The best documentary on the BBC last night was the first episode of "The Ascent of Woman, Civilisation" by Dr Amanda Foreman. The BBC have apparently passed from their phase of uncritical praise for Islamic societies because they were better at arithmetic than the West in the 11th century and are letting loose their liberal academic women to tell the truth. Notwithstanding that, the most interesting part of the program when she demonstrated that the veil and other indignities were imposed on Mesopotamian women long before the rise of Islam. Also another historian suggested that the position of women in Classical Athens was equivalent to women under the Taliban today.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Interesting how pb.com works. On the same day we are dealing with the mind-boggling concepts of multi-verses, infinite time and space - and the Labour Party electing Jeremy Corbyn.
It may require a lie down later....
just think y'self lucky we're not in the universe that elects edwina currie as labour leader
I think that might be quite fun. She could then presumably choose who to have it off with. Answers on a postcard please.
Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity.
Anyone who wants a fun bet on the cricket this afternoon could do worse than follow the Racing Post's tip of a century in the first innings @ 7/4 (with Paddy).
"Surely the Labour party aren’t going to be this stupid and self indulgent and elect someone who is a throwback to the worst mistakes and excesses of the Labour party in the 1980s?"
What mistakes and excesses were these? Labour was out of power in the 1980s. Without the Falklands War they could well have won the 1983 election or at least been in a position to form a coalition with the SDP/Liberals. Having lost in 1983, and with FPTP having scuppered the Alliance, Labour under Neil Kinnock started a major process of reform. This included gradually adopting the centrist positions of the SDP. By end of the decade Labour was a sensible Party and the SDP was no more. It was not a period of mistakes at all but the opposite.
I do not know enough of the 80s to judge, but given labour didn't win agin until 1997, not making enough progress in the 80s to win sounds like a mistake, or at least a failing.
Mrs Thatcher was arguably the luckiest Prime Minister, not just through the Falklands and SDP but also in North Sea Oil and technological advances. In other circumstances, she'd likely have been deposed by her own Cabinet. It turns out "events, dear boy, events" can be beneficial.
Not this 'lucky' meme again. It can be used against every single PM: for instance Blair was 'lucky' that John Smith died. If he had not, then Labour might still have won in 1997, but without Blair's changes (e.g. ridding itself of Clause 4) with a reduced majority from Blair's rout. This means that the next Labour leadership election might not have been until 2001/2, and then, seven or eight years on, there would have been other leadership candidates aside from Brown and Blair.
People using the term 'lucky' are just looking for silly excuses why their side lost. After all, it cannot have been their sides fault: the other side were just lucky ....
Not my side -- I have no vote for Labour leader, and you missed the word "beneficial" but there we are.
I forgot you were a well-known Conservative supporter ...
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
We (including the UK) clearly need to help the people who have already made it to Europe, but crucially without encouraging more to try to make the same journey - for their own sake as much as for ours. It's the journey that is killing people.
Accordingly investment in dealing with the problem at source (or as close as is practicable) seems to be the way to go. Not coincidentally, that's what Britain has been doing far more of than any of our EU partners over the last few years. Cameron is well within his rights to be furious with Merkel; not the other way around.
How the BBC thinks:
"Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity."
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
"Go on Roger, tell us how many we should take ? and for how long, and where we house them, educate them and heal them ? And how many more will get killed trying to cross the med when we give people the expectation of getting a new first world life ? And what we do with the thousands that turn out not to be refugees at all. I thought you didn't want the kippers to win the next election."
6,000,000 Jews perished in Europe. Many could have been saved if enough civilized countries had given them sanctuary. I'm sorry but your questions are irrelevant to a humanitarian crisis
There are humanitarian crises going on all over the world. It is perfectly natural to have sympathy while accepting there's not really an awful lot can be done. Of course it makes people feel better to express genuine concern and make accusations, comparing the migrant crisis with the holocaust is risible and does your cause no good at all.
Two main issues seem to be dominating the discussion - on the Labour leadership, IF Corbyn fails (and I'm to be convinced) then, as the Conservatives did in 2003 when dumping IDS, Labour will have looked over the cliff edge and stepped back.
To what extent the vilification of Corbyn in the press will have played a part in changing minds I don't know - I thought Cameron and Farron's interventions were unwise and inappropriate. To expressly comment on the views of a candidate in a leadership election for another Party is just plain interfering. Once the process is over, fine, no problem but Labour has a right to choose its leader (irrespective of the nonsense of the electoral process itself) without the involvement of other parties.
As for the interconnected refugee/migrant crisis, there are no easy solutions - if there were, we'd be doing them. The Syrian Diaspora is a dreadful humanitarian disaster - if I had the option of flight, living under IS or being bombed on a daily basis by my own Government, flight would be the 1/10 favourite.
I would like to think various agencies are actively moving against the people traffickers and there was more than a hint those working in and around Calais had British connections.
As for Syria, there are only two solutions - all or nothing. "All" means a co-ordinated effort (and that has to involve Russia AND China) to end the fighting by ensuring neither Assad nor IS have the means to wage offensive war and then create a negotiated political settlement.
"Nothing" means watching Syria burn but doing what we can in the surrounding countries (Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan primarily) to ensure the displaced have something but less incentive to move on to Europe. That again needs global co-ordination through the UN and needs the financial muscle of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.
The problem I have with the Sun's comment piece this morning is that it once again assumes it's down to the Britain and the US - there are many other players with wealth, power and influence and they need to be involved.
The economic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere are a different but no less serious issue.
12) What is the worst thing about the House of Commons? You can’t find your way anywhere. There’s no maps, there’s no nothing, and when you’re tired and slightly hungover it can be a bit tedious constantly getting lost. If you take the wrong turning all the doors look the same and my one always goes into the kitchen so I think they think I’m a compulsive eater or trying to steal some food. I walked into the Leader of the Opposition’s office but fortunately no one was in there.
England - 419 Holland - 408 Wales - 258 Germany - 226 Italy - 205 N. Ireland - 130 Poland - 123 Portugal - 116 France - 105 Romania - 89 Bulgaria - 66 Scotland - 40
Clearly England has experience of dealing with a high density population and is best placed to deal with a large influx of more.
Surprised how high the density of Wales is. Then again, I have about 39 Welsh cousins...
Scotland will be even more deserted when the exodus of British nationals to England, with their wealth, skills and businesses, when independence finally happens.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity.
Incidentally, I experienced something similar when invited as a Conservative university branch chairman to various BBC radio debates. They wanted a token "righty" and would also interrogate me as to what my views were, and what I'd say, and it was very obvious when I didn't match the caricature they had on paper.
It irritated me, so I only did two or three in two years.
Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.
Johnny Mercer quite good on Today this am also, the lily-livered, addled softy that he is.
There was an excellent profile of Mercer on HuffPo on Tuesday. Good to see Parliament hasn't washed his mouth out yet ("some little shitbag in Plymouth found it on the internet and sent it to the local paper")
If he told me to be nice and complimentary to Mark Reckless I would then say nice things about Reckless
Assuming no massive LibDem revival in the South-west, next time round I might move my efforts from Torbay to Plymouth to help Johnny - takes me a similar time to get to both. He does seem a top bloke.
He made it his mission to personally visit every property in his constituency before May 8th. I'd heard (relayed here) that the Plymouth seats were far closer than they should have been - it was even suggested to me by a visiting MP that they could lose Sutton and Devonport but gain Moor View. Certainly two knife-edge seats that contributed to the Tory majority.
Yes. Quite. Bravo for the Daily Mash publishing that piece. It's not humourous and the appalling tragedy of Syria should quite rightly not be made light of. But they are right to print this article.
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
I think its also rate. People are adapting to change all the time, but make it too much and too fast and people start feeling dislocated, that the town they live in doesn't feel like home any more. In my experience people also detest not being able to deport criminals or people blatantly taking the piss (like failed asylum seekers). People want to feel that the government is in control of the country, at the moment it feels like it is flapping in the breeze.
A points based immigration system which allowed the government to place values on particular skills or trades, and gave bonuses for having a job offer or being married to a citizen, or being well education and/or experienced (for example) would allow us to fine tune our immigration levels to acceptable numbers and great reduce the impression that people are taking advantage of us, thereby relieving a lot of the public's animosity.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
The Syrian civil war has been going on since 2011. Haven't they been following the news? The images coming out of places like Homs a couple of years ago were far worse than anything we're seeing at the moment in Europe.
We (including the UK) clearly need to help the people who have already made it to Europe, but crucially without encouraging more to try to make the same journey - for their own sake as much as for ours. It's the journey that is killing people.
Accordingly investment in dealing with the problem at source (or as close as is practicable) seems to be the way to go. Not coincidentally, that's what Britain has been doing far more of than any of our EU partners over the last few years. Cameron is well within his rights to be furious with Merkel; not the other way around.
Indeed. It is fair to say Britain could do more on the immediate issue of people who have arrived, and perhaps we should, but not imply that a failure to do so is ignoring the larger issue which is causing them to arrive. Different approaches to the same larger issue, reasonable people may differ on that, if public pressure leads to Cameron changing stance thenfine, but other governments are in no position to emotionally blackmail him on the basis that this will definitely help the larger issue (it won't), and how dare he not accept their decision which they did not , apparently, consult upon.
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
I think its also rate. People are adapting to change all the time, but make it too much and too fast and people start feeling dislocated, that the town they live in doesn't feel like home any more. In my experience people also detest not being able to deport criminals or people blatantly taking the piss (like failed asylum seekers). People want to feel that the government is in control of the country, at the moment it feels like it is flapping in the breeze.
A points based immigration system which allowed the government to place values on particular skills or trades, and gave bonuses for having a job offer or being married to a citizen, or being well education and/or experienced (for example) would allow us to fine tune our immigration levels to acceptable numbers and great reduce the impression that people are taking advantage of us, thereby relieving a lot of the public's animosity.
You can't have a workable system of economic migration while you accept ANY asylum or refugee migration.
The root of the problem is that society wants to extend its protection and sanctity of human life outside of that society's own Social Contract in a way which is fundamentally impossible and actually harmful to the long term development of other societies.
England - 419 Holland - 408 Wales - 258 Germany - 226 Italy - 205 N. Ireland - 130 Poland - 123 Portugal - 116 France - 105 Romania - 89 Bulgaria - 66 Scotland - 40
Clearly England has experience of dealing with a high density population and is best placed to deal with a large influx of more.
Elsewhere I suggested Scotland but worried about them all just hot footing it down here so that we'd have to build a fence. Obviously impractical. You're lucky with your suggestion. No worries that any immigrants placed in England will want to go to Scotland
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
The pictures are very intrusive. The picture on the front of the Mail and the Sun is far better chosen than that on the front of the Independent, because the focus is on the soldier carrying the child, showing humanity with the horror. Like you, I find these pictures haunting.
These things are happening. We are acting as bystanders while they happen. Is it wrong for newspapers to show the great suffering that is happening elsewhere while we debate whether to do anything? No, I don't think it is. Unlike the picture of the newsreader being shot, these pictures show events that we can still materially change. The ghost of Christmas present, if you like.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
If you were shocked by that image of the dead child and want to help desperate people in poverty, then think on this from UNICEF:
"Deadly diseases like measles, polio, tetanus, tuberculosis, diphtheria and whooping cough are all easily and cheaply preventable by immunisation. Yet every day, 17,000 children under five die, usually because they don’t get the health care and life-saving vaccines they need. "
You can choose to help a fortunate few, those who have raided their family savings to pay people smugglers to get them out. Or you can choose to help entire stricken communities.
Yes indeed. People need to read that a couple of times. 17,000 per day or several times more in one day that have drowned or died in trucks in the past decade. People were remarkably calm when several dozen people including children died in the back of a truck recently, and nothing happened, but now there are a few emotive pictures in the papers and the world needs to do something now!
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
Absolutely. Everyone should spend a year or two in the third world, it's an eye opener and no mistake, life is very cheap even in countries which are not at war and in which the level of internal strife is very low. In some ways it's very liberating, having no nanny state, being free to do more or less what you want. In other ways it's breathtaking how casual many people are about their life and other peoples lives.
It's also not lost on me that we're talking about migration into and across Europe 76 years to the day we went into a war that ultimately dislocated tens of millions.
Nor is it lost on me that Hungary is building a fence when, 26 years ago, it opened its border with Austria, beginning a chain of events which would culminate in the fall of Communism, the consequences of which we live with today.
I really do not understand why people are reacting to that terrible photo of a drowned child by saying that we should take in more refugees.
Taking in more refugees once they arrive on our shores does absolutely nothing to address drownings in the Mediterranean. In fact, it causes more of them, as it will mean more people will make the trip.
What we instead need to do is to deploy ships to the Mediterranean to rescue people, and to provide more capability to host refugees by the point of origin. As far as I can make out, this is exactly what the British government is currently doing.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
The pictures are very intrusive. The picture on the front of the Mail and the Sun is far better chosen than that on the front of the Independent, because the focus is on the soldier carrying the child, showing humanity with the horror. Like you, I find these pictures haunting.
These things are happening. We are acting as bystanders while they happen. Is it wrong for newspapers to show the great suffering that is happening elsewhere while we debate whether to do anything? No, I don't think it is. Unlike the picture of the newsreader being shot, these pictures show events that we can still materially change. The ghost of Christmas present, if you like.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
There are 17,000 little coffins carried by grieving families every day. Deaths down to disease and malnutrition that could be greatly reduced if all the developed countries committed to the same level of GDP as the UK has. These are families that don't have a choice. Why the outpouring of grief and shock at deaths caused by parents who put their children in such great danger?
"Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity."
Dear old Dan Hannan, people keep trying to pigeonhole him and keep failing. He is an immensely likeable and very thoughtful man and a man of great integrity. His time keeping is fecking awful, but then he has to have some faults or else he wouldn't be human.
It is a great shame that the Conservative Party cannot/will not make more productive use of his talents.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
But the solution being proposed by everyone (notably Merkel) will increase the incidence of these sort of happenings. She proposes to accept more people that get to Germany, ergo more people will try and get to Germany, ergo more people will drown crossing the Med.
To what extent the vilification of Corbyn in the press will have played a part in changing minds I don't know - I thought Cameron and Farron's interventions were unwise and inappropriate. To expressly comment on the views of a candidate in a leadership election for another Party is just plain interfering. Once the process is over, fine, no problem but Labour has a right to choose its leader (irrespective of the nonsense of the electoral process itself) without the involvement of other parties.
The problem I have with the Sun's comment piece this morning is that it once again assumes it's down to the Britain and the US - there are many other players with wealth, power and influence and they need to be involved. .
Totally agree with your second para quoted above.
As to the first, well, I don't see that any party has a 'right' for others not to sticktheir noses in. It might bemore appropriate, even decent, but what this is is essentially a private club holding a debate about it's leadership, but doing so in public and to some degree inviting public involvement in the actual process. Cameron and Farron are not involved in the latter, but as Labour are choosing to have this debate publicly, as is only right and proper, it invites people to comment upon it if they wish. Unwise and inappropriate, perhaps, but Labour have no right to choose their leader without the involvement of Cameron and Farron if they choose to hold the contest in such a manner where, for politicians, it's been inescapable. And I absolute extend that to mean, if they want, Labour are free to comment upon the next Tory contest (in fact insome way they are, if they make comment about Osborne being next leader and how dreadful he would be), if they want.
If you were shocked by that image of the dead child and want to help desperate people in poverty, then think on this from UNICEF:
"Deadly diseases like measles, polio, tetanus, tuberculosis, diphtheria and whooping cough are all easily and cheaply preventable by immunisation. Yet every day, 17,000 children under five die, usually because they don’t get the health care and life-saving vaccines they need. "
You can choose to help a fortunate few, those who have raided their family savings to pay people smugglers to get them out. Or you can choose to help entire stricken communities.
Yes indeed. People need to read that a couple of times. 17,000 per day or several times more in one day that have drowned or died in trucks in the past decade. People were remarkably calm when several dozen people including children died in the back of a truck recently, and nothing happened, but now there are a few emotive pictures in the papers and the world needs to do something now!
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
Absolutely. Everyone should spend a year or two in the third world, it's an eye opener and no mistake, life is very cheap even in countries which are not at war and in which the level of internal strife is very low. In some ways it's very liberating, having no nanny state, being free to do more or less what you want. In other ways it's breathtaking how casual many people are about their life and other peoples lives.
Scotland will be even more deserted when the exodus of British nationals to England, with their wealth, skills and businesses, when independence finally happens.
Let's hope for the sake of their employment prospects that their command of written English is better than yours.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
The pictures are very intrusive. The picture on the front of the Mail and the Sun is far better chosen than that on the front of the Independent, because the focus is on the soldier carrying the child, showing humanity with the horror. Like you, I find these pictures haunting.
These things are happening. We are acting as bystanders while they happen. Is it wrong for newspapers to show the great suffering that is happening elsewhere while we debate whether to do anything? No, I don't think it is. Unlike the picture of the newsreader being shot, these pictures show events that we can still materially change. The ghost of Christmas present, if you like.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
There are 17,000 little coffins carried by grieving families every day. Deaths down to disease and malnutrition that could be greatly reduced if all the developed countries committed to the same level of GDP as the UK has. These are families that don't have a choice. Why the outpouring of grief and shock at deaths caused by parents who put their children in such great danger?
Hannan puts it well - the reaction is visceral:
"Four thousand migrants have drowned this year attempting to reach Europe, several children among them. But no cameras were present. Hundreds of thousands more have keen killed in Syria – again, unseen and so largely unmourned. The image of a drowned infant touches us as cold facts can’t.
The desire to succour children is encoded deep in our DNA. When we see a dead toddler, we feel that we have to do something. What that something is becomes almost secondary. Anything must be better than inaction."
England - 419 Holland - 408 Wales - 258 Germany - 226 Italy - 205 N. Ireland - 130 Poland - 123 Portugal - 116 France - 105 Romania - 89 Bulgaria - 66 Scotland - 40
Clearly England has experience of dealing with a high density population and is best placed to deal with a large influx of more.
LOL. But think of the economic boost and density efficiencies say transport would obtain if Scotland doubled its population. It could aspire to match Romania!
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
The pictures are very intrusive. The picture on the front of the Mail and the Sun is far better chosen than that on the front of the Independent, because the focus is on the soldier carrying the child, showing humanity with the horror. Like you, I find these pictures haunting.
These things are happening. We are acting as bystanders while they happen. Is it wrong for newspapers to show the great suffering that is happening elsewhere while we debate whether to do anything? No, I don't think it is. Unlike the picture of the newsreader being shot, these pictures show events that we can still materially change. The ghost of Christmas present, if you like.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
There are 17,000 little coffins carried by grieving families every day. Deaths down to disease and malnutrition that could be greatly reduced if all the developed countries committed to the same level of GDP as the UK has. These are families that don't have a choice. Why the outpouring of grief and shock at deaths caused by parents who put their children in such great danger?
Which is just the sort of thinking that leads the the current outflows from LDCs to Europe. Foreign Aid is the main driver of the current situation, there is no point whatsoever in making it worse.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
I now understand why Rangers supporters sport the English flag and Celtic supporters the Irish one.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
@Dair That's a very good post! There's a whole thread-worth of debate right there!
The only thing that puzzles me is that I would associate such comments with someone centre-right/right, whereas I understood that your sympathies were with the left.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
I now understand why Rangers supporters sport the English flag and Celtic supporters the Irish one.
Rangers supporters wave the flags of Ulster and the UK, not the English one.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
The pictures are very intrusive. The picture on the front of the Mail and the Sun is far better chosen than that on the front of the Independent, because the focus is on the soldier carrying the child, showing humanity with the horror. Like you, I find these pictures haunting.
These things are happening. We are acting as bystanders while they happen. Is it wrong for newspapers to show the great suffering that is happening elsewhere while we debate whether to do anything? No, I don't think it is. Unlike the picture of the newsreader being shot, these pictures show events that we can still materially change. The ghost of Christmas present, if you like.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
There are 17,000 little coffins carried by grieving families every day. Deaths down to disease and malnutrition that could be greatly reduced if all the developed countries committed to the same level of GDP as the UK has. These are families that don't have a choice. Why the outpouring of grief and shock at deaths caused by parents who put their children in such great danger?
That is spectacular whataboutery.
If you're suggesting that newspapers should politely ignore or downplay coverage of the largest movement of peoples across Europe since the aftermath of the Second World War, I'd suggest to you that you're perhaps not fully au fait with the concept of news.
In answer to your final question:
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
After agreeing to bring it back rather than face defeat, they introduced the changes at just 15 minutes before the deadline for amendments. But with big changes to it so that Cameron can still use the funds of government to publish material on issues like immigration right up to the final vote. It's clearly been deliberately done so that other amendments to react to it couldn't be added. And this when they've been working on the changes for months.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the Tory leadership don't want to work honestly and openly with backbenchers. I've been particularly unimpressed with Hammond's role on this, as I thought he was one of the better ones, but he seems to have gone native at Whitehall.
"Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity."
Dear old Dan Hannan, people keep trying to pigeonhole him and keep failing. He is an immensely likeable and very thoughtful man and a man of great integrity. His time keeping is fecking awful, but then he has to have some faults or else he wouldn't be human.
It is a great shame that the Conservative Party cannot/will not make more productive use of his talents.
Quite. And he can surprise wet Conservatives from the right as well - for example here, which should quash the belief that he's (secretly) very liberal on mass immigration:
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
But the solution being proposed by everyone (notably Merkel) will increase the incidence of these sort of happenings. She proposes to accept more people that get to Germany, ergo more people will try and get to Germany, ergo more people will drown crossing the Med.
Absolutely. Her open door immigration policy won't be able to last more than a few weeks.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
@Dair That's a very good post! There's a whole thread-worth of debate right there!
The only thing that puzzles me is that I would associate such comments with someone centre-right/right, whereas I understood that your sympathies were with the left.
I've never been on the left. I do believe in the Social Contract as the basis for society, though.
I really do not understand why people are reacting to that terrible photo of a drowned child by saying that we should take in more refugees.
Because it gives them a chance to advertise how unequivocally anti-racist they are.
And it will just encourage more people to 'swim across the mediterranean'.
These refugees/migrants are displaced because we did not support them militarily when we had the chance. The main man responsible for that has at least had the good grace I am told run away to Australia whilst everyone else has suddenly discovered a self serving conscience. If the Schengen zone wishes to resolve this issue to their own satisfaction then they are free to do so.
12) What is the worst thing about the House of Commons? You can’t find your way anywhere. There’s no maps, there’s no nothing, and when you’re tired and slightly hungover it can be a bit tedious constantly getting lost. If you take the wrong turning all the doors look the same and my one always goes into the kitchen so I think they think I’m a compulsive eater or trying to steal some food. I walked into the Leader of the Opposition’s office but fortunately no one was in there.
"Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity."
Dear old Dan Hannan, people keep trying to pigeonhole him and keep failing. He is an immensely likeable and very thoughtful man and a man of great integrity. His time keeping is fecking awful, but then he has to have some faults or else he wouldn't be human.
It is a great shame that the Conservative Party cannot/will not make more productive use of his talents.
Quite. And he can surprise wet Conservatives from the right as well - for example here, which should quash the belief that he's (secretly) very liberal on mass immigration:
Given his maverick tendencies and willingness to go against the flow, allowing him to be a floater of ideas, which may or may not be taken up, as presently, is probably making the best use of his talents. Something more formal would no doubt, eventually, lead to him taking a stand on something, or causing a fuss and undermining compromise proposals or something.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
The Syrian civil war has been going on since 2011. Haven't they been following the news? The images coming out of places like Homs a couple of years ago were far worse than anything we're seeing at the moment in Europe.
But the photos weren't framed and shot well enough to upset people.
Personally, I agree any death like this is a tragedy, and I was much more disturbed by the mass executions, burning people alive and horrendous brutality played out on those unfortunate enough to fall within the path of ISIS.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
Conditions are so bad for so long for so many that any degree of risk becomes acceptable to cross the line. The only risk that would stop the flow would be immediate deportation back, and that is not going to happen, so people will keep coming.
England - 419 Holland - 408 Wales - 258 Germany - 226 Italy - 205 N. Ireland - 130 Poland - 123 Portugal - 116 France - 105 Romania - 89 Bulgaria - 66 Scotland - 40
Clearly England has experience of dealing with a high density population and is best placed to deal with a large influx of more.
LOL. But think of the economic boost and density efficiencies say transport would obtain if Scotland doubled its population. It could aspire to match Romania!
Hardy folk used to a subsistence existence would enjoy life in the highlands and islands. It would regenerate the economy and reverse the clearances.
So - back from hols, and my Labour ballot email is still there awaiting my response.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
Canada has a pretty liberal asylum policy, but had rejected the parents' applications.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
@Dair That's a very good post! There's a whole thread-worth of debate right there!
The only thing that puzzles me is that I would associate such comments with someone centre-right/right, whereas I understood that your sympathies were with the left.
I've never been on the left. I do believe in the Social Contract as the basis for society, though.
A lot of Scottish nationalists claim not to be on the Left but say an awful lot of left-wing things about welfare, tax, the EU and migration.
Or play the Metro 2033 & Metro Last Light games which are set in the ruins of post-nuclear-apocalyptic Russia mostly in the Metro system, and features secret bunkers & locations like that station.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
I said the media introduces emotion into a debate which I suggested was a bad thing. You have focussed on the effect of the introduction of emotion. I'm not sure whether you think it good or bad.
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
There are 17,000 little coffins carried by grieving families every day. Deaths down to disease and malnutrition that could be greatly reduced if all the developed countries committed to the same level of GDP as the UK has. These are families that don't have a choice. Why the outpouring of grief and shock at deaths caused by parents who put their children in such great danger?
That is spectacular whataboutery.
If you're suggesting that newspapers should politely ignore or downplay coverage of the largest movement of peoples across Europe since the aftermath of the Second World War, I'd suggest to you that you're perhaps not fully au fait with the concept of news.
In answer to your final question:
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
None of the 17,000 under fives dying each and every day from disease and from malnutrition have a choice. So that is no argument to make. If aid was better targeted, we could do something about that.
The deaths of 17,000 under fives dying every day is not news because we choose to block it out. If you showed 17,000 funerals around the planet in a single 24 hour global news cast, each funeral would get 11 seconds. That would have a hell of a greater impact than this single photo.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
I think this is being viewed through a very first world perspective. I have been to places in my travels where I was warned to drive very slowly because it was not unknown for parents to encourage children onto the road in the hopes that your car might injure them and they would be able to claim compensation from you. Absolute poverty and a very low value on life makes people do some strangle things.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
What is this plan? How is the SNP's approach different?
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
I agree. We know some shocking things are going on but then what's new about that. It is always counter-productive to introduce emotion into a serious debate but all media exists as much to shout "look at me" as to inform, and where cash and employment is involved as well, then the shouting is deafening. The BBC is as bad as anyone on this except when the subject is the BBC. I don't have much expectation of social media.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
But that emotional response doesn't come from the media, it comes from people who have been insulated from the harsher reality of the human condition, who have been educated to respond to value-triggers and who exist in a society where absolute and unlimited protection for a single human life, regardless of cost or outcome, is the fundamental driver for decision making.
I said the media introduces emotion into a debate which I suggested was a bad thing. You have focussed on the effect of the introduction of emotion. I'm not sure whether you think it good or bad.
So - back from hols, and my Labour ballot email is still there awaiting my response.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.
I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.
Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?
The pictures are very intrusive. The picture on the front of the Mail and the Sun is far better chosen than that on the front of the Independent, because the focus is on the soldier carrying the child, showing humanity with the horror. Like you, I find these pictures.
There are 17,000 little coffins carried by grieving families every day. Deaths down to disease and malnutrition that could be greatly reduced if all the developed countries committed to the same level of GDP as the UK has. These are families that don't have a choice. Why the outpouring of grief and shock at deaths caused by parents who put their children in such great danger?
That is spectacular whataboutery.
If you're suggesting that newspapers should politely ignore or downplay coverage of the largest movement of peoples across Europe since the aftermath of the Second World War, I'd suggest to you that you're perhaps not fully au fait with the concept of news.
In answer to your final question:
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
Yes. If we had safe refuges in MENA and returned all boats to those, far fewer would attempt the journey in the first place and this boy might still be alive.
Further, those in real genuine and pressing need could be identified and processed fairly within those safe refuges, and each country could then agree to take a small share - which would be in the 10s of thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
12) What is the worst thing about the House of Commons? You can’t find your way anywhere. There’s no maps, there’s no nothing, and when you’re tired and slightly hungover it can be a bit tedious constantly getting lost. If you take the wrong turning all the doors look the same and my one always goes into the kitchen so I think they think I’m a compulsive eater or trying to steal some food. I walked into the Leader of the Opposition’s office but fortunately no one was in there.
Well no, there wouldn't be would there?
Even if Ed Miliband had carried on as interim leader! The man was a human vacuum. What will we remember of him by the end of this Parliament?
ISIS said they'd swamp Europe with refugees, and look what's happening. Merkel's lost the plot, and will only make things worse, whilst enriching the people traffickers. I bet they can't believe their luck.
The repercussions of this will haunt us for the next century and beyond.
When the serious wrong 'uns taking full advantage of the chaos to sneak in, really step things up a gear, we're screwed.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
If you have been bombed out of your home and then lived in a refugee camp I expect it breeds a sense of hopelessness that makes rational decision making much harder. Hope is a powerful emotion and sometimes people give into it, as the alternative is to give into the utter destructiveness of despair.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
But the solution being proposed by everyone (notably Merkel) will increase the incidence of these sort of happenings. She proposes to accept more people that get to Germany, ergo more people will try and get to Germany, ergo more people will drown crossing the Med.
Absolutely. Her open door immigration policy won't be able to last more than a few weeks.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
I now understand why Rangers supporters sport the English flag and Celtic supporters the Irish one.
Rangers supporters wave the flags of Ulster and the UK, not the English one.
I had missed the red hand. Eyesight not so good these days. Thank you.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
But the choice is not as simple as "die or not die". There is consideration of the quality of life and relative affluence. This is the driver and it is based on a midset which (in many cases) still involves the "have 12 kids so at least a couple survive infancy".
None of the 17,000 under fives dying each and every day from disease and from malnutrition have a choice. So that is no argument to make. If aid was better targeted, we could do something about that.
The deaths of 17,000 under fives dying every day is not news because we choose to block it out. If you showed 17,000 funerals around the planet in a single 24 hour global news cast, each funeral would get 11 seconds. That would have a hell of a greater impact than this single photo.
People dying of disease and malnutrition is not news. It happened yesterday, it happened last year, it happened ten years ago. We should do our best to reduce (and eventually eliminate) the numbers affected. As, indeed, we are. Mortality rates of the under fives worldwide have halved in the last 25 years. We're going in the right direction, though there is much more to do.
The migrant crisis is new and getting worse. Of course it's more newsworthy than a longstanding problem that is getting better.
So - back from hols, and my Labour ballot email is still there awaiting my response.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
A Corbyn victory will not only damage Labour but also the UK's international standing. It will provide succour to many of our enemies and will bewilder many of our friends. If you vote Corbyn and that ends up damaging UK interests you will be complicit in it.
That Dan Hannan piece is spreading like wildfire on social media, winning plaudits from both right and left. A very thoughtful article that really addresses the nuances of the issue.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
What is this plan? How is the SNP's approach different?
As far as I can tell, there will be a limited gentrification of Govanhill, clearing out its ghetto status.
It may merely be co-incidence but I suspect it has more to do with getting rid of Scotland's main ghetto of people with Pakistani and Bangladeshi ancestry.
As to the first, well, I don't see that any party has a 'right' for others not to stick their noses in. It might be more appropriate, even decent, but what this is is essentially a private club holding a debate about it's leadership, but doing so in public and to some degree inviting public involvement in the actual process. Cameron and Farron are not involved in the latter, but as Labour are choosing to have this debate publicly, as is only right and proper, it invites people to comment upon it if they wish. Unwise and inappropriate, perhaps, but Labour have no right to choose their leader without the involvement of Cameron and Farron if they choose to hold the contest in such a manner where, for politicians, it's been inescapable. And I absolute extend that to mean, if they want, Labour are free to comment upon the next Tory contest (in fact in some way they are, if they make comment about Osborne being next leader and how dreadful he would be), if they want.
The issue for me is not what individual Party members say - everyone is entitled to their opinion - but Cameron and Farron are not "ordinary Party members" - they are the leaders and therefore representatives of their respective parties.
I don't consider it appropriate for one Party to officially have a view on the policies of a candidate for the leadership of another Party during the leadership election process. The election of said leader is a matter for the electorate (however defined) of that party. I think Labour have made a dog's breakfast of this election but mostly as a result of the process by which the election takes place. However, that is Labour's problem.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
But while the risk is higher the duration is shorter. Does the risk of a decade under IS exceed the risk of a week in an overcrowded boat? Probably not. Any of us would do the same.
Probably the decisive thing causing the exodus is that the Assad regime is looking closer to collapse. The Assadites have nowhere else to go, and those who are in camps in Lebanon and Syria have no chance of return.
Probably the only realistic Refuge for most of these Syrians is an Assad controlled state, which would require quite a change of tune by our leaders.
The difference is that the argument over immigration in Scotland is framed in terms of notable parties actually arguing in favour of more immigration and putting forward a positive case - something completely absent in the mainstream parties in Westminster..
But that is understandable, isn't it?
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Most immigrants to Scotland have, historically, been from Ireland. Which has of course not been entirely unproblematic. But in general, with the odd exception of festering scumball traitorss like McGeady and McCarthy, the long term integration has been reasonably good, much of this applies to other immigrant communities.
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
What is this plan? How is the SNP's approach different?
As far as I can tell, there will be a limited gentrification of Govanhill, clearing out its ghetto status.
It may merely be co-incidence but I suspect it has more to do with getting rid of Scotland's main ghetto of people with Pakistani and Bangladeshi ancestry.
Presumably these people will go somewhere else though?
None of the 17,000 under fives dying each and every day from disease and from malnutrition have a choice. So that is no argument to make. If aid was better targeted, we could do something about that.
The deaths of 17,000 under fives dying every day is not news because we choose to block it out. If you showed 17,000 funerals around the planet in a single 24 hour global news cast, each funeral would get 11 seconds. That would have a hell of a greater impact than this single photo.
People dying of disease and malnutrition is not news. It happened yesterday, it happened last year, it happened ten years ago. We should do our best to reduce (and eventually eliminate) the numbers affected. As, indeed, we are. Mortality rates of the under fives worldwide have halved in the last 25 years. We're going in the right direction, though there is much more to do.
The migrant crisis is new and getting worse. Of course it's more newsworthy than a longstanding problem that is getting better.
Why do you think that is the right direction for these countries?
What benefit do they get from reduced infant mortality?
Do you not understand how the current migrant situation has been caused DIRECTLY by this reduction in infant mortality?
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
If you have been bombed out of your home and then lived in a refugee camp I expect it breeds a sense of hopelessness that makes rational decision making much harder. Hope is a powerful emotion and sometimes people give into it, as the alternative is to give into the utter destructiveness of despair.
From what I understand the view of most migrants is that the streets in the West are paved with gold.
That Dan Hannan piece is spreading like wildfire on social media, winning plaudits from both right and left. A very thoughtful article that really addresses the nuances of the issue.
So - back from hols, and my Labour ballot email is still there awaiting my response.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
A Corbyn victory will not only damage Labour but also the UK's international standing. It will provide succour to many of our enemies and will bewilder many of our friends. If you vote Corbyn and that ends up damaging UK interests you will be complicit in it.
Hm. It's a toughie. I'm tending towards Burnham, no chance of him becoming PM but Labour will probably stick with him until 2020 and let him put forward a bland Miliband Mk II manifesto.
But voting for Burnham was not what I paid £3 to the Labour Party for the privilege of doing. It probably has to be either Corbyn or just stay out of it and mind my own business...
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
If you have been bombed out of your home and then lived in a refugee camp I expect it breeds a sense of hopelessness that makes rational decision making much harder. Hope is a powerful emotion and sometimes people give into it, as the alternative is to give into the utter destructiveness of despair.
From what I understand the view of most migrants is that the streets in the West are paved with gold.
That Dan Hannan piece is spreading like wildfire on social media, winning plaudits from both right and left. A very thoughtful article that really addresses the nuances of the issue.
Dan Hannan is a tremendous talent. Surely there must be a position for him in government?
Interesting comments to that article -
'As much as I have sympathy for genuine refugees I also have sympathy for our own children being brought up in sink estates, where exactly is the hard hitting journalism trying to attract support for them?'
Europe appears indifferent or unable to get any kind of handle on this problem. I suspect mass civil unrest will wake them up from their slumber, by which time it will all be too late.
1) the children didn't have the choice. 2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
I think the parents are making reckless choices for such young children, but it's quite likely they have been misled by the traffickers. The case of the middle class Syrian woman working safely in Istambul before making the trip shows that it is pull factors rather than push factors mainly driving this. I agree that those pictures should be published by the papers, but they should also be distributed in refugee camps in the Middle East to let people know they are risking their children's lives making this trip.
The choice is rational, not reckless.
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
There is no way the mortality rate in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan etc is anywhere like the mortality rate at sea.
But while the risk is higher the duration is shorter. Does the risk of a decade under IS exceed the risk of a week in an overcrowded boat? Probably not. Any of us would do the same.
Probably the decisive thing causing the exodus is that the Assad regime is looking closer to collapse. The Assadites have nowhere else to go, and those who are in camps in Lebanon and Syria have no chance of return.
Probably the only realistic Refuge for most of these Syrians is an Assad controlled state, which would require quite a change of tune by our leaders.
You don't leave from an ISIS controlled area on a boat though. If you can get to a port you are either in Turkey, Lebanon or Assad territory already.
If we're criminalising teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with their bodies, the prisons are going to be very full indeed.
How many PBers when at school would have sent a photo of themselves, naked, to another pupil who they were not in a relationship with?
And what do you think of someone who would do this?
Senfing messages with photographs of your genitals seems to be quite common as part of the flirting process now.
(No, i don't understand either)
And, it's not just young people who do it, as Congressman Weiner and Brooks Newmark showed.
Like you, I don't understand it. I think I've led a sheltered life. Until yesterday on PB, I'd never heard of "line ups" or "seagulling."
Dare i say this.. I've exchanged 'personal' text messages with established girlfriends, the last of which became my wife, but it went no further than that.
It genuinely feels like a 2 horse race with Yvette Cooper finishing strongly. If only she had found it within herself to begin like this in May. It may well be too little too late for her, but it seems to me that if there's any undecided voters (or those just getting their vote) and they don't want Corbyn then Cooper will be the main beneficiary now and not Andy Burnham.
Comments
http://www.ft.com/fastft/386521
Scotland has had so many English immigrants over the years that it naturally thinks that immigration is "a good thing".
However, Scots need to realise that not all immigrants are as brilliant as the wonderful English.
Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html
thankfully as Labour is swept away the last vestiges at attempts to created ghettoes of multiculturalism (such as the dynastic fiefdom of the Sarwars) can be dealt with (a plan already appears in place for Govanhill).
The problem with immigration is not immigrants, it is multiculturalism and ghettoisation.
"Last week, for example, a BBC researcher called me, wanting to discuss the migration crisis. Would I talk by phone to her programme? Yes, I told her. In fact, I was at that moment volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in Italy, so it would have a certain aptness. The moment I mentioned the hostel, I sensed the interest draining from her voice. She was after someone who would be, as it were, uncomplicatedly anti-immigrant. She wanted no nuance, no dash of humanity."
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
Emotion = knee jerk, and any kind of mature and responsible media should keep that in mind even if it means it gets noticed less.
Two main issues seem to be dominating the discussion - on the Labour leadership, IF Corbyn fails (and I'm to be convinced) then, as the Conservatives did in 2003 when dumping IDS, Labour will have looked over the cliff edge and stepped back.
To what extent the vilification of Corbyn in the press will have played a part in changing minds I don't know - I thought Cameron and Farron's interventions were unwise and inappropriate. To expressly comment on the views of a candidate in a leadership election for another Party is just plain interfering. Once the process is over, fine, no problem but Labour has a right to choose its leader (irrespective of the nonsense of the electoral process itself) without the involvement of other parties.
As for the interconnected refugee/migrant crisis, there are no easy solutions - if there were, we'd be doing them. The Syrian Diaspora is a dreadful humanitarian disaster - if I had the option of flight, living under IS or being bombed on a daily basis by my own Government, flight would be the 1/10 favourite.
I would like to think various agencies are actively moving against the people traffickers and there was more than a hint those working in and around Calais had British connections.
As for Syria, there are only two solutions - all or nothing. "All" means a co-ordinated effort (and that has to involve Russia AND China) to end the fighting by ensuring neither Assad nor IS have the means to wage offensive war and then create a negotiated political settlement.
"Nothing" means watching Syria burn but doing what we can in the surrounding countries (Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan primarily) to ensure the displaced have something but less incentive to move on to Europe. That again needs global co-ordination through the UN and needs the financial muscle of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.
The problem I have with the Sun's comment piece this morning is that it once again assumes it's down to the Britain and the US - there are many other players with wealth, power and influence and they need to be involved.
The economic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere are a different but no less serious issue.
Scotland will be even more deserted when the exodus of British nationals to England, with their wealth, skills and businesses, when independence finally happens.
Incidentally, I experienced something similar when invited as a Conservative university branch chairman to various BBC radio debates. They wanted a token "righty" and would also interrogate me as to what my views were, and what I'd say, and it was very obvious when I didn't match the caricature they had on paper.
It irritated me, so I only did two or three in two years.
He made it his mission to personally visit every property in his constituency before May 8th. I'd heard (relayed here) that the Plymouth seats were far closer than they should have been - it was even suggested to me by a visiting MP that they could lose Sutton and Devonport but gain Moor View. Certainly two knife-edge seats that contributed to the Tory majority.
A points based immigration system which allowed the government to place values on particular skills or trades, and gave bonuses for having a job offer or being married to a citizen, or being well education and/or experienced (for example) would allow us to fine tune our immigration levels to acceptable numbers and great reduce the impression that people are taking advantage of us, thereby relieving a lot of the public's animosity.
And what do you think of someone who would do this?
It talks about sex, violence, The Cosa Nostra and the Labour leadership election.
Also contains references to one of the greatest films of all time.
Surprisingly I didn't write the thread
http://www.pixte.com/314111/10-places-you-are-not-allowed-to-visit-in-the-world/7/
The root of the problem is that society wants to extend its protection and sanctity of human life outside of that society's own Social Contract in a way which is fundamentally impossible and actually harmful to the long term development of other societies.
These things are happening. We are acting as bystanders while they happen. Is it wrong for newspapers to show the great suffering that is happening elsewhere while we debate whether to do anything? No, I don't think it is. Unlike the picture of the newsreader being shot, these pictures show events that we can still materially change. The ghost of Christmas present, if you like.
There is a separate question what we should do, but a shocking picture that shows the consequences of our current approach is legitimate for a newspaper to publish.
Nor is it lost on me that Hungary is building a fence when, 26 years ago, it opened its border with Austria, beginning a chain of events which would culminate in the fall of Communism, the consequences of which we live with today.
Taking in more refugees once they arrive on our shores does absolutely nothing to address drownings in the Mediterranean. In fact, it causes more of them, as it will mean more people will make the trip.
What we instead need to do is to deploy ships to the Mediterranean to rescue people, and to provide more capability to host refugees by the point of origin. As far as I can make out, this is exactly what the British government is currently doing.
It is a great shame that the Conservative Party cannot/will not make more productive use of his talents.
As to the first, well, I don't see that any party has a 'right' for others not to sticktheir noses in. It might bemore appropriate, even decent, but what this is is essentially a private club holding a debate about it's leadership, but doing so in public and to some degree inviting public involvement in the actual process. Cameron and Farron are not involved in the latter, but as Labour are choosing to have this debate publicly, as is only right and proper, it invites people to comment upon it if they wish. Unwise and inappropriate, perhaps, but Labour have no right to choose their leader without the involvement of Cameron and Farron if they choose to hold the contest in such a manner where, for politicians, it's been inescapable. And I absolute extend that to mean, if they want, Labour are free to comment upon the next Tory contest (in fact insome way they are, if they make comment about Osborne being next leader and how dreadful he would be), if they want.
"Four thousand migrants have drowned this year attempting to reach Europe, several children among them. But no cameras were present. Hundreds of thousands more have keen killed in Syria – again, unseen and so largely unmourned. The image of a drowned infant touches us as cold facts can’t.
The desire to succour children is encoded deep in our DNA. When we see a dead toddler, we feel that we have to do something. What that something is becomes almost secondary. Anything must be better than inaction."
Some lovely pubs, views and walks round there.
There's a whole thread-worth of debate right there!
The only thing that puzzles me is that I would associate such comments with someone centre-right/right, whereas I understood that your sympathies were with the left.
If you're suggesting that newspapers should politely ignore or downplay coverage of the largest movement of peoples across Europe since the aftermath of the Second World War, I'd suggest to you that you're perhaps not fully au fait with the concept of news.
In answer to your final question:
1) the children didn't have the choice.
2) their parents appear to have acted in what they thought was the best interests of their family, given their available options. That they chose such a dangerous course of action should itself make us reflect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11840493/David-Cameron-backs-down-on-purdah-but-faces-fresh-defeat-over-EU-Referendum-Bill.html
After agreeing to bring it back rather than face defeat, they introduced the changes at just 15 minutes before the deadline for amendments. But with big changes to it so that Cameron can still use the funds of government to publish material on issues like immigration right up to the final vote. It's clearly been deliberately done so that other amendments to react to it couldn't be added. And this when they've been working on the changes for months.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the Tory leadership don't want to work honestly and openly with backbenchers. I've been particularly unimpressed with Hammond's role on this, as I thought he was one of the better ones, but he seems to have gone native at Whitehall.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3219016/For-pity-s-sake-shut-borders.html
(No, i don't understand either)
These refugees/migrants are displaced because we did not support them militarily when we had the chance. The main man responsible for that has at least had the good grace I am told run away to Australia whilst everyone else has suddenly discovered a self serving conscience.
If the Schengen zone wishes to resolve this issue to their own satisfaction then they are free to do so.
Personally, I agree any death like this is a tragedy, and I was much more disturbed by the mass executions, burning people alive and horrendous brutality played out on those unfortunate enough to fall within the path of ISIS.
I'm a Tory supporter. I want to do the most damage possible to Labour to keep them out of power for the longest period possible. I still have nagging doubts about the Corbyn "ruse" - I actually think he's a pretty respectable and likeable ordinary man of the people individual (compared to wonks like Burnham et al), and I feel he will bring back the assorted left-leaners to the Labour fold, whilst dragging in a few neutrals who like his straight-talking, populist, bash the rich, utopian views. He could be far more damaging to the Tory cause than might be thought, compared to a bland Miliband Mk II in Burnham, who strikes me as just as unelectable to large parts of Middle England as EdM was.
So I'm really torn between wanting Burnham or Corbyn to win. And whether to express a second preference or not.
Any suggestions as to who and how I should vote for in the Labour ballot (if my conscience doesn't prevent me from voting in another party's election anyway...)?
Like you, I don't understand it. I think I've led a sheltered life. Until yesterday on PB, I'd never heard of "line ups" or "seagulling."
The rationality is that the chance of losing a child while making the journey is less than the chance of losing children if they remain.
It stems entirely from foreign aid injected into these countries, over-populating them beyond sustainable levels. We are reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 or 40 years ago when the Concern Industry really took off and the West began massive spending on famine relief, medical services and education in countries which were not in a position to offer a viable Social Contract which would lead to people wanting to stay.
The deaths of 17,000 under fives dying every day is not news because we choose to block it out. If you showed 17,000 funerals around the planet in a single 24 hour global news cast, each funeral would get 11 seconds. That would have a hell of a greater impact than this single photo.
Don't be a bottler for Burnham !
Further, those in real genuine and pressing need could be identified and processed fairly within those safe refuges, and each country could then agree to take a small share - which would be in the 10s of thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
Even if Ed Miliband had carried on as interim leader! The man was a human vacuum. What will we remember of him by the end of this Parliament?
The repercussions of this will haunt us for the next century and beyond.
When the serious wrong 'uns taking full advantage of the chaos to sneak in, really step things up a gear, we're screwed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34138206
The migrant crisis is new and getting worse. Of course it's more newsworthy than a longstanding problem that is getting better.
Here it is again for those interested:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html
Dan Hannan is a tremendous talent. Surely there must be a position for him in government?
It may merely be co-incidence but I suspect it has more to do with getting rid of Scotland's main ghetto of people with Pakistani and Bangladeshi ancestry.
I don't consider it appropriate for one Party to officially have a view on the policies of a candidate for the leadership of another Party during the leadership election process. The election of said leader is a matter for the electorate (however defined) of that party. I think Labour have made a dog's breakfast of this election but mostly as a result of the process by which the election takes place. However, that is Labour's problem.
Probably the decisive thing causing the exodus is that the Assad regime is looking closer to collapse. The Assadites have nowhere else to go, and those who are in camps in Lebanon and Syria have no chance of return.
Probably the only realistic Refuge for most of these Syrians is an Assad controlled state, which would require quite a change of tune by our leaders.
Tessa Jowell apologised today after a volunteer for her campaign to be Mayor said rival Sadiq Khan was a “liability” because he is Muslim.
Dame Tessa’s team immediately condemned the comment after it threatened to plunge the Labour frontrunner’s City Hall bid into a racism scandal.
http://bit.ly/1NP0vaH
What benefit do they get from reduced infant mortality?
Do you not understand how the current migrant situation has been caused DIRECTLY by this reduction in infant mortality?
But voting for Burnham was not what I paid £3 to the Labour Party for the privilege of doing. It probably has to be either Corbyn or just stay out of it and mind my own business...
'As much as I have sympathy for genuine refugees I also have sympathy for our own children being brought up in sink estates, where exactly is the hard hitting journalism trying to attract support for them?'
Europe appears indifferent or unable to get any kind of handle on this problem. I suspect mass civil unrest will wake them up from their slumber, by which time it will all be too late.
It certainly didn't involve 'multimedia' content.