, 06:53 PM

Dear all,

What you dummkopf’s do not realise, that is those that object to Britain accepting more immigrants/ migrants/ refugees, is that we will accept them anyway. Germany is accepting 800,000, and some estimates say that will be every year, and once they are processed, then they are entitled to move around Europe freely (as part of European freedom of movement law). As far as I know, so that European countries can save face, they will refuse immigrants; however, accept them through the back door (i.e. through Germany). So the debate on whether we should accept immigrants or not is sterile. Most of those that went to Germany, or are going to Germany, plan to end up in Britain, as their main language or second language is English.

Governments are not stupid, they know how to navigate through their countries bigotry, xenophobia etc., by playing the media game for the benefit of the fickle public and press.

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 07:12 PM

So we leave Europe, at the earliest opportunity. Leave them to rot at the border. Let Germany keep them, part payment for two world wars.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2015, 07:22 PM

Mock me for a gardener if you like, but according to you this whole mess started with a dispute over not eating of the fruit whereof He told thee thou shouldst not eat, and it strikes me as rather petty not to have resolved that dispute by now.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 2 2015, 07:22 PM

I've re-read the thread. I made no such distinction. That interpretation was entirely down to you. The ‘these people’ I was referring to would encompass the whole swarming mass of immigrants defecating all over Calais and it's approaches, whether from Syria or sub-Saharan Bongo M'bongoland. The Immigration Crisis this week is focussed on Syria but there's a whole United Nations in the jungles of Calais.

As for 'Are we getting what we deserve', the fact is we're getting far fewer of the current migration of people in actual numbers terms than Germany or many other EU countries, but we have a history of relatively 'mass immigration' in the past decades since the war and our tolerant society is getting a tad fed up with the squeeze that's taking place in certain regions and cities. Living cheek by jowl with people from other cultures isn't comfortable for many Brits (and you don't have to be Alf Garnett to feel that way)

I don't put the current mass movement down to Iraq Wars or other skirmishes specifically, I think the majority of migrants heading for British shores are beating a path for our country due to English being their second language.

I blame the David Livingstone's and other colonial missionary explorers for spreading the Word of God and The British Empire (along with our language) to The Four Corners of the Dark Continent. It's our distant past that's to blame rather than recent history and military interventions...





.......Dead people?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2015, 08:15 PM

So we are getting what we deserve!

Posted by: GMR Sep 2 2015, 08:32 PM

Are you talking to yourself again?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 2 2015, 08:56 PM

He's certainly the only one listening to him, poor luv.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2015, 09:07 PM

If the spread of the English language is really the underlying reason why so many want to come here, wasn't it rather odd that they campaigned so hard for us to end the Empire. Silly letting that go really, and many claim Attlee was a good PM! Perhaps we should bring it back; it would solve the problem and stuff Europe at the same time.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2015, 09:31 PM

Language is one, but Germany is popular too, so it is not the only thing it seems. The main pull is our standard of living compared to theirs I would imagine. If the news is to be believed, many are 'asylum shopping'.

Even refugees are becoming picky it seems.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2015, 09:24 AM

I think my getting what we deserve question is being taken out of context. It was meant to be a comment on our recent foreign policy and how we have disturbed the balance in the Middle East, perhaps. Not whether we are taking our fair share; that is a different question.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 3 2015, 10:02 AM

Part of the problem, IMO, is the lack of cultural integration.

We have "Multiculturalism" which means no integration; instead series of enclaves of non-integrated peoples each doing their own thing and demanding parity.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 3 2015, 10:11 AM

I think you are conflating EU freedom of movement with the Schengen Treaty. Easy to do if you don't actually know what you are talking about.

Freedom of movement does not apply until citizenship of an EU state has been granted - it is not available to every migrant. As migrants, people are free to move around the Schengen area - which we are not a part of - once they have entered it. They have no such freedom for non-Schengen countries until they move from migrant status to citizen status.

Yes, Germany has said it will accept 800,000 migrants; but that is not the same as giving them German citizenship

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2015, 10:57 AM

I think we are also conflating poor souls drowning at sea with young apparently healthy adults banging on the door of the EU borderer countries demanding a right of passage to a county of their preferred choice.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2015, 12:24 PM

Difficult isn't it? A good number of those 'healthy adults' had equally dangerous journeys up to 'the front door'. In any event, they are only following the recommendation of Lord Tebbitt, who demanded that people without work should follow the advice of his father,who was unemployed in his healthy adolescence, but travelled around under his own steam 'till he got work. What's the difference?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2015, 12:50 PM

One group are struggling to leave a war torn country (where the real help is needed), while another group have found their 'sanctuary' (secondary help is needed).

Opening the doors saying come in you poor things is not going to solve the issue. I also fear that if I continue with my argument I will end up sounding like Enoch Powell. If the numbers spouted are real, opening up the former eastern block to the west will be a drop compared to the amount the EU will see from the Middle East and all the social unrest that will certainly cause.

Posted by: GMR Sep 3 2015, 04:05 PM

The end result will be a Germany citizenship.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2015, 05:23 PM

That's of course if the Germans follow through with it.

Posted by: GMR Sep 3 2015, 06:41 PM

I don't think they now have any choice after what they said.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2015, 08:08 PM

They never committed to 'talking' 800,000 (another Petra error), only that they expected it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/20/germany-raises-estimate-refugee-arrivals-800000

Posted by: GMR Sep 3 2015, 08:51 PM

Aren't you splitting hairs here? They will probably take over 800,000 at the end of the day.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2015, 08:58 PM

No, just trying to correct possible missinformation. Some commentators doubt that the projection will happen. It could even be an attempt by Germany to 'embarrass' other countries into doing more which might mean they will not receive as many.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 12:03 PM

I noticed that you use "possible" and "some," which actually doesn't really mean anything. I've read a lot on this and it seems it all depends on what you read and what you watch. On that, it could mean you could be right, or Petra could be right. Nevertheless, the way governments work, by subterfuge and disinformation, I wouldn't be surprised that Petra was right. I think anybody would be a fool to trust the government at face value.

I now read that the Government will take so many thousands. I have no doubt that whatever they take it will be criticised for not being enough. This will encourage those watching from afar that it is worth the risk for a better life. If I was in their shoes I would be encouraged to take the risk for a better life.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 04:02 PM

That is the rub: "No good deed goes unpunished."

Two dead boys are washed-up on the beach in front of the glare of the media, so now there's an imperative to home hundreds of thousands of immigrants. It is a pity that the media weren't there on the street to whiteness the death and destruction when the coalition performed 'Shock and Awe' on Iraq to the same effect.

The western world have taken the 'piece' for too long; we are now getting what we deserve.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 4 2015, 05:47 PM

And if I loaded my family into a leaky unseaworthy boat and tried to sail across the channel losing said family in the process, I wonder how much sympathy I would garner? Or would the authorities and the public turn on me?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 06:00 PM

I appreciate fully that I am writing from a position of comfort and privilege, but I can't help thinking that our government are in effect 'giving in to terrorists' and hostage to a media that are distorting the picture.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2015, 06:20 PM

...and so yet again Orwell got it right in 1984. We are conditioned by the media. Easy isn't it.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 06:21 PM

They would turn on you because they would think - rightly - what idiot would put their family in danger when they didn't have to. Compared to somebody fleeing from a war-torn country. In fact I would go as far as seeing you put into jail.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 06:27 PM

Do you know from what country the family set-off from?

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 06:27 PM

And what about the Jews in the 30s? We and other nations took them when the Nazi's were on the march. Maybe we shouldn't have; after all, didn't we and the world give into Nazi terrorism? Maybe we should have let the Jews be gassed to prove that we won't be intimidated by such Nazi terrorism. And yes, you are writing from your comforts and privileges. I wonder what your attitude would have been if you had been a Jew in the 30s or one of the refugees today? Would you be shouting "don't give into the terrorist ********, show your strengths and let us die; women and children".

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 06:28 PM

According to the press it was a war torn country. Does that help?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 06:35 PM

Can you send me a link to where you read that as that isn't what I have read.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 06:38 PM

One big strawman twaddle of a post.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 06:40 PM

I would love to, but I heard it on the news. Actually, I also read it, but not sure where. No doubt it will surface again or you could put key pointers in the search engine and hopefully it will pop up. Whether what I read it true or not, or what you read it true or not I am sure the truth can be easily found on the internet.

By the way; what did you read?

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 06:42 PM

Of course it is to you, as I challenged your comments.




If you read back to what you wrote: My twaddle was in reply to your twaddle.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM

I know where to find it, it is just you made an emphatic statement that was contrary to what I understood, so I wanted to check; however, I believe they set-off from Turkey which I also believe isn't war-torn.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 06:53 PM

There are many refugees who fled to Turkey from war-torn countries. And to be honest they are not that well treated in Turkey (according to some reports).

Also; prospects are a lot better and healthier in Europe than the middle East and with Germany offering to take refugees and Tourist migrants (without checking) then it is well worth the risks. Turkey doesn't offer free health service or such amenities as Europe does.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 07:01 PM

So they risked their lives fleeing from (presumably) poverty; Turkey, after all, have taken the lions share of the fleeing Syrians.

The impression the media are showing is that a of something like Dunkirk, but what it seem to be closer to is a famine relief effort.

My point is simply that to offer sanctuary to people considering putting their lives in danger is akin to negotiating a settlement with hostage takers, but of course, on a much larger scale

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2015, 07:06 PM

I would say they are fleeing to better prospects. Also; those that are in Turkey are, as far as I know, in camps. They would be offered a better future in Europe, I am sure you'll agree with that?






Maybe six of one, half a dozen of the other?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 07:20 PM

Agreed, but that is different than your original scathing post in reply to je suis Charlie's post. Therefore, should people risk the life of their family for a better life? And should we step in if people do? And if we do, what is the most effect way to do that?


Perhaps, but it seems to be easier to jump on the band wagon emblazoned with 'we need to save people from death and persecution in a war torn country' than one that has 'we are fed-up with being skint - give us better food and a better home'.

People complained about the foreign aid budget and wondered why we do it; that is a fair point, but perhaps the problem was that is was nowhere near enough and what there was wasn't spent on the right things.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2015, 08:00 PM

GMR is quite right, there is little real difference between someone fleeing from a Country because the regime is repressive or someone fleeing because they want to escape poverty. We've generally rushed into conflicts, pressured by the Americans with little if any thought about what happens after. We pump out millions in 'aid' with little knowledge or understanding about how it's spent. Our and the EU economic system 'market forces' does demand free movement of labour. And yes, even without what's happening now, that does mean cheapest possible. If we want some degree of population stability, we really need to focus on bringing those places from which people are fleeing up to an acceptable civilised standard. That does mean regime change, that does mean policing and that does mean aid us delivered in terms of commerce not arms. Long term possibly BUT we could start right now. Many Countries have national service, why not us? Potentially in the form of a civilian service corps - the draftees not taking arms, but applied to improving infrastructures. This would give useful work to those attempting to improve their lives under a compassionate government.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 08:11 PM

There is only no difference in the symptom, but they are different issues which have different imperatives and probably different solutions.


I doubt that is true. It is probably some kind metaphoric 'grease'.


Yes, a big society initiative sounds good in theory, but of course you devalue low skilled jobs that way. There is some interesting ideas in your post, but perhaps we better start thinking about what to do about a future world where being slave to 'free market' starts to fail? We are inventing more and more ways to do away with the need for people, yet we are creating more and more of them.


On topic: salvation is the only solution now, but, if rescuing people at all cost is the new solution, then we supply another weapon to those that wish to exploit it and damage our and indeed, others' way of life.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 4 2015, 08:36 PM

Whatever hellish and war-torn place he left he's happy enough to be going back there to bury his children. It's difficult and there are a lot of people keeping their opinions to themselves for fear of being seen as heartless but once the media storm settles I wonder how differently 'these people' will be treated in the press if they start camping out in London parks and start begging in the streets and generally causing mayhem like the Romanians were guilty of as far as the papers were concerned. The same papers that wanted the Romanians booted out last year now have a different Crusade this year in that everyone should be welcomed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2015, 08:57 PM

Exactly.

'We must save the war torn, unless it devalues my house or devalues my job.'

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2015, 11:08 AM

It's been said before, rather difficult to distinguish between a war torn adolescent or an economic migrant. Just like the old canard of trying to distinguish between those who can't pay as opposed to those that won't - in real terms, can't be done.

Every change we don't like seems to 'devalue' our houses. Ironically, the growing call for council houses gets stymied because people don't want them built in their back yard.

The latest is jobs, again, ironic that everyone demands the benefit of cheap food, clothes and services competition brings; but when it comes to them, Oooh no thanks! It's called capitalism.

I suppose one answer would be to offer up the tracts of accommodation presently threatened with demolition in many Northern towns. We'd then have an admittedly cheap, and apparently willing labour force which could really 'kick start' the Northern power house dream Mr Osbourne has.

Imagine, we could repatriate the call centre jobs lost to India, the production work lost to Asia and turn our hand to produce rather more of the food we need Who knows, then we could really exit Europe and stand in our own.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2015, 11:52 AM

Or build ghettos leading to disaffected youths who find they don't like Western values and vow to bring it down.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 5 2015, 02:30 PM

And It's a bit problematic to produce more food when a) farmers are going out of business because we all want cheaper food, and when you've just concreted over the land to build cheap houses to put the migrants in.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2015, 03:45 PM

Sigh!

That's exactly why I suggested using the housing stocks scheduled to be demolished in the north!

Farmers need not go out of business, why can't they take a pay cut like everyone else? Or, start actually marketing their products properly. Screaming and shouting about how hard done by they are isn't demonstrating the free market force values we all voted for. Bit ironic really, the Countryside Alliance actively campaigned to get rid of our then mildly socialist government. However, with a cheap young and fit labour force they'd be able to bring their costs down wouldn't they?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2015, 03:48 PM

How does that work then? Aaah yes, we aren't much good with disaffected youth as demonstrated weekend after weekend by the disgusting behaviours the local ones exhibit in the Town Centre

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 5 2015, 04:28 PM

How about everyone stays in the Country they were born in and if you are attacked fight and protect that country.

I know I'd rather die than be on the receiving end of some foreign force invading us.

Lots of these immigrants seem to be healthy young men. They probably just need a cause and something to fight for. A leader.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2015, 05:28 PM

Yeah! That'll work. The original inhabitants of America tried that one.

Course, we could always send a few leaders to kick it all off, we've a few looking for alternative employment. Come on Mr Blair, help clear up?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 5 2015, 06:04 PM

I suppose the good thing is when all the civilians have left and just ISIS and a few other nutters remain we can just nuke the whole
goddam place.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 5 2015, 06:26 PM

Gets my vote, in fact why wait? I mean, think of the upsides, no more Isis, cure immigration and, pretty sunsets for a few years. Bingo, done deal!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2015, 08:40 PM

Actually, we could usefully localise this theory; Reading, for instance , as a crater would at least stop the b****** moving here because the houses are cheaper!

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 6 2015, 12:37 PM

Terribly complicated these days to mix Roma and Romanians.
I have just employed a Romanian lady,as a cleaner,she works for 5 others has a NI and pays tax.
20ish. Speaks better English than I do Romanian (nil) . Studying as well. People are often quite nice.
She's pretty as well....Shut up CE

Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2015, 03:08 PM

Umm, looks as if you'll need to be on tea, two sugars and a pinch of bromide CE!

Posted by: GMR Sep 6 2015, 03:19 PM

I wouldn't say I was "scathing," however, it was a stupid comparison that he made; to compare himself/ family to refugees. If he was fleeing from something and he put his family in a dangerous situation then it would be a different story.

To answer your questions; it all depends on the situation they are confronted with. Should we step in? Same answer. Third question; good question. But that would be down to the government and law of the land to judge.

QUOTE

Perhaps, but it seems to be easier to jump on the band wagon emblazoned with 'we need to save people from death and persecution in a war torn country' than one that has 'we are fed-up with being skint - give us better food and a better home'. People complained about the foreign aid budget and wondered why we do it; that is a fair point, but perhaps the problem was that is was nowhere near enough and what there was wasn't spent on the right things.

I agree.

Posted by: GMR Sep 6 2015, 03:23 PM

He's quite happy to go back because he lost everything. I am sure he took the chance for his family, not just himself. Now he has lost everything.

I think there is a difference between Romanians and refugees. Romanians did not come from a war torn country. Refugees did. Romanians came for more money and a better life.

As for "crusade"; I would imagine that they are both different groups.

Posted by: GMR Sep 6 2015, 03:27 PM

Yes, but you are not everybody. And would you fight if your family/ kids were in danger or would you try to get them out? Or let them die alongside you?









Maybe you could volunteer?

Posted by: GMR Sep 6 2015, 03:29 PM

Yes you could. The only problem is that the nuclear fallout doesn't respect country boarders, which would mean that the fall out would travel far. Maybe that was why you suggested it.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 6 2015, 03:56 PM

How about everyone stays in the Country they were born in and if you are attacked fight and protect that country.

I was born in Persia which sounds more romantic than Iran.....
I am an English person.
ce

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 6 2015, 06:28 PM

I'd let them die alongside me. Are you saying we should have rolled over and have our bellies tickled when Hitler threatened humanity?

No thanks. If we were invaded though give me a Kalashnikov and I'd be at the front of the queue. I guess you'd be on a boat to the USA and
sending for your family when you were safe.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2015, 06:58 PM

There is rather a big difference between the majority and the persecuted minority groups. Let's take your WW2 example, where would you have been if you were a Jewish Naturalised Englishman? Probably in the Isle of Man. The conflicts we are seeing now are rather more like civil wars anyway, so sure, you'd have the opportunity to fight big boy but what of your neighbour? They might have taken a more sensible approach, like getting out of the way, as they probably wouldn't be familiar in Kalashnikov use and packs of bullets aren't easily available from Tesco.

Standing and fighting even in WW2 doesn't really stand scrutiny anyway. We had very detailed plans ready to swing into operation to evacuate the invasion target coast and hinterland; civilians being seen as a hindrance to defence operations.

Posted by: GMR Sep 6 2015, 07:24 PM

It was a different situation then. And if it wasn't the rest of the Empire and American then you/ we would have certainly lost the war.






I would assess the situation first. I certainly wouldn't fight for something that was lost before it had even started. That is stupidity. I am also sure that if this country was threated then the rest of Europe and countries like American would come to defend us. Nobody is defending the countries they are from. Dying needlessly is stupid. If you are going to put your life on the line then there must be some sort of chance winning. A good General knows when to attack and knows when to retreat. You would just blindly attack and die. Besides, if push became shove you'd probably **** yourself and run. Those that speak the loudest in the comfort of their own computer terminal are usually the ones ahead of the queue when trying to escape.

Posted by: GMR Sep 6 2015, 07:25 PM

I bet he never thought of that

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 6 2015, 07:33 PM

So would you stand and fight or run.... if we had a civil war here?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 6 2015, 07:38 PM

We'd all assess the situation first. You'd be an idiot not to. Fighting a resistance campaign is equally useful when faced with overwhelming force.
I'm not hiding behind a computer screen either. Happy to have a chat at the next forum meet. We may have different views but no need to prejudge.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2015, 05:58 AM

It would very much depend on whose side I was on wouldn’t it?!! However, if it were a cause I believed in I'd certainly fight BUT that might just make me the aggressor. So, lets look at it closer to home in Ireland. I suspect if I'd been born there when the troubles were bad, I don't think I'd have wanted to stay. What good did the there fighting actually do? Absolutely nothing, and we did get rather a lot of migrants.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2015, 07:00 AM

It seems to me that the key issue here is to go back to the source so to speak. Why are these massive numbers actually coming? So there is rather a lot we could do, right now. Let's face it, a big net migration from any Country must affect its productive and sustainable capability so staunching the flow is in their interest anyway. So it does need some big and effective peace keeping force on the ground. We also need to pump in propaganda designed to show migration isn't the answer. This is massive , but so far unacknowledged issue which sits at the heart of our immediate issue, exactly why are they coming and exactly what do they expect?

We then need to then focus on putting in the foundation of sustainable lifestyle. Indeed, exactly what we had to do in Germany post 1945, where there were also massive population shifts.

Simply concentrating on the migrants themselves is bound to be unworkable and unproductive. As we've seen here, they ain't going to be welcomed in our neck of the woods. We can't even employ or house our own population properly and have been unwilling to deliver the correct infrastructures needed to support a sustainable means of support, ironically even less than we did ourselves in 1945!.

Agree, a forum meet would be great

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2015, 10:06 AM

Meanwhile: http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15677/More-cuts-to-come-for-West.html

"It was previously confirmed in the 2015/16 budget that a further £5.9m would be cut, which leaves a remaining balance of £10.1m in savings until 2018."

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2015, 12:26 PM

It's really quite appropriate you've rowed this in here. It's yet another example of misinformation from 'authority sources' about very serious issues.

If this 'austerity' was really true, how come we can afford such unnecessary fripperies as the Control Tower, the Derelict House in Thatcham? Not to mention pissing away thousands in unnecessary and unproductive legal fees! This all at the lowest level of local governance. Go up a step and ooh, let's squitter away another massive wedge on feeding primary school kids!

I'd argue this suggests we have too much money rather than too little.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 7 2015, 12:56 PM

We need a few more housewives on local government, people who actually know how to run things on a budget. A bit more focus and a few less vanity projects would be a good start.

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 03:50 PM

It is not about you having a chat with me. My point was that anybody can say anything in the comforts of their own home; but faced with reality, then that is a different matter. As we are not going to be invaded then you can say what you want knowing full well you won't be taking up arms against anybody. I could say - aged 60 - that if I was face with 4 youthful Samurais wielding swords I would have no trouble taking them on and putting them all in hospital. Of course reality is a different thing, but as I won't be put in that situation then I can safely say that I would have no problem dealing with them. As you would have no problem taking up arms and fighting the thousands of marauding Isis fighters, with your Tommy Gun, in fact when it happens I'll join you, along with everybody else on here.

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 03:52 PM

How about TallDarkAndHands, I am sure, with his Tommy Gun, he would set them straight.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2015, 04:10 PM

Well, it's a simple enough matter to cut £300k from the NTC budget without affecting public services one jot, and that's around 10% of the shortfall, so it's conceivable that the other West Berkshire parishes can find similar savings and plug the gap without anyone noticing. However, that does rather rely on our elected councillors putting away the dressing-up box and I just don't see them doing that, but then in fairness there aren't many of us actually suggesting that they should. So as you say, we do indeed get what we ask for.

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 04:18 PM

Just a matter of interest; I am presuming that those refugees we take in will be housed, fed and medical expenses paid for them (and training so that eventually, in a couple of years or so, they will be able to fully contribute to this country's tax regime). I am also presuming they won't end up having to use food banks and living rough, as some do in this country?

The positive side is that it will show the world that we are a caring people/ government to the refugees. A good and positive advertisement to what the British can do for those in need (in deed).

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 04:27 PM

I just have been reading that this country will take 25,000 refugees. I am sure that Newbury could take a great portion of those refugees. It will show that WBC are a caring council, who cares for those in need (in deed). If they could do this great deed I am sure that we - as their subjects - will come to love them and admire what they are doing for the needy (in deedy). Out of small gestures comes great and bold institutions. And as for the head of WBC, I can see sculpture being built in Newbury centre in his honour. It makes you feel proud to be British and a Newbury person.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 7 2015, 04:52 PM

I've got a spare shed, get a family in there. So long of course that they pay their way and they're gone in a couple of weeks cos I need to put the mower away soon. Two weeks should be ok, in that time the bins will be empty and the cat will be wearing a suicide vest.

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 05:08 PM

I would imagine that they will need a place to stay for a couple of years and as they don't have any money the government will pay; unless you can take the burden of the tax man and contribute out of your own wealth (and remember; your wealth is greater than what their financial situation is/ was back home). Be a good citizen. You know you want to!

Posted by: Petra Sep 7 2015, 05:55 PM

Mr GMR,

I am not sure how to take your post, however, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and agree wholeheartedly with you. I like to think that Newbury will take its fair share of refugees. This great crisis can be a defining moment for the European Union, and in particular our great nation. Are we united or not? It will show the world what we really are made of. We are a nation of immigrant builders. We have taken many thousands of immigrants and refugees throughout our history. And course, once settled they will be proud Europeans who will respect the flag of Europe.

West Berkshire Council can play a very important part in this crisis and I am sure they will do so. I am also sure that many citizens of Newbury and surrounding areas will offer our guests a place, in their own home to help out, if need be.

Germany, the European leaders, is reputed to take in over 800,000 this year. Obviously we are not the same size as them, but proportionally we could and should match them.

In my position, in my job, we are making plans to do our part and lead the way.

Let us all rally around and play our part. Let us show what great people we are here in West Berkshire. As I have said, this could be a defining moment for the UK, for the European Union, that we are a great force in the world.

Yours,
Petra

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 7 2015, 06:11 PM

Isn't she sweet? I imagine her like a fluffy bunny with floppy ears popping out of her ickle wabbit hole. Quaint!

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 7 2015, 06:14 PM

I don't see a smiling or winking smilie after your post. You're not really serious are you.

Posted by: Petra Sep 7 2015, 06:16 PM

And why wouldn't I be Mr Exhausted? I fully support the taking in the refugees, as I hope you do.

Yours Petra

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 06:29 PM

That is excellent news for the European Union (or if you prefer, the United States of Europe); I am so happy and I am sure that everybody who reads your comments will also take their hat and everything else off for you and the European States.

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 06:29 PM

Does West Berkshire employees use smilies?

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 06:30 PM

Of course she is, she probably works for West Berkshire council and aren't they all sweet over there? Harding working for us plebs.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2015, 06:33 PM

She has an opinion and is perfectly entitled to share it....without personal references however sickly! That's not exactly the way to encourage new posts.

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2015, 06:36 PM

You are exactly right, and what this forum needs is new blood and different opinions to create more interest and debate. Otherwise you've got the same old **** saying the same old stuff, thus deterring new members from joining.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2015, 06:44 PM

My view: Germany have a youth and skills defect and are happy to 'welcome' the 'middle classes' from Syria. On the other hand, GB seem to be interested in the more desperate and poor, yet, more needy, who are actually in a war zone.

PS: Petra is demonstrably a WUM.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 8 2015, 01:04 PM

So, how many family's are you going to house and for how long? Just so the others have a yardstick for their own munificence you understand.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2015, 01:33 PM

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, so to speak? Warfare comes in more than one guise (from article from February 24, 2015).

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/251909/isis-gets-serious-threatens-flood-europe-500000-daniel-greenfield

Posted by: GMR Sep 8 2015, 03:02 PM

I would imagine the same amount as you do.

Posted by: Don Sep 8 2015, 03:15 PM

This is a tricky one. We should help where we can. At the same time we must stop abuse. I don't envy the Prime Minister in deciding.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2015, 03:16 PM

And mindful of a 'Trojan Horse' too.

Posted by: Don Sep 8 2015, 03:18 PM

Exactly, a good point. I did read your article, or the link that you provided. Makes very interesting reading. You can learn a lot from forums.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 8 2015, 04:40 PM

Ah yes, but then I'm not one who is advocating this course of action.

Posted by: GMR Sep 8 2015, 05:09 PM

If she works for WBC then she would be used to dishing out orders, not taking them, or even listening to them.




There is an old saying; do as I say, not as I do. Which I used to tell my kids

Posted by: HeatherW Sep 8 2015, 06:37 PM

I think we need to be more charitable and help where we can.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 8 2015, 07:09 PM

So how many can we put you down for?

Posted by: x2lls Sep 8 2015, 11:36 PM

Why should you challenge the way you have?
Heather made a valid and if you look, the first non bigoted comment for a long while in this thread.
Just reread yourselves and think for crying out loud.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2015, 11:46 PM

It's like the NIMBY argument. "We should be doing more: but I'm not."

I think we should help people in need, but the Monster Raving Tory Party are stuck as they have told everyone that Britain cannot afford the benefits bill and is in a middle of an austerity drive. A bit awkward then when a couple of towns worth of people turn-up with no money, food, or home.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 9 2015, 12:44 AM

So you are of the opinion that only the government should do something?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 9 2015, 07:03 AM

I just want to know what all the hair readers and breast beaters are going to do themselves is all, apart from putting 50p in the tin and suggesting that (other) people should open their homes. Too many people are swept up in the media hysteria for their own good. Don't like my opinion? Tough!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2015, 08:18 AM

Not at all, where did that idea come from? However, it is they that are best placed to maximise effort and have best access to intelligence.

Mind you, the Monster Raving Tories now have to try and explain how they can afford the apparently unaffordable.

Posted by: motormad Sep 9 2015, 11:44 AM

We have thousands of homeless people within our own borders who are suffering from homelessness
We have thousands of families who have both parents working full time but cannot afford to feed their only child.
We have people who need help. In our country.
We never help them.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 9 2015, 12:58 PM

I have to say I have a deal of sympathy for this point of view. My concerns over this whole asylum issue is not with those who are genuinely fleeing violence but with those who will piggy back on top of this, the economic migrants. Also, it seems odd that we expend great sums of cash stopping people who have gone to Syria from coming back for security reasons and yet seem bent on opening the gates to tens of thousands of Syrians whome I suspect will be subjected to the most cursory of checks.

Let's neither forget that not all of Syria is war torn and not all Syrians are poor and helpless, I would like to see a little more balance and a bit less of the "swivel eyed loony" type sound bites some people are so fond of.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 9 2015, 01:30 PM

But the fact that people are fond of them, is what causes them in the first place. Without these people, the tabloid press would be bereft of all income

Posted by: On the edge Sep 9 2015, 04:44 PM

It seems to be the 'economic migrants' who get the bad press. Young fit people who move away from home to seek a better life. So then, what's the issue? They aren't looking for benefits, they are looking for work. We seem to have rather a lot of that which our indigenous population doesn't seem to want. Apparently the Worcestershire and East Anglian farmers can't cope without these migratory workers. Similarly our health service relies on such workers to do much of the essential but menial tasks needed. Interesting too, that whenever we hear tough talk from politicians, industry squeals about the loss of IT experts etc. Got a choice haven't we - who is willing to pay a lot more for food, health care etc. etc.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 10 2015, 08:59 AM

However, many of the 'economic migrants' are (anecdotally) only coming here for the improvement in their benefits.

Why are all those people in Calais trying to get to GB; they are already in a safe country and if they were fit and healthy and willing to work, the French would surely welcome them with open arms.

People who are 'fleeing a war-torn country' are safe the moment they leave the country - why do they then need to travel still further other than for economic reasons? Britain has been helping these refugees by helping to pay for the refugee camps; what we are not doing is allowing free movement from elsewhere in the EU.

Schengen has proved unworkable - and this is why

Posted by: On the edge Sep 10 2015, 09:36 PM

...and not everything the Daily Mail print is true either.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 13 2015, 05:58 PM

I see the German model on dealing with the migrant crisis is starting to show cracks. I suspect there was an element of wanting to be able to process the flood so they at least had first dibs on the most educated, or those deemed most likely to be of benefit to Germany's workforce. That way they could then pass on the least desirable chaff to other nations with a smug grin.... Perhaps the sheer numbers are not what they expected and even the renowned German efficiency is struggling to cope.

Octoberfest this year in Munich (where many of the influx are being processed) is going to be a corker though... Scantily clad, large breasted women serving loads of beer and pork products.
What could possibly go wrong...............?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 13 2015, 06:09 PM

Ich bin ein bomber?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 14 2015, 01:06 PM

Your German grammar is faulty German doesn't use the 'a' so it shouldn't be translated
Ich bin bomber

JFK once said in a speech in Berlin "Ich bin ein Berliner" - meaning he was a bread roll called a Berliner. He should have said "Ich bin Berliner" if he wanted to convey solidarity with the populace of Berlin.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 14 2015, 06:50 PM

errm.... that's not quite true.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 14 2015, 07:03 PM

Err, Berlinner does not refer to a bread roll!

Posted by: spartacus Sep 14 2015, 08:30 PM

I was referring to the German grammar. It's correct to use 'ein' in a statement such as your 'Ich bin ein bomber'.

As for JFK's supposed gaffe, it was correct for him to use 'ein' in his "Ich bin ein Berliner!" speech. In statements of nationality or citizenship German often leaves off the 'ein', (similarly people from Glasgow will say "I'm Glaswegian"), but as JFK wasn't literally from Berlin, he was merely expressing that he was 'one' of them, there was no gaffe made. It was only when the speech was analysed and broken down much later that this 'error' was played up for comic effect by the press. His audience however were Berliners and whilst people from outside of Berlin might refer to the popular small doughnuts as 'Berliners', people from Berlin call them pfannkuchen, so there was no confusion in the audience.

The speech was also written with help from the chief German interpreter for the United States during World War II, who was a Berliner and JFK practised his phonetic German in front of Willy Brandt and many other Germans before stepping out onto the balcony. If it was a gaffe it would have been picked up. It's just that over time it's become an erroneous 'fact' by word of mouth as that's funnier.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 17 2015, 09:56 AM

Meanwhile it seems that only 20% of asylum applications received so far this year in Germany are from Syrians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34270077

As the BBC's Mark Urban points out, many of the rest are from migrants from safe countries who are exploiting the crisis in Syria for their own economic gain. Further confirmation that Cameron's policy of helping those in the refugee camps makes a lot sense.

This from the Guardian is also an interesting read - note the majority of comments are not sympathetic to the author.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/15/syria-uk-damascus-refugee-people-smugglers-calais-jungle

We have a huge problem on our hands and economic migrants are crowding out those with genuine needs. I wonder why we can't help establish refugee camps in southern Europe and insist that all asylum applicants apply and are processes there. Genuine applicants could then be resettled on a quota basis across the EU with each country taking a proportion based on its overall population. They would be given asylum visas on the basis that they would return to their country of origin if and when conditions allowed.

In parallel with this, anyone entering a country illegally or being found to commit another crime after entry - by stowing away on lorries etc - would be repatriated.

Who could possibly object?

Posted by: gel Sep 17 2015, 10:48 AM

How do authorities deport, when these illegals have destroyed all documentation. Must make identifying country of birth nigh impossible I'd have thought.?

The ever bullying EU is even demanding non EU countries eg Iceland must take quotas too.
If not, there will be £€ penalties £€ as they trade with EU..showing their disregard for democracy as normal.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 19 2015, 07:12 PM

Seriously, listen to the BBC yesterday, interviewed an "asylum seeker". Asked him what he did, what was life like in southern Libya? He said it was terrible. Reporter asked, so what did you do? Expecting farmer, worker, shepherd. Was told, I had a good job! Reporter (somewhat confused) said " a good job?" Man said, yes a bank manager! But the war very bad, damaged my car. So I come to Europe. Appearing in a Lloyds near you, very soon!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 19 2015, 07:35 PM

That's great; does it mean they'll be reopening branches? Hope so! If Libya is short of bankers because of this, perhaps they might like some of ours in return.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 20 2015, 08:30 PM

What the West would do for a Gadaffi and Hussein again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11139345

We should never forgive Blair & co. They have created the greatest humanitarian crisis in decades.