The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
The BBC's Matthew Price is walking with hundreds of people who left Keleti station in Hungary's capital Budapest, intent on walking to Austria after they were stopped from boarding westbound trains.
One migrant tells him: "We will keep going until we get to Austria, and then Germany. Angela Merkel is our mum." ------ Things that I get (and support) ... - The idea that we have have feelings of humanity to unfortuate people and seek to help them - The idea that we try to help poorer countries to develop economically - The idea that we give up some of our national wealth to fund these aims
Things that I don't get ... - The idea that any person has the right to say to a specific country "You must let me because I don't want to live anywhere else"
But it is plausible looking at the number of young men in the pictures that a small proportion will be sympathetic to ISIS. It's an old tactic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse
"In a thorough analysis of smuggling of migrants and irregular migration in West Africa, de Haas argues that common push-pull models viewing poverty as the main cause of African mass migration are inconsistent with evidence that migrants are not among the poorest.
"On the basis of information gathered through 18 months of field research in various districts of Istanbul, Narli concludes that “smugglers networks coexist with criminal organizations, exerting a crime multiplier for them, for militias, guerrillas and terrorists”. Kalaitzidis holds the view that rather than transnational criminal organizations, “smuggling networks are semi-legal businesses that thrive on internal corruption and the unwillingness of the state to prosecute human smugglers”.
"smuggling has a rather benign reputation in the migrant community, and migrants often consider their handlers either philanthropists who want to help others or ordinary people who just want to make some money.
"the line between smuggler and migrant is sometimes blurred, as it seems that migrants may change roles in the course of the migration process or after their arrival in the destination country. Daniel has recorded testimonies of migrants who became smugglers in order to get the protection of networks while moving towards their final destination.
"Smugglers also know that they are operating with almost complete impunity thanks to ill-defined and weak legislation. The report noted that they do not see themselves as criminals, but rather as providers of a service that is in great demand.
"Those being smuggled are usually expected in the target country. The smuggling operation is usually commissioned from the target country."
"In the context of West Africa, relatively well-off individuals and households may consciously choose to migrate in order to enhance their livelihoods. This view is shared by authors who have analysed migration trends in other parts of the world, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Schematically, migration is often perceived as the best option to improve their livelihood for working poor or young skilled people without prospects in their country of origin. According to UNODC research in India, migrants have to fulfil the families’ expectation, in particular where families participate in the financing of the travel.
"migrants’ control over their destiny depends largely on how deeply they are embedded in a transnational community and whether there are ethnic links among migrants. information provided by migrant networks does not necessarily mean that migrants’ knowledge about important aspects of their journey is sufficient. In reality, the gathering of information is often limited to loose contacts or casual telephone conversations, with rumours and hearsay playing a significant role in the decision-making process. This analysis is shared by Van Wijk, who highlights that the migrants interviewed in the course of his research had chosen to go to the destination country—in that case, the Netherlands—on the rather vague basis that it was said to be good.
"a family’s expectations seem to have a great influence on the migrants’ motivation to reach their destination at any cost. although the journey might be a traumatic experience in which the migrant may suffer direct abuses and witness deaths of other migrants—nothing can spoil their determination.
"success stories of smuggled migrants increase community pressure: those who do not migrate not only remain poor but are also perceived as lazy. Reports about West African countries support the idea that the migration process is part of the social identity (becoming someone and getting married, versus being poor and marginalized) and receives the blessing of religious and paternal figures of the community.
"Another critical problem, is that migrants would keep silent about the difficulties they faced on their way to Europe and in the destination country, thus feeding the myth of a good life abroad.
"Research has established that an overwhelming majority of persons seeking asylum, particularly in Europe, use the services of smuggling networks.
"recourse to smugglers of migrants creates perverse effects because those who are most in need of international protection cannot afford to pay."
Miss Plato, you're not emoting enough. This is no time for thinking. Put that evidence away and look at a sad photo until you realise *something* must be done.
Edited extra bit: ahem. That's a bit more sarcastic than I usually am. But I do have a burning hatred of emotional blackmail. Your heart's good for pumping blood, but if you're using it to make decisions then what's the point of your brain?
The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
Everyone talking about reinstating border controls needs to recognise that even before Schengen land borders were essentially porous everywhere except to the eastern bloc.
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
Everyone talking about reinstating border controls needs to recognise that even before Schengen land borders were essentially porous everywhere except to the eastern bloc.
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
There is no other British politician at present anywhere near David Cameron to take the Country through this most serious issue
The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
Everyone talking about reinstating border controls needs to recognise that even before Schengen land borders were essentially porous everywhere except to the eastern bloc.
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
There is no other British politician at present anywhere near David Cameron to take the Country through this most serious issue
lol, We are in the hands of a PR blowhard. Rejoice!
Vettel mentioned them once, but I think he got away with it.
As well as the increased pressure, to prevent the wall from flexing, Pirelli are concerned the teams are doing more than the recommended number of laps.
They also want the cars to reduce the negative camber on the front wheels.
I think ghe thing to fear most in the EU is not the influx of Migrants.. it is the sheer incompetency of the Eu countries to enforce their own RIGID rules..if they cannot look after their borders then they should all stand down and let other people do it for them
I saw the other Miliband brother on the news last night praising the EU's response to the migrant crisis. He went silent when it was pointed out that only Germany have agreed to take a large number of migrants and that the EU has not come up with a solution to the problem.
The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
Everyone talking about reinstating border controls needs to recognise that even before Schengen land borders were essentially porous everywhere except to the eastern bloc.
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
There is no other British politician at present anywhere near David Cameron to take the Country through this most serious issue
lol, We are in the hands of a PR blowhard. Rejoice!
'Dead child image shows need for tough Australia-style border policies'
Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, says the images of a dead Syrian boy on a Turkish beach were “very sad” but showed the need for tough Australian-style border policies, writes Jonathan Pearlman in Sydney.
"If you want to stop the deaths, if you want to stop the drownings you have got to stop the boats,” he told ABC News.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
Everyone talking about reinstating border controls needs to recognise that even before Schengen land borders were essentially porous everywhere except to the eastern bloc.
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
There is no other British politician at present anywhere near David Cameron to take the Country through this most serious issue
lol, We are in the hands of a PR blowhard. Rejoice!
There is no need to be personal
For want of clarity it was Cameron I to who I referred.
Although I'm of the left I'm no bleeding heart on immigration and my view is that what we're seeing here is of unprecedented difficulty. I do take the view that some of these people are migrants and that Europe for which read Germany has been idiotic to invite them all to come along. We simply cannot have the population of the Middle East choose to relocate to Europe.
But to say that only Cameron has unique authority to deal with this is utter nonsense. He's a politician and blows in the wind of public opinion like all the others. In fact possibly more so based on my observations.
Wasn't there a BBC drama about 10-15 years ago called, I think, 'The Tribe' - in which there was a mass march of hungry people from Africa to Europe? The only thing I really can remember is that one of the marchers says at one point - "you can feed your cats, look at the food they get - surely you can feed us'.
This is just a nightmare for the EU. The more they take, the more will come. Africa's population is already a billion, and it will be 2.5 billion by 2050:
I sympathise for the truly vulnerable, I really do, but European society simply can't cope with tens of millions coming, which is what will happen on the current path. And unless the UK gets restrictions on free movement, we'll see a big chunk of that.
Wasn't there a BBC drama about 10-15 years ago called, I think, 'The Tribe' - in which there was a mass march of hungry people from Africa to Europe? The only thing I really can remember is that one of the marchers says at one point - "you can feed your cats, look at the food they get - surely you can feed us'.
I'm sure we could, and should. It won't stop them dying on the mass march from other hazards though, only stopping the marching will.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
Wasn't there a BBC drama about 10-15 years ago called, I think, 'The Tribe' - in which there was a mass march of hungry people from Africa to Europe? The only thing I really can remember is that one of the marchers says at one point - "you can feed your cats, look at the food they get - surely you can feed us'.
A bit like the Jarrow march, yes. It's perfectly natural that everyone who is less well off than we are in this country want to move somewhere like this. But am I alone in finding the prospect of such an influx frightening? Am I scare-mongering to myself? Where are they all going to go?
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
The BBC's reporting is so misleading re-iterating that the migrants are Syrian refugees when they have absolutely no way of verifying this. The most alarming feature is that the largest groups are young men who have no care for women or children and use their strength to fight and force their ways onto the trains. Even before the EU gets to trying to force quotas on member states they are going to have to explain how they intend assessing everyone from genuine Syrian refugees and others who may well be economic migrants. David Cameron is absolutely correct on his anaylsis and if the EU have any sense they will match David Cameron's offer to take refugees ONLY from the refugee camps. Additionally the Schengen agree needs to be suspended maybe even abolished and border controls throughout Europe re-instated. This would go a long way to resolving the crisis
Everyone talking about reinstating border controls needs to recognise that even before Schengen land borders were essentially porous everywhere except to the eastern bloc.
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
There is no other British politician at present anywhere near David Cameron to take the Country through this most serious issue
lol, We are in the hands of a PR blowhard. Rejoice!
There is no need to be personal
For want of clarity it was Cameron I to who I referred.
Although I'm of the left I'm no bleeding heart on immigration and my view is that what we're seeing here is of unprecedented difficulty. I do take the view that some of these people are migrants and that Europe for which read Germany has been idiotic to invite them all to come along. We simply cannot have the population of the Middle East choose to relocate to Europe.
But to say that only Cameron has unique authority to deal with this is utter nonsense. He's a politician and blows in the wind of public opinion like all the others. In fact possibly more so based on my observations.
Thank you. I fully agree with your first paragraph but David Cameron is our Prime Minister and is taking the right policy decisions against considerable opposition which understandably has been affected by the dreadful photographs this week
Mr. 86, is she going to keep them locked in Scotland, or has she joined the UK Government?
I think what she means is if Cameron accepts to let in x thousand she'll take a thousand of them. You'd be cheesed off if you made it here and were told 'you're going to Glenrothes'.
EDIT: Though if some of them can play football they may be able to find work quite easily.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
Oh dear, I touched a nerve there. I was giving my opinion on what I've seen on PB on the last couple of days, I wasn't trying to get attention.
This is just a nightmare for the EU. The more they take, the more will come. Africa's population is already a billion, and it will be 2.5 billion by 2050:
I sympathise for the truly vulnerable, I really do, but European society simply can't cope with tens of millions coming, which is what will happen on the current path. And unless the UK gets restrictions on free movement, we'll see a big chunk of that.
It is a shame that the best intention by European leaders may well be exacerbating the very problem they are attempting to solve. – Merkel for one has just opened a whole can of worms for many.
Jordan Spieth looks like being a 1 year wonder; such a shame.
He's going to be a great golfer. Give him time to mature, learn to pace himself, consistency. I've said from the start that comparing him to McIlRoy was nonsense. In 5 years maybe.
He's still #2 in OWGR and also 2 in Fedex Cup.
I'll be inside the ropes to see him at East Lake in 2 weeks.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
And why the anger at Scotland pledging to take in refugees? Cameron's doing to exact same thing, but apparently he's brilliant, and Sturgeon is merely grandstanding.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees".
If you actually listened to the conservative arguments, for us, it's more about "encouraging more people to take a dangerous trip" versus "not encouraging people to take a dangerous trip". On that, Cameron has not u-turned at all, taking refugees from the camps. Cameron's policy all along has been the sensible one, whereas Merkel will only result in more dangerous sea crossings and more dead children.
As for your second paragraph, you must be talking about me, as I was the one that asked the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to question why Germany stands alone in not having an insurgent hard right party, given that virtually all its neighbours do. It is certainly not converging to my own opinion as I am a Conservative supporter, not a UKIP one.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
This is just a nightmare for the EU. The more they take, the more will come. Africa's population is already a billion, and it will be 2.5 billion by 2050:
I sympathise for the truly vulnerable, I really do, but European society simply can't cope with tens of millions coming, which is what will happen on the current path. And unless the UK gets restrictions on free movement, we'll see a big chunk of that.
It is a shame that the best intention by European leaders may well be exacerbating the very problem they are attempting to solve. – Merkel for one has just opened a whole can of worms for many.
.... and we all know how deep the long-term impact of a Diet of Worms can be.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Oh my dear - you're just a saint - a regular Jeanne d'Arc.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
I don't think questioning the wisdom of letting in large number of immigrants is necessarily right wing. Quite often those with economically right wing views are the most anti immigration, but the two are not intrinsically linked. In fact, I'd argue being anti immigration is a more left of centre view. The likes of Philip_Thompson of this parish give the most consistently right wing views (i.e. comfortable with immigration with a government committed to low taxes/low benefits).
Watching the Labour leadership debate last night I was struck by the arrogance of the candidates as they happily laid into the PM. When they want the working class to vote for them they pretend they care about their needs. But as soon as their votes aren't needed they grandstand and pontificate about how terrible the world is and how we* have a responsibility to help those not fortunate enough to have been born in this great country.
* By we I mean the average man/woman in the street. They as politicians, of course, won't be affected.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Their actions are terroristic and founded on covetousness, which is another word for greed...
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
Oh dear, I touched a nerve there. I was giving my opinion on what I've seen on PB on the last couple of days, I wasn't trying to get attention.
Ms Apocalypse, you did touch a nerve for someone like Simon to bristle.
I've been following PB for ten years (not as long as some, but a respectable time).
I think that what happened was that your comment triggered memories of the days when certain left-wing posters adopted the approach that anyone who supported the Tories must be evil, whereas the left were all morally correct (yes - it really was that bad).
It's all to easy to forget sometimes that you are actually a person of the centre-left (not hard left) with whom one can have a robust but enjoyable debate.
And why the anger at Scotland pledging to take in refugees? Cameron's doing to exact same thing, but apparently he's brilliant, and Sturgeon is merely grandstanding.
We're not angry, I'm just taking the piss. If Scotland was independent we'd have a migrant crisis on our doorstep!
And why the anger at Scotland pledging to take in refugees? Cameron's doing to exact same thing, but apparently he's brilliant, and Sturgeon is merely grandstanding.
Perhaps because the SNP have already been thoroughly cynical in their political use of this crisis:
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
Cameron has done a U-Turn. Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
I have listened to Conservative arguments. While you've conveyed you beliefs in a more reasonable tone, that makes me believe that you genuinely sympathise with the refugees even you disagree with Merkel's solution, others have gone on to actively demonise the refugees, have no compassion or sympathise for them whatsoever, belittle them for wanting to come to Europe instead of staying in a refugee camps in neighboring ME countries were they could be there for years, actively demonise the German chancellor as someone sending Germans to their deaths and prior to yesterday called views in which wanted us to take in refugees 'virtue signalling'.
Merkel's policy is humane, and kind - giving many Syrians a brand new opportunity. People on PB appear to think that Cameron's policy will stop dangerous crossings. The policy of simply giving aid has not stopped those dangerous crossings, which is why we are here now with a human catastrophe. Nothing, bar making Syria a safe place again will stop these crossings. Therefore, for those who have made such a journey, it is great to offer them home, a chance to rebuild, and a society to become a part of. I applaud Germany, and the response of many Germans - especially their football clubs - to this crisis.
On Alternative for Germany, it alarmed me partly because of much of the tone of PB is almost a will for Germany to opt for the kind of anti-immigrant, right-wing, populist parties that have proved popular in other places in Europe. As if somehow, these kinds of parties gaining popularity is amazing. People have talked of it all being Labour's fault rather public antipathy to more immigration. But it was only in the 50s, and 60s when there was public antipathy to immigration from Britain's former colonies. Britain has never been a fan of immigration, at least not in the post-war era.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
Jordan Spieth looks like being a 1 year wonder; such a shame.
He's going to be a great golfer. Give him time to mature, learn to pace himself, consistency. I've said from the start that comparing him to McIlRoy was nonsense. In 5 years maybe.
He's still #2 in OWGR and also 2 in Fedex Cup.
I'll be inside the ropes to see him at East Lake in 2 weeks.
You may well be right Tim_B, I hope so. Have fun at East Lake, lucky devil.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Oh my dear - you're just a saint - a regular Jeanne d'Arc.
I'm not a saint, but I don't believe these refugees are evil. I sympathise with their plight, and wish them the best - and hope that Britain can take some of them in. This is the completely opposite tone to the likes of the Hungarian PM, of which many on PB have taken to siding with.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Oh bless you, dear child. You are virtuous beyond words in a land of sinners and the damned.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
I don't think questioning the wisdom of letting in large number of immigrants is necessarily right wing. Quite often those with economically right wing views are the most anti immigration, but the two are not intrinsically linked. In fact, I'd argue being anti immigration is a more left of centre view. The likes of Philip_Thompson of this parish give the most consistently right wing views (i.e. comfortable with immigration with a government committed to low taxes/low benefits).
Watching the Labour leadership debate last night I was struck by the arrogance of the candidates as they happily laid into the PM. When they want the working class to vote for them they pretend they care about their needs. But as soon as their votes aren't needed they grandstand and pontificate about how terrible the world is and how we* have a responsibility to help those not fortunate enough to have been born in this great country.
* By we I mean the average man/woman in the street. They as politicians, of course, won't be affected.
Maybe Labour do not believe that helping those less fortunate is actively against the interests of the working classes!
It's not about questioning letting in large numbers of immigrants. It's the tone towards these refugees, in particular which is alarming. I mentioned the Right, because many of those with the most critical views of the refugees are those on the Right of British politics.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
I called these hordes of economic migrants terrorists, not any genuine refugee...
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
Oh dear, I touched a nerve there. I was giving my opinion on what I've seen on PB on the last couple of days, I wasn't trying to get attention.
Ms Apocalypse, you did touch a nerve for someone like Simon to bristle.
I've been following PB for ten years (not as long as some, but a respectable time).
I think that what happened was that your comment triggered memories of the days when certain left-wing posters adopted the approach that anyone who supported the Tories must be evil, whereas the left were all morally correct (yes - it really was that bad).
It's all to easy to forget sometimes that you are actually a person of the centre-left (not hard left) with whom one can have a robust but enjoyable debate.
I don't believe anyone who is a Tory is evil, or nasty. However I really do not like the tone towards the refugees that many on the Right have taken. Quite frankly, I've been more than glad to see the likes of Ruth Davidson take a different tone.
' My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.'
You must have missed the comments on LabourList yesterday in response to the leadership candidates trying to outdo each other on how many asylum seekers we should take.
'The Labour leadership candidates have this morning weighed in on the refugee crisis, in which it’s estimated over 2,500 people have died since the start of this year.'
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
I called these hordes of economic migrants terrorists, not any genuine refugee...
Well that's a relief (on the refugees). But it's still a bit much to call the economic migrants terrorists.
Does anyone know how reliable the Exaro news site is? Their wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaro) makes them sound reputable, but there;s no telling how impartial that is.
And why the anger at Scotland pledging to take in refugees? Cameron's doing to exact same thing, but apparently he's brilliant, and Sturgeon is merely grandstanding.
Perhaps because the SNP have already been thoroughly cynical in their political use of this crisis:
' My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.'
You must have missed the comments on LabourList yesterday in response to the leadership candidates trying to outdo each other on how many asylum seekers we should take.
'The Labour leadership candidates have this morning weighed in on the refugee crisis, in which it’s estimated over 2,500 people have died since the start of this year.'
I don't read LabourList, I've given up on it since anyone who disagreed with Corbyn was called a Tory.
It's not about questioning letting in large numbers of immigrants. It's the tone towards these refugees, in particular which is alarming. I mentioned the Right, because many of those with the most critical views of the refugees are those on the Right of British politics.
Absolutely. The tone of some posters on this site has been very distressing.
Was at the same event today as John Redwood, so managed to do a bit of pro-refugee lobbying. He was keener than I expected on retaining overseas aid and on doing everything possible with regard to camps in Turkey etc. But refused to commit to allowing a single refugee into the UK. Not even unaccompanied children.
It's not about questioning letting in large numbers of immigrants. It's the tone towards these refugees, in particular which is alarming. I mentioned the Right, because many of those with the most critical views of the refugees are those on the Right of British politics.
Absolutely. The tone of some posters on this site has been very distressing.
Was at the same event today as John Redwood, so managed to do a bit of pro-refugee lobbying. He was keener than I expected on retaining overseas aid and on doing everything possible with regard to camps in Turkey etc. But refused to commit to allowing a single refugee into the UK. Not even unaccompanied children.
Cocked up the blockquotes and brackets in that truncation. The last 2 paras were me, before that was the quote.
@MrsB Not surprised on John Redwood's views. I suspect it'll be the more moderate part of the Conservative party that may be sympathetic to allowing refugees to come here. That said, even the likes of Tim Montgomerie - the bloke who used to work for IDS - have been very sympathetic towards the refugees.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
Cameron has done a U-Turn. Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
I have listened to Conservative arguments. While you've conveyed you beliefs in a more reasonable tone, that makes me believe that you genuinely sympathise with the refugees even you disagree with Merkel's solution, others have gone on to actively demonise the refugees, have no compassion or sympathise for them whatsoever, belittle them for wanting to come to Europe instead of
Merkel's policy is humane, and kind - giving many Syrians a brand new opportunity. People on PB appear to think that Cameron's policy will stop dangerous crossings. The policy of simply giving aid has not stopped those dangerous crossings, which is why we are here now with a human catastrophe. Nothing, bar making Syria a safe place again will stop these crossings. Therefore, for those who have made such a journey, it is great to offer them home, a chance to rebuild, and a society to become a part of. I applaud Germany, and the response of many Germans - especially their football clubs - to this crisis.
On Alternative for Germany, it alarmed me partly because of much of the tone of PB is almost a will for Germany to opt for the kind of anti-immigrant, right-wing, populist parties that have proved popular in other places in Europe. As if somehow, these kinds of parties gaining popularity is amazing. People have talked of it all being Labour's fault rather public antipathy to more immigration. But it was only in the 50s, and 60s when there was public antipathy to immigration from Britain's former colonies. Britain has never been a fan of immigration, at least not in the post-war era.
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
Does anyone know how reliable the Exaro news site is? Their wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaro) makes them sound reputable, but there;s no telling how impartial that is.
To my eye, Mr Cameron is the only one who has been pursuing anything close to a rational policy on this, providing very substantial aid while the rest of the EU were doing far less.
We *know* that keeping groups such as this in the region is best - see John Major, safe havens and the Kurds (who are still there).
So we have Mrs Merkel first of all not meeting the contributions that would help keep the people in the area where they need to be kept (the UN has only about 40% of its required aid budget), *then* declaring that she will take in 800k people without any real process, setting off a stampede of refugees and "not refugees" across the continent, *then* accusing the one country (UK) in Europe that *did* step up to the plate of being remiss.
Has Merkel lost her marbles, promoting the people traffickers like this?
Meanwhile we have Mr Corbyn, who's group Stop the War Coalition (he is Chair) was heavily involved in stopping the UK contribution to facing down Isis (see Miliband's votes against intervention), suddenly demanding that the UK Govt have failed to address the crisis that his friends helped make worse.
Then we have a superficial, sanctimonious media firestorm targetting Mr Cameron on the record of two children who died as a result of being taken out to sea in a rubber dinghy by their parents, who were safe and secure, were *not* refugees, and who's father turned out to be a Health Tourist impatient because his sister in Canada had not yet saved up enough money to buy him a new set of false teeth.
Are we living inside Kafka?
I'm completely bemused, and currently feeling contemptuous of a lot of different public figures.
And on this occasion David Cameron is the only one with any moral stature left according to me.
He is right to stick to his guns and take the most vunerable people from the camps, rather than the stronger ones who are rich enough to get out uinder their own steam, and are now clamouring for attention.
That will start to undermine the traffickers and help the people where they need to be helped.
... Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
It's quite possible to do something whilst knowing that it will not actually help.
Throw bitter tears at the ocean if you must, but know all that comes back is the tide.
When a PM says that taking in refugees won't solve a problem, in response to other countries planning to take in refugees, that implies that he's not keen on taking in refugees. And tbh, I'm not the one sounding bitter.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
Oh dear, I touched a nerve there. I was giving my opinion on what I've seen on PB on the last couple of days, I wasn't trying to get attention.
Ms Apocalypse, you did touch a nerve for someone like Simon to bristle.
I've been following PB for ten years (not as long as some, but a respectable time).
I think that what happened was that your comment triggered memories of the days when certain left-wing posters adopted the approach that anyone who supported the Tories must be evil, whereas the left were all morally correct (yes - it really was that bad).
It's all to easy to forget sometimes that you are actually a person of the centre-left (not hard left) with whom one can have a robust but enjoyable debate.
I don't believe anyone who is a Tory is evil, or nasty. However I really do not like the tone towards the refugees that many on the Right have taken. Quite frankly, I've been more than glad to see the likes of Ruth Davidson take a different tone.
Merkel has made a dreadful mistake by opening Germany to 800,000 migrants. This has created a Wordwide invitation to economic migrants to go to Germany and apparently there are 60 million seeking refuge and a better life. What happens in the next weeks when the numbers rises to the millions. At what point does Germany close her borders. David Cameron fore sees this and has put forward a sensible compromise. History will show that Merkel made one of the most catastrophic mistakes in European politics
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
I don't think questioning the wisdom of letting in large number of immigrants is necessarily right wing. Quite often those with economically right wing views are the most anti immigration, but the two are not intrinsically linked. In fact, I'd argue being anti immigration is a more left of centre view. The likes of Philip_Thompson of this parish give the most consistently right wing views (i.e. comfortable with immigration with a government committed to low taxes/low benefits).
Watching the Labour leadership debate last night I was struck by the arrogance of the candidates as they happily laid into the PM. When they want the working class to vote for them they pretend they care about their needs. But as soon as their votes aren't needed they grandstand and pontificate about how terrible the world is and how we* have a responsibility to help those not fortunate enough to have been born in this great country.
* By we I mean the average man/woman in the street. They as politicians, of course, won't be affected.
Maybe Labour do not believe that helping those less fortunate is actively against the interests of the working classes!
It's not about questioning letting in large numbers of immigrants. It's the tone towards these refugees, in particular which is alarming. I mentioned the Right, because many of those with the most critical views of the refugees are those on the Right of British politics.
Some people can adopt very unpleasant language about asylum seekers.
But one can encounter extremely unpleasant language on the other side of the argument, too.
... Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
It's quite possible to do something whilst knowing that it will not actually help.
Throw bitter tears at the ocean if you must, but know all that comes back is the tide.
When a PM says that taking in refugees won't solve a problem, in response to other countries planning to take in refugees, that implies that he's not keen on taking in refugees. And tbh, I'm not the one sounding bitter.
Wasn't that in response to Germany's actions? What he is proposing might be rather different: get them from the camps (where they can be processed first?), rather than take in any Tom, Dick and Harry who has made the journey.
More importantly, Germany's actions just enriches the people smugglers. Ours might not (at least the ones on the seabound and European legs)
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Oh my dear - you're just a saint - a regular Jeanne d'Arc.
I'm not a saint, but I don't believe these refugees are evil. I sympathise with their plight, and wish them the best - and hope that Britain can take some of them in. This is the completely opposite tone to the likes of the Hungarian PM, of which many on PB have taken to siding with.
Of course they aren't evil. Economic migrants now are doing exactly what the American settlers did in risking everything for a better future. They weren't evil either, but there were enough of them to destroy the civilisation they invaded.
Does anyone know how reliable the Exaro news site is? Their wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaro) makes them sound reputable, but there;s no telling how impartial that is.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
Oh dear, I touched a nerve there. I was giving my opinion on what I've seen on PB on the last couple of days, I wasn't trying to get attention.
Ms Apocalypse, you did touch a nerve for someone like Simon to bristle.
I've been following PB for ten years (not as long as some, but a respectable time).
I think that what happened was that your comment triggered memories of the days when certain left-wing posters adopted the approach that anyone who supported the Tories must be evil, whereas the left were all morally correct (yes - it really was that bad).
It's all to easy to forget sometimes that you are actually a person of the centre-left (not hard left) with whom one can have a robust but enjoyable debate.
I don't believe anyone who is a Tory is evil, or nasty. However I really do not like the tone towards the refugees that many on the Right have taken. Quite frankly, I've been more than glad to see the likes of Ruth Davidson take a different tone.
Merkel has made a dreadful mistake by opening Germany to 800,000 migrants. This has created a Wordwide invitation to economic migrants to go to Germany and apparently there are 60 million seeking refuge and a better life. What happens in the next weeks when the numbers rises to the millions. At what point does Germany close her borders. David Cameron fore sees this and has put forward a sensible compromise. History will show that Merkel made one of the most catastrophic mistakes in European politics
As far as I was aware the 800,000 is specifically for those who are Syrians. It is only Syrians who will be getting automatic asylum. Everyone else will have to go through normal procedure. And on Merkel. I have to say, I think she'll go down as one of the great European leaders, having stepped to up to a humanitarian obligation.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
Cameron has done a U-Turn. Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
Merkel's policy is humane, and kind - giving many Syrians a brand new opportunity. People on PB appear to think that Cameron's policy will stop dangerous crossings. The policy of simply giving aid has not stopped those dangerous crossings, which is why we are here now with a human catastrophe. Nothing, bar making Syria a safe place again will stop these crossings. Therefore, for those who have made such a journey, it is great to offer them home, a chance to rebuild, and a society to become a part of. I applaud Germany, and the response of many Germans - especially their football clubs - to this crisis.
On Alternative for Germany, it alarmed me partly because of much of the tone of PB is almost a will for Germany to opt for the kind of anti-immigrant, right-wing, populist parties that have proved popular in other places in Europe. As if somehow, these kinds of parties gaining popularity is amazing. People have talked of it all being Labour's fault rather public antipathy to more immigration. But it was only in the 50s, and 60s when there was public antipathy to immigration from Britain's former colonies. Britain has never been a fan of immigration, at least not in the post-war era.
Cameron is still saying that taking in more refugees won't solve the problem. He's right. It's a sticking plaster on a serious wound. Merkel was wrong to give the impression that the door was wide open for anyone, because migrants who wants to enter Europe can do so illegally and they won't be stopped - see Hungary today. The migrants refuse to be registered.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
I called these hordes of economic migrants terrorists, not any genuine refugee...
Well that's a relief (on the refugees). But it's still a bit much to call the economic migrants terrorists.
Really? Co-conspirators with criminal gangs, to gain unlawful entry to our countries, to loot our benefit system, to intimidate us into capitulation by sheer force of numbers, to act violently and threateningly when challenged, to act kamikaze-like in their determination, to weaken our resolve with the bodies of their kith and kin littering our beaches?
... Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
It's quite possible to do something whilst knowing that it will not actually help.
Throw bitter tears at the ocean if you must, but know all that comes back is the tide.
When a PM says that taking in refugees won't solve a problem, in response to other countries planning to take in refugees, that implies that he's not keen on taking in refugees. And tbh, I'm not the one sounding bitter.
Wasn't that in response to Germany's actions? What he is proposing might be rather different: get them from the camps (where they can be processed first?), rather than take in any Tom, Dick and Harry who has made the journey.
More importantly, Germany's actions just enriches the people smugglers. Ours might not (at least the ones on the seabound and European legs)
I don't think Germany is planning to take in every Tom, Dick and Harry. And rather suspiciously these proposals only leaked yesterday, after the front-page headlines. Prior to that, there was very little from Cameron on taking in refugees. If he was really only responding to Germany, he would have endorsed the idea of taking in refugees, but sighted that we need to more to the solve the problem.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Oh my dear - you're just a saint - a regular Jeanne d'Arc.
I'm not a saint, but I don't believe these refugees are evil. I sympathise with their plight, and wish them the best - and hope that Britain can take some of them in. This is the completely opposite tone to the likes of the Hungarian PM, of which many on PB have taken to siding with.
Of course they aren't evil. Economic migrants now are doing exactly what the American settlers did in risking everything for a better future. They weren't evil either, but there were enough of them to destroy the civilisation they invaded.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
Why do you go through this boring routine of insulting others just to get attention? If you have something interesting, informative or entertaining to add to the discussion just say it.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
I called these hordes of economic migrants terrorists, not any genuine refugee...
Well that's a relief (on the refugees). But it's still a bit much to call the economic migrants terrorists.
Really? Co-conspirators with criminal gangs, to gain unlawful entry to our countries, to loot our benefit system, to intimidate us into capitulation by sheer force of numbers, to act violently and threateningly when challenged, to act kamikaze-like in their determination, to weaken our resolve with the bodies of their kith and kin littering our beaches?
Sweet reasonableness itself!
I hardly doubt there is a deliberate plot among migrants to intimidate us into capitulation by the force of numbers - a lot of them are coming because they want a better life. And to loot our benefit system? Really?
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
TA Is that supposed to be English.. maybe you should have another go.. The fourth form is two forms below the sixth form..
I have to stick up for the confusion - I guess it makes sense, but although the years 12-13 I attended at school were the 6th form, not once in the previous years had any other year been referred to as a 'form'. I certainly didn't make the connection at first glance.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
Why does it 'make sense' ?
For me, if some Syrian refugee turns up it's far better to take them in, and make them a productive member of society then abandon them and simply hope they stop them coming.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34155703
Vettel mentioned them once, but I think he got away with it.
The BBC's Matthew Price is walking with hundreds of people who left Keleti station in Hungary's capital Budapest, intent on walking to Austria after they were stopped from boarding westbound trains.
One migrant tells him: "We will keep going until we get to Austria, and then Germany. Angela Merkel is our mum."
------
Things that I get (and support) ...
- The idea that we have have feelings of humanity to unfortuate people and seek to help them
- The idea that we try to help poorer countries to develop economically
- The idea that we give up some of our national wealth to fund these aims
Things that I don't get ...
- The idea that any person has the right to say to a specific country "You must let me because I don't want to live anywhere else"
Is this story true ?
Who knows.
But it is plausible looking at the number of young men in the pictures that a small proportion will be sympathetic to ISIS. It's an old tactic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse
"Research on other North African countries suggests that most migrants are between 20 and 30 years old, belong to a poor middle class, and despite a high level of education, suffer from a lack of opportunities and public health services. Research also indicates that the better educated have a greater propensity to migrate.
"In a thorough analysis of smuggling of migrants and irregular migration in West Africa, de Haas argues that common push-pull models viewing poverty as the main cause of African mass migration are inconsistent with evidence that migrants are not among the poorest.
"On the basis of information gathered through 18 months of field research in various districts of Istanbul, Narli concludes that “smugglers networks coexist with criminal organizations, exerting a crime multiplier for them, for militias, guerrillas and terrorists”. Kalaitzidis holds the view that rather than transnational criminal organizations, “smuggling networks are semi-legal businesses that thrive on internal corruption and the unwillingness of the state to prosecute human smugglers”.
"smuggling has a rather benign reputation in the migrant community, and migrants often consider their handlers either philanthropists who want to help others or ordinary people who just want to make some money.
"the line between smuggler and migrant is sometimes blurred, as it seems that migrants may change roles in the course of the migration process or after their arrival in the destination country. Daniel has recorded testimonies of migrants who became smugglers in order to get the protection of networks while moving towards their final destination.
"Smugglers also know that they are operating with almost complete impunity thanks to ill-defined and weak legislation. The report noted that they do not see themselves as criminals, but rather as providers of a service that is in great demand.
"Those being smuggled are usually expected in the target country. The smuggling operation is usually commissioned from the target country."
https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf
"the lack of prospects for self-realization and the inability to meet personal aspirations are strong incentives for migrants..
"In the context of West Africa, relatively well-off individuals and households may consciously choose to migrate in order to enhance their livelihoods. This view is shared by authors who have analysed migration trends in other parts of the world, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Schematically, migration is often perceived as the best option to improve their livelihood for working poor or young skilled people without prospects in their country of origin. According to UNODC research in India, migrants have to fulfil the families’ expectation, in particular where families participate in the financing of the travel.
"migrants’ control over their destiny depends largely on how deeply they are embedded in a transnational community and whether there are ethnic links among migrants. information provided by migrant networks does not necessarily mean that migrants’ knowledge about important aspects of their journey is sufficient. In reality, the gathering of information is often limited to loose contacts or casual telephone conversations, with rumours and hearsay playing a significant role in the decision-making process. This analysis is shared by Van Wijk, who
highlights that the migrants interviewed in the course of his research had chosen to go to the destination country—in that case, the Netherlands—on the rather vague basis that it was said to be good.
"a family’s expectations seem to have a great influence on the migrants’ motivation to reach their destination at any cost. although the journey might be a traumatic experience in which the migrant may suffer direct abuses and witness deaths of other migrants—nothing can spoil their determination.
"success stories of smuggled migrants increase community pressure: those who do not migrate not only remain poor but are also perceived as lazy. Reports about West African countries support the idea that the migration process is part of the social identity (becoming someone and getting married, versus being poor and marginalized) and receives the blessing of religious and paternal figures of the community.
"Another critical problem, is that migrants would keep silent about the difficulties they faced on their way to Europe and in the destination country, thus feeding the myth of a good life abroad.
"Research has established that an overwhelming majority of persons seeking asylum, particularly in Europe, use the services of smuggling networks.
"recourse to smugglers of migrants creates perverse effects because those who are most in need of international protection cannot afford to pay."
Edited extra bit: ahem. That's a bit more sarcastic than I usually am. But I do have a burning hatred of emotional blackmail. Your heart's good for pumping blood, but if you're using it to make decisions then what's the point of your brain?
Cameron's position might be correct but it is still different from what it was 24 hours ago. Who's to say it won't change again in another 48 hours when someone photographs a dead baby in Budapest? He basically follows the media mood and does so in his voice of authority TM. No more no less.
They also want the cars to reduce the negative camber on the front wheels.
Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, says the images of a dead Syrian boy on a Turkish beach were “very sad” but showed the need for tough Australian-style border policies, writes Jonathan Pearlman in Sydney.
"If you want to stop the deaths, if you want to stop the drownings you have got to stop the boats,” he told ABC News.
[Telegraph live feed.]
Plus it's 19.15 local time, it is a 4 lane highway with no streetlights - where are they going to sleep?
Although I'm of the left I'm no bleeding heart on immigration and my view is that what we're seeing here is of unprecedented difficulty. I do take the view that some of these people are migrants and that Europe for which read Germany has been idiotic to invite them all to come along. We simply cannot have the population of the Middle East choose to relocate to Europe.
But to say that only Cameron has unique authority to deal with this is utter nonsense. He's a politician and blows in the wind of public opinion like all the others. In fact possibly more so based on my observations.
Wasn't there a BBC drama about 10-15 years ago called, I think, 'The Tribe' - in which there was a mass march of hungry people from Africa to Europe? The only thing I really can remember is that one of the marchers says at one point - "you can feed your cats, look at the food they get - surely you can feed us'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34155701
This is just a nightmare for the EU. The more they take, the more will come. Africa's population is already a billion, and it will be 2.5 billion by 2050:
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140823_MAC567.png
I sympathise for the truly vulnerable, I really do, but European society simply can't cope with tens of millions coming, which is what will happen on the current path. And unless the UK gets restrictions on free movement, we'll see a big chunk of that.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
EDIT: Though if some of them can play football they may be able to find work quite easily.
'I see Sturgeon has pledged to take 1,000 refugees. If they were independent I'm sure they'd be taking a 100,000...'
She's not known to pass up a grandstanding opportunity.
He's still #2 in OWGR and also 2 in Fedex Cup.
I'll be inside the ropes to see him at East Lake in 2 weeks.
'How many of Europe's asylum seekers are judged to be genuine refugees? http://bit.ly/1UrLpvX @FactCheck '
No mention of course on how many failed asylum seekers have actually been deported.
If you actually listened to the conservative arguments, for us, it's more about "encouraging more people to take a dangerous trip" versus "not encouraging people to take a dangerous trip". On that, Cameron has not u-turned at all, taking refugees from the camps. Cameron's policy all along has been the sensible one, whereas Merkel will only result in more dangerous sea crossings and more dead children.
As for your second paragraph, you must be talking about me, as I was the one that asked the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to question why Germany stands alone in not having an insurgent hard right party, given that virtually all its neighbours do. It is certainly not converging to my own opinion as I am a Conservative supporter, not a UKIP one.
Watching the Labour leadership debate last night I was struck by the arrogance of the candidates as they happily laid into the PM. When they want the working class to vote for them they pretend they care about their needs. But as soon as their votes aren't needed they grandstand and pontificate about how terrible the world is and how we* have a responsibility to help those not fortunate enough to have been born in this great country.
* By we I mean the average man/woman in the street. They as politicians, of course, won't be affected.
I've been following PB for ten years (not as long as some, but a respectable time).
I think that what happened was that your comment triggered memories of the days when certain left-wing posters adopted the approach that anyone who supported the Tories must be evil, whereas the left were all morally correct (yes - it really was that bad).
It's all to easy to forget sometimes that you are actually a person of the centre-left (not hard left) with whom one can have a robust but enjoyable debate.
https://twitter.com/BBCWorldatOne/status/639525590660460545
I have listened to Conservative arguments. While you've conveyed you beliefs in a more reasonable tone, that makes me believe that you genuinely sympathise with the refugees even you disagree with Merkel's solution, others have gone on to actively demonise the refugees, have no compassion or sympathise for them whatsoever, belittle them for wanting to come to Europe instead of staying in a refugee camps in neighboring ME countries were they could be there for years, actively demonise the German chancellor as someone sending Germans to their deaths and prior to yesterday called views in which wanted us to take in refugees 'virtue signalling'.
Merkel's policy is humane, and kind - giving many Syrians a brand new opportunity. People on PB appear to think that Cameron's policy will stop dangerous crossings. The policy of simply giving aid has not stopped those dangerous crossings, which is why we are here now with a human catastrophe. Nothing, bar making Syria a safe place again will stop these crossings. Therefore, for those who have made such a journey, it is great to offer them home, a chance to rebuild, and a society to become a part of. I applaud Germany, and the response of many Germans - especially their football clubs - to this crisis.
On Alternative for Germany, it alarmed me partly because of much of the tone of PB is almost a will for Germany to opt for the kind of anti-immigrant, right-wing, populist parties that have proved popular in other places in Europe. As if somehow, these kinds of parties gaining popularity is amazing. People have talked of it all being Labour's fault rather public antipathy to more immigration. But it was only in the 50s, and 60s when there was public antipathy to immigration from Britain's former colonies. Britain has never been a fan of immigration, at least not in the post-war era.
You are virtuous beyond words in a land of sinners and the damned.
/sarc
It's not about questioning letting in large numbers of immigrants. It's the tone towards these refugees, in particular which is alarming. I mentioned the Right, because many of those with the most critical views of the refugees are those on the Right of British politics.
' My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.'
You must have missed the comments on LabourList yesterday in response to the leadership candidates trying to outdo each other on how many asylum seekers we should take.
'The Labour leadership candidates have this morning weighed in on the refugee crisis, in which it’s estimated over 2,500 people have died since the start of this year.'
I've been linked to a story from there claiming that an unnamed senior Labour MP is being investigated by the police for both corrupt financial practices and child abuse - http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5653/police-investigate-senior-labour-mp-for-charging-constituents
Obviously, if Exaro can be trusted this could become a major story, but independent confirmation is definitely needed.
It's quite possible to do something whilst knowing that it will not actually help.
Throw bitter tears at the ocean if you must, but know all that comes back is the tide.
We *know* that keeping groups such as this in the region is best - see John Major, safe havens and the Kurds (who are still there).
So we have Mrs Merkel first of all not meeting the contributions that would help keep the people in the area where they need to be kept (the UN has only about 40% of its required aid budget), *then* declaring that she will take in 800k people without any real process, setting off a stampede of refugees and "not refugees" across the continent, *then* accusing the one country (UK) in Europe that *did* step up to the plate of being remiss.
Has Merkel lost her marbles, promoting the people traffickers like this?
Meanwhile we have Mr Corbyn, who's group Stop the War Coalition (he is Chair) was heavily involved in stopping the UK contribution to facing down Isis (see Miliband's votes against intervention), suddenly demanding that the UK Govt have failed to address the crisis that his friends helped make worse.
Then we have a superficial, sanctimonious media firestorm targetting Mr Cameron on the record of two children who died as a result of being taken out to sea in a rubber dinghy by their parents, who were safe and secure, were *not* refugees, and who's father turned out to be a Health Tourist impatient because his sister in Canada had not yet saved up enough money to buy him a new set of false teeth.
Are we living inside Kafka?
I'm completely bemused, and currently feeling contemptuous of a lot of different public figures.
And on this occasion David Cameron is the only one with any moral stature left according to me.
He is right to stick to his guns and take the most vunerable people from the camps, rather than the stronger ones who are rich enough to get out uinder their own steam, and are now clamouring for attention.
That will start to undermine the traffickers and help the people where they need to be helped.
Please God, let the others come to their senses.
But one can encounter extremely unpleasant language on the other side of the argument, too.
More importantly, Germany's actions just enriches the people smugglers. Ours might not (at least the ones on the seabound and European legs)
A cursory glance over their website and associated companies leads me to believe it is legit.
Sweet reasonableness itself!
The fourth form is two forms below the sixth form..
I don't think Germany is planning to take in every Tom, Dick and Harry. And rather suspiciously these proposals only leaked yesterday, after the front-page headlines. Prior to that, there was very little from Cameron on taking in refugees. If he was really only responding to Germany, he would have endorsed the idea of taking in refugees, but sighted that we need to more to the solve the problem.
The fourth form is two years below the lower sixth.
/wah
He was imprisoned by the Assad regime and was tortured. This torture involved his teeth being removed.
Do you really think it frivolous for victims of torture to seek medical treatment?