Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria: a call to alms?

135

Comments

  • 'Ranting and Raving'. Not everyone is going to agree with the PB assessment of things - or even the PB centre-right assessment of matters. That does not make their arguments 'ranting and raving'. As for my own so-called ranting and raving, in the past couple of days other posters have mentioned the UK's aid contribution among others things we've done. But these contributions do change the fact that the immediate situation is getting worse and requires a solution (or rather solutions). Ironically, those on the Left have been portrayed as engaging in a virtual-signalling that makes them feel better but is useless. The constant mention of the UK's previous contributions to the crisis if anything matches that exact description. It may make us feel better about our own moral standing, but fundamentally does nothing to alter the current situation.

    My argument with you and your ilk is that the 'solution' you have come up with will actually make things far worse and result in hundreds and probably thousands more deaths.

    Cameron - who I have spent almost my entire PB life attacking and criticising - has come up with what appears to be a very measured and responsible plan, one that will help many of those in need whilst making it clear that we will not encourage the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. His plan will hopefully save lives. Yours and Merkel's will just kill even more people.
    And my argument is that I don't believe Merkel's solution is doing that. It relies on an argument that without the proposal Syrians would not be travelling to Europe. But they already are. And since they are already here, rather than deport them back to some camp, it's better to take them in.
    Rubbish. The reason so many are travelling now is that the EU already has a policy in place that it will not send them back. Every year the situation gets worse because we have not been firm about repatriation. The migrants know that if they get to Europe they will not be sent back and so they keep coming. Merkel is simply formalising what has already been the flawed policy that you support and that is leading to thousands of deaths.
    I somehow I doubt Syrian refugees know the ins and outs of Europe's migration policy.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    @apocalypse
    All well intentioned points of course which does you credit but rather naive all the same. The road to Europe is always paved with good intentions and now the bodies of the dead. The moment you take in all comers them more will come. In greater numbers and it will be unstoppable.

    While making all efforts to help others one has to keep in mind the limits of local infrastructure and ability to support so many without internal unrest. Placing your own systems at breaking point does not help those coming and even those already here.

    How can we take anyone I ask Ms Cooper as Labour have consistently said over 5 years we are already in crisis in health, education, housing etc etc. They said it over and over and over again. Or as per normal are they just having it both ways and making political points.
  • To be fair to all involved, the debate on here today seems more balanced, adult and informed - even with a little heat - than anywhere else, especially the MSM.

    We're getting many different views, most backed up with facts.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,994

    One thing I find shocking about how "virtuous" many are viewing the Germans being on this subject is to completely ignore the issue of foreign aid. The UK has for years committed to 0.7% of GDP as foreign aid, Germany also signed up to that over a decade ago but has only actually been spending half of that.

    If Germany was spending the same as us on foreign aid that is a further $14bn that could be spent on aid to those in need near Syria.

    But I suppose not honouring your commitments is nothing compared to saying everyone is welcome - but without giving visas or safe transport so people have to cross on rafts/through Hungary first.

    Well said. The UK can feel rightly proud about having met its commitment to the 0.7% - even if some of it may have been less than ideally targeted. Cameron should be given some credit for having stood his ground on this, even whilst getting plenty of flak for it - especially from the Kippers.

    He should go round shaking the collecting tin under the noses of those European leaders who bleat we aren't doing our share, whilst running their own aid projects on the cheap.

    That also goes for the US, who as i understand it is always massively behind on its payments to the UN.

    http://untribune.com/obama-heads-un-us-yet-pay-2014-dues/
  • Apocalypse if Merkel wants to welcome people to Germany then great - she should arrange SAFE TRANSPORT from the Middle East to Germany. Telling people to make the treacherous dangerous themselves but then they won't be deported is one of the worst of all worlds. It is encouraging people to make the journey but doing absolutely nothing to assist them in doing so safely.
  • 'Ranting and Raving'. Not everyone is going to agree with the PB assessment of things - or even the PB centre-right assessment of matters. That does not make their arguments 'ranting and raving'. As for my own so-called ranting and raving, in the past couple of days other posters have mentioned the UK's aid contribution among others things we've done. But these contributions do change the fact that the immediate situation is getting worse and requires a solution (or rather solutions). Ironically, those on the Left have been portrayed as engaging in a virtual-signalling that makes them feel better but is useless. The constant mention of the UK's previous contributions to the crisis if anything matches that exact description. It may make us feel better about our own moral standing, but fundamentally does nothing to alter the current situation.

    My argument with you and your ilk is that the 'solution' you have come up with will actually make things far worse and result in hundreds and probably thousands more deaths.

    Cameron - who I have spent almost my entire PB life attacking and criticising - has come up with what appears to be a very measured and responsible plan, one that will help many of those in need whilst making it clear that we will not encourage the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. His plan will hopefully save lives. Yours and Merkel's will just kill even more people.
    And my argument is that I don't believe Merkel's solution is doing that. It relies on an argument that without the proposal Syrians would not be travelling to Europe. But they already are. And since they are already here, rather than deport them back to some camp, it's better to take them in.
    Rubbish. The reason so many are travelling now is that the EU already has a policy in place that it will not send them back. Every year the situation gets worse because we have not been firm about repatriation. The migrants know that if they get to Europe they will not be sent back and so they keep coming. Merkel is simply formalising what has already been the flawed policy that you support and that is leading to thousands of deaths.
    I somehow I doubt Syrian refugees know the ins and outs of Europe's migration policy.
    Actually, you have to ask them what the rumours in the camps are, and the promises the people smugglers make them.

    Many might know more - or think they know more - than the average Brit.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,996

    Cheers for the considered comment. I'd be happy to support Cameron putting down a UNSC sponsoring a peace conference if I thought it would do any good but I'm afraid I don't. The two (and more) sides will only come to a political settlement if they think it will do them any good and a compromise can only be reached if both are willing to live with each other: otherwise, what would be the point for them? For them to even accept it would be to admit the legitimacy of the other (and of the international community in the case of ISIS), which has to be highly doubtful.

    In many ways, I don't think we're that far apart in objectives. I just don't think your solution is viable. You do - which is why you don't think my option should be supported as the least, because it then wouldn't be. Like I said in the leader, it's on calls like these that statesmen earn their cash.

    David, thank you for your considered and thoughtful response. I wish I had more time to respond but we are shortly off to visit Mr Stodge Senior.

    Just as economists recognised in the aftermath of 2008 that there had to be sensible mechanisms in place when large companies fail (Lehmann Brothers), the same has to be true of countries and nations.

    Syria has failed - the contagion of that failure has spread across half the world just as the failure of Lehmann did economically. Whether Syria, Libya or Yemen, the global community has to recognise that the failure of states rarely ends up a regional problem but becomes a global one just as the failure of Yugoslavia did.

    I think persuading Assad to talk wouldn't be difficult - cut off his arms supply but tell him and his entourage they will be offered asylum in exchange for leaving power. As for other groups in Syria, they all have their agendas and finding a reason to get all of them to a table shouldn't be beyond the wit of diplomats.

    IS is an issue but they are a power at the moment and unless they are smashed in advance of negotiation, they will still be a power and you talk to the power, not to the people.

    The model for managing State failure can be extended to Libya, Yemen and elsewhere but it requires (and I wholly accept this) unprecedented levels of global co-operation which start from the West no longer assuming it is the only power, recognising the role Russia and China have to play in global affairs and forcing those with the money to use it for the common good.

    Behind it, however, has to be stick and if that means Russian, NATO and whoever forces engaging in Syria to help support a brokered peace even if that means the cantonisation of Syria - so be it. The expenditure of military force (costly in terms of materiel and lives potentially) has to be offset against the long-term catastrophic economic and political consequences of inaction.

    I'm afraid Dad beckons...
  • ydoethur said:


    The 'thaw' was only because the Kurdish fighters wanted to be released to concentrate on the bigger threat in Iraq/Syria, and because Turkey quite liked the idea of many of those fighters being killed off. It suited both sides.

    As you say, it is now summer and the 'thaw' appears to be well and truly over, to the detriment of civilians on both sides.

    As an aside, Kurdish nationalism has been around for a couple of hundred years, and I *think* the serious potential of a Kurdish state predated GW1 - which was why Sadaam had been repressing them before thaat war. The PUK in Turkey is also a 1970s invention, I think.

    (Note, IANAE, but read up on these problems when I inherited family in Turkey).

    I'm not an expert either, and I have no doubt you know far more than me. If I am correct, there was an agitation for a Kurdish state when Britain was handed the mandate of Mesopatamia in the aftermath of the First World War, which was summarily dismissed and a rising to try and enforce it rather brutally suppressed. I was thinking of the time when it became a de facto reality as part of the Coalition's no-fly zone which allowed the Kurds to actually operate independently, which meant an independent Kurdistan was not merely a wish, but at least a partial reality.

    The Turks didn't like it then and they clearly wouldn't like it now. I had actually forgotten about them bombing the Kurdish positions (thank you @Richard_Tyndall) but it just goes to show that there is very little room to manoeuvre in any of this. Which - to bring me back to my original point - I think eventually we will have to back up the Ba'athist regime, if not Assad himself, to try and restore a semblance of stability to the Middle East from where things can begin to improve.

    (Merely 'not trying to undermine [Assad]' would be the worst of all worlds - not hindering ISIS, and not giving us any clout to try and improve things in Syria if and when ISIS are defeated. If we have to do something that is bad, and morally wrong, and repugnant to us all, could we at least have the courage to do it openly?)
    The Turks do unfortunately have a long history of oppression and suppression of any minorities they see as threatening the integrity of their state. The most obvious is the Armenians during WW1. But they also drove the last remnants of the Assyrian Christians out of the area around Lake Van at the end of WW!. This is a remarkable story as the whole community of more than 20,000 were rescued and escorted down across the mountains into Persia by a handful - little more than a squad - of British and Australian troops who managed to hold up a Turkish division and form a rearguard for the whole Assyrian nation as they fled annihilation.
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    No pointing in arguing about how many refugees UK has already taken. Full fact has looked at this and I believe them. They say the number is around 5000, with 216 taken under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.
    https://fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/uk_216_syrian_refugees-45984
  • MattW said:


    I do not believe there should be minimal checks.

    I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated more to @MikeK.

    ....
    On your first point: I don't see why this situation requires an especially different method to how the UK usually handles failed asylum cases.

    I'm not disagreeing with Cameron's policy on taking migrants from camps.

    The upper limit? I think 15,000.
    AIUI the problem with using the existing asylum system is that it is broken. It is like the planning system - massively bureaucratic and with endless opportunities for Appeal and delay.

    It is regular for the process to take *years* for some cases, and 1-2 years for many, which is one reason why we have a constant kerfuffle about women and children being detained at Yarl's Wood and other centres for months or years.

    If decisions were made and implemented quickly then that whole detention controversy could not exist. But that system doesn't work either, which is imo why it would be an appalling idea to ship people here in large numbers. We are not capable at present of returning them even if we wanted to.

    To me it is like using a system designed for processing individual specimen bonzai trees for the first 10- years of their life to mass produce cabbages, or to use one operating threatre for doing triage when there are 1000 casualties - when a bottle of whisky, a hacksaw and a barrel of tar would save more lives.

    I have no idea how one would set up a suitable system in the UK legal context that would be legal delay proof.

    btw thanks for the compliment (or exclusion from the un-compliment :-) ) on the previous thread. My biggest problem is starting a conversation then vanishnig half way through.

    I still owe you an example of "vitriolic hatred" of landlords and some replies on feminism. For LL try here in the comments. No coincidence that it is at the end of an article of extreme examples.
    Thanks for the response. I've heard stories about about the asylum system, but I thought they were rare situations. Do you know why it takes so long for decisions to be mad? That it takes years is ridiculous!

    And on the compliment, it's okay. I'm glad we can disagree and things be civil!

    On CIF comments - not too surprised at those comments.
  • Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.
  • ydoethur said:


    I'm not an expert either, and I have no doubt you know far more than me. If I am correct, there was an agitation for a Kurdish state when Britain was handed the mandate of Mesopatamia in the aftermath of the First World War, which was summarily dismissed and a rising to try and enforce it rather brutally suppressed. I was thinking of the time when it became a de facto reality as part of the Coalition's no-fly zone which allowed the Kurds to actually operate independently, which meant an independent Kurdistan was not merely a wish, but at least a partial reality.

    The Turks didn't like it then and they clearly wouldn't like it now. I had actually forgotten about them bombing the Kurdish positions (thank you @Richard_Tyndall) but it just goes to show that there is very little room to manoeuvre in any of this. Which - to bring me back to my original point - I think eventually we will have to back up the Ba'athist regime, if not Assad himself, to try and restore a semblance of stability to the Middle East from where things can begin to improve.

    (Merely 'not trying to undermine [Assad]' would be the worst of all worlds - not hindering ISIS, and not giving us any clout to try and improve things in Syria if and when ISIS are defeated. If we have to do something that is bad, and morally wrong, and repugnant to us all, could we at least have the courage to do it openly?)

    The Turks do unfortunately have a long history of oppression and suppression of any minorities they see as threatening the integrity of their state. The most obvious is the Armenians during WW1. But they also drove the last remnants of the Assyrian Christians out of the area around Lake Van at the end of WW!. This is a remarkable story as the whole community of more than 20,000 were rescued and escorted down across the mountains into Persia by a handful - little more than a squad - of British and Australian troops who managed to hold up a Turkish division and form a rearguard for the whole Assyrian nation as they fled annihilation.
    I hope you're not planning to travel to Turkey after expressing those views! :(
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,825


    The Turks do unfortunately have a long history of oppression and suppression of any minorities they see as threatening the integrity of their state. The most obvious is the Armenians during WW1. But they also drove the last remnants of the Assyrian Christians out of the area around Lake Van at the end of WW!. This is a remarkable story as the whole community of more than 20,000 were rescued and escorted down across the mountains into Persia by a handful - little more than a squad - of British and Australian troops who managed to hold up a Turkish division and form a rearguard for the whole Assyrian nation as they fled annihilation.

    I've never heard of that one - I will see if I can read up on it, it sounds interesting.

    (It was of course however the British that suppressed the post-WW1 Kurdish uprising - not the Turks, who were in the middle of their own problems at the time leading to the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1924.)

    @JosiasJessop, how could it be other than excellent? It's a PB thread. One of the great disadvantages of working such horrendously unsociable hours is that I have no time to read and admire the considered opinions of so many intelligent, well-informed and articulate people. (And that isn't sarcasm.)

    With that, I must sadly break off and go and do some work. Have a good weekend everyone.
  • MrsB said:

    No pointing in arguing about how many refugees UK has already taken. Full fact has looked at this and I believe them. They say the number is around 5000, with 216 taken under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.
    https://fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/uk_216_syrian_refugees-45984

    Yep those were the sorts of numbers I was referencing via the Government website. It is disingenuous of those attacking the Government to highlight only the few hundred under the SVPRS and ignore the rest who have been granted asylum or ELS by other means.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,967
    I see this whole thing becoming highly political now.

    At present there is very little else with which Mr Cameron can be effectively attacked, and I see him doing some things to defuse, or diffuse, that, while pursuing his "in situ" policy.

    Hearing on the R4 Today programme this AM the presenter comparing Germany doing much with Cameron doing "so little" ("very little"?) makes me despair at the misreporting - my charge would be superficiality rather than bias.
  • Moses_ said:

    @apocalypse
    All well intentioned points of course which does you credit but rather naive all the same. The road to Europe is always paved with good intentions and now the bodies of the dead. The moment you take in all comers them more will come. In greater numbers and it will be unstoppable.

    While making all efforts to help others one has to keep in mind the limits of local infrastructure and ability to support so many without internal unrest. Placing your own systems at breaking point does not help those coming and even those already here.

    How can we take anyone I ask Ms Cooper as Labour have consistently said over 5 years we are already in crisis in health, education, housing etc etc. They said it over and over and over again. Or as per normal are they just having it both ways and making political points.

    I think refugees will continue to come, but I don't think it'll be 'unstoppable'. I also understand your points re infrastructure. It's why I would understand if the number of refugees the government took in are small.

    I do think we have crises in housing, health and education. But we also - IMHO - have a moral responsibility to help in this situation, too.
  • Apocalypse if Merkel wants to welcome people to Germany then great - she should arrange SAFE TRANSPORT from the Middle East to Germany. Telling people to make the treacherous dangerous themselves but then they won't be deported is one of the worst of all worlds. It is encouraging people to make the journey but doing absolutely nothing to assist them in doing so safely.

    On that, I agree with you.
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574

    MrsB said:

    No pointing in arguing about how many refugees UK has already taken. Full fact has looked at this and I believe them. They say the number is around 5000, with 216 taken under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.
    https://fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/uk_216_syrian_refugees-45984

    Yep those were the sorts of numbers I was referencing via the Government website. It is disingenuous of those attacking the Government to highlight only the few hundred under the SVPRS and ignore the rest who have been granted asylum or ELS by other means.
    Not sure all of them are being disingenous. Some of them are just believing what others tell them - which is common on all sides of every argument. Facts matter - something I know you agree with me on from your past posts, even if we don't share the same political outlook.
  • ydoethur said:


    The Turks do unfortunately have a long history of oppression and suppression of any minorities they see as threatening the integrity of their state. The most obvious is the Armenians during WW1. But they also drove the last remnants of the Assyrian Christians out of the area around Lake Van at the end of WW!. This is a remarkable story as the whole community of more than 20,000 were rescued and escorted down across the mountains into Persia by a handful - little more than a squad - of British and Australian troops who managed to hold up a Turkish division and form a rearguard for the whole Assyrian nation as they fled annihilation.

    I've never heard of that one - I will see if I can read up on it, it sounds interesting.

    (It was of course however the British that suppressed the post-WW1 Kurdish uprising - not the Turks, who were in the middle of their own problems at the time leading to the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1924.)

    @JosiasJessop, how could it be other than excellent? It's a PB thread. One of the great disadvantages of working such horrendously unsociable hours is that I have no time to read and admire the considered opinions of so many intelligent, well-informed and articulate people. (And that isn't sarcasm.)

    With that, I must sadly break off and go and do some work. Have a good weekend everyone.
    To find out more I would recommend anything to do with the work of Dunsterforce in 1918. I would recommend my own book but I haven't finished writing it yet - trying to get it done in time for the centenary.

    There is a sad but amusing episode from the British suppression of the Kurds post WW! where the RAF were ordered to paint out the roundels on their planes when doing bombing runs so the Kurds wouldn't know who was bombing them. Which, given the fact that the RAF had the only military aircraft for about 1000 miles in every direction, seems a kind of pointless exercise.
  • Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
  • MrsB said:

    MrsB said:

    No pointing in arguing about how many refugees UK has already taken. Full fact has looked at this and I believe them. They say the number is around 5000, with 216 taken under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.
    https://fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/uk_216_syrian_refugees-45984

    Yep those were the sorts of numbers I was referencing via the Government website. It is disingenuous of those attacking the Government to highlight only the few hundred under the SVPRS and ignore the rest who have been granted asylum or ELS by other means.
    Not sure all of them are being disingenous. Some of them are just believing what others tell them - which is common on all sides of every argument. Facts matter - something I know you agree with me on from your past posts, even if we don't share the same political outlook.
    Very true. I think my main argument is with the media over this. They really have no right to claim they don't know or don't have all the facts. It is kind of their job to know.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Its interesting looking at the statement from the sister of the father whose family drowned and the 'pull' factor that Germany exerts on those already living in relative safety. Some extracts.

    "We began a formal process to bring over all of my siblings and their families early in 2015. ...

    The first of the applications was done on behalf of our older brother Mohammad and his family, as his children are of school
    age. Abdullah’s application was to be submitted upon approval of the first.
    ....
    Without the documents above, the Canadian application was formally declined. The same week, in despair, my older brother, Mohammad, left for Germany as they had opened their borders to the refugees.

    When Abdullah learned about our brother’s rejected Canadian application, it became clear he also had to find a way to reach Western Europe."

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2547723!/httpFile/file.pdf
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,967


    On CIF comments - not too surprised at those comments.

    You might find this report from the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2013 interesting in outlining what he position can be. To me it is a too many cooks problem combined with all the cooks still being unhappy when one of them tries to fix the recipe and diving back in.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/71/71.pdf

    Enquiry parent website:
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/131011-asylum-rpt-published/

    I'm not a huge fan of Vaz on some things, but as a Select Committee Chair he has been very good for a long time now.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    "The concern among refugees is that a camp is being mobilized on the border of Syria to push millions of displaced refugees back into their country where there is threat of imminent danger"

    ?? Can someone explain that to me
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    JonathanD said:

    Its interesting looking at the statement from the sister of the father whose family drowned and the 'pull' factor that Germany exerts on those already living in relative safety. Some extracts.

    "We began a formal process to bring over all of my siblings and their families early in 2015. ...

    The first of the applications was done on behalf of our older brother Mohammad and his family, as his children are of school
    age. Abdullah’s application was to be submitted upon approval of the first.
    ....
    Without the documents above, the Canadian application was formally declined. The same week, in despair, my older brother, Mohammad, left for Germany as they had opened their borders to the refugees.

    When Abdullah learned about our brother’s rejected Canadian application, it became clear he also had to find a way to reach Western Europe."

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2547723!/httpFile/file.pdf

    It's an odd one.

    The UK woman who tried to leg it to Syria will probably have her kids taken in to care.

    The Syrians who put their families through the mill won't.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,967

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
  • Off-topic:

    It seems West Point is more like my old school than I expected:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34162336
  • Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    Radio, TV, letters, people smugglers, visitors to the camps. It doesn't take much to know that no one gets sent back when they get to Europe.
  • Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    TV, radio, internet, newspapers, word of mouth, phone calls etc?
  • MattW said:


    On CIF comments - not too surprised at those comments.

    You might find this report from the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2013 interesting in outlining what he position can be. To me it is a too many cooks problem combined with all the cooks still being unhappy when one of them tries to fix the recipe and diving back in.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/71/71.pdf

    Enquiry parent website:
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/131011-asylum-rpt-published/

    I'm not a huge fan of Vaz on some things, but as a Select Committee Chair he has been very good for a long time now.
    At least I've learned something today - Keith Vaz is good at something :grin:

    In all seriousness, thanks for the links. I'll read them now.
  • Pulpstar said:

    "The concern among refugees is that a camp is being mobilized on the border of Syria to push millions of displaced refugees back into their country where there is threat of imminent danger"

    ?? Can someone explain that to me

    Such camps will thrive on rumours. It might well have its roots amongst the people smugglers, who are another aspect of this that needs more attention.

    I'd like to see UN action on them, but that would involve the UN not being totally hopeless in such matters.
  • JonathanD said:

    Its interesting looking at the statement from the sister of the father whose family drowned and the 'pull' factor that Germany exerts on those already living in relative safety. Some extracts.

    "We began a formal process to bring over all of my siblings and their families early in 2015. ...

    The first of the applications was done on behalf of our older brother Mohammad and his family, as his children are of school
    age. Abdullah’s application was to be submitted upon approval of the first.
    ....
    Without the documents above, the Canadian application was formally declined. The same week, in despair, my older brother, Mohammad, left for Germany as they had opened their borders to the refugees.

    When Abdullah learned about our brother’s rejected Canadian application, it became clear he also had to find a way to reach Western Europe."

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2547723!/httpFile/file.pdf

    It's an odd one.

    The UK woman who tried to leg it to Syria will probably have her kids taken in to care.

    The Syrians who put their families through the mill won't.
    One is trying to flee terror and poverty to start a better life for their family.
    One is trying to flee a better life for their family to bring terror and poverty to her and others families.

    Why would they not be treated differently?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    JonathanD said:

    Its interesting looking at the statement from the sister of the father whose family drowned and the 'pull' factor that Germany exerts on those already living in relative safety. Some extracts.

    "We began a formal process to bring over all of my siblings and their families early in 2015. ...

    The first of the applications was done on behalf of our older brother Mohammad and his family, as his children are of school
    age. Abdullah’s application was to be submitted upon approval of the first.
    ....
    Without the documents above, the Canadian application was formally declined. The same week, in despair, my older brother, Mohammad, left for Germany as they had opened their borders to the refugees.

    When Abdullah learned about our brother’s rejected Canadian application, it became clear he also had to find a way to reach Western Europe."

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2547723!/httpFile/file.pdf

    It's an odd one.

    The UK woman who tried to leg it to Syria will probably have her kids taken in to care.

    The Syrians who put their families through the mill won't.
    One is trying to flee terror and poverty to start a better life for their family.
    One is trying to flee a better life for their family to bring terror and poverty to her and others families.

    Why would they not be treated differently?
    which one is which.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    After a 2 week vacation I return to find that people still have knee-jerk reactions.

    When I saw the newspapers front pages about the dead boy my first reaction was to ignore them, I would simply not let myself to make a judgement about an issue affecting hundreds of millions of people based on the death one small boy.
  • MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
  • JonathanD said:

    Its interesting looking at the statement from the sister of the father whose family drowned and the 'pull' factor that Germany exerts on those already living in relative safety. Some extracts.

    "We began a formal process to bring over all of my siblings and their families early in 2015. ...

    The first of the applications was done on behalf of our older brother Mohammad and his family, as his children are of school
    age. Abdullah’s application was to be submitted upon approval of the first.
    ....
    Without the documents above, the Canadian application was formally declined. The same week, in despair, my older brother, Mohammad, left for Germany as they had opened their borders to the refugees.

    When Abdullah learned about our brother’s rejected Canadian application, it became clear he also had to find a way to reach Western Europe."

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2547723!/httpFile/file.pdf

    It's an odd one.

    The UK woman who tried to leg it to Syria will probably have her kids taken in to care.

    The Syrians who put their families through the mill won't.
    One is trying to flee terror and poverty to start a better life for their family.
    One is trying to flee a better life for their family to bring terror and poverty to her and others families.

    Why would they not be treated differently?
    That's wrong, if only because you are judging 'better' from your perspective. From the perspective of an ultra-devout Muslim, an Islamic State (or the views of it they get through propaganda) might offer a 'better life'.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,515
    edited September 2015

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    It'd be before they get on the boats, in the camps. From what I've read, there is some Internet there. Then there are the radios, and the agents of the people smugglers who will be making Western Europe sound like the promised land if it means the refugees will hand over money..

    Again, the smugglers really need tackling.

    Edit: there's this, from Al-j:
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/internet-access-zaatari-camp.html

    The following document is also pertinent: see how "Refugee rights" figures: Also, the way face-to-face communication is relied upon. That is not necessarily reliable ...

    data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/admin/download.php?id=7216
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/europe/a-21st-century-migrants-checklist-water-shelter-smartphone.html?_r=0

    "BELGRADE, Serbia — The tens of thousands of migrants who have flooded into the Balkans in recent weeks need food, water and shelter, just like the millions displaced by war the world over. But there is also one other thing they swear they cannot live without: a smartphone charging station.

    “Every time I go to a new country, I buy a SIM card and activate the Internet and download the map to locate myself,” Osama Aljasem, a 32-year-old music teacher from Deir al-Zour, Syria, explained as he sat on a broken park bench in Belgrade, staring at his smartphone and plotting his next move into northern Europe."
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr Speedy,

    "After a 2 week vacation I return to find that people still have knee-jerk reactions."

    Of course, but knee-jerk reactions can change rapidly. A couple of weeks of stories about the refugees rioting in Europe or a couple of local atrocities committed by refugees will change minds dramatically. That's why logic is the best policy.

    But the media thrive on emotion. "Let's have a logical discussion about these events," doesn't sell papers.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,553

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    It'd be before they get on the boats, in the camps. From what I've read, there is some Internet there. Then there are the radios, and the agents of the people smugglers who will be making Western Europe sound like the promised land if it means the refugees will hand over money..

    Again, the smugglers really need tackling.

    Edit: there's this, from Al-j:
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/internet-access-zaatari-camp.html

    The following document is also pertinent: see how "Refugee rights" figures: Also, the way face-to-face communication is relied upon. That is not necessarily reliable ...

    data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/admin/download.php?id=7216
    Plenty have smartphones. It would be quite easy to obtain the information that once you cross the Med, you don't get returned.
  • MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    That's because whatever the media like to claim we are not on the front line. I would be certain it is a far more important story in Turkey, Greece and Italy than it is in Northern Europe.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Matthew Parris has a very good article today http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4548062.ece He calls it the politics of adjectives, and critical of the media as well as handwringers.
    CD13 said:

    Mr Speedy,

    "After a 2 week vacation I return to find that people still have knee-jerk reactions."

    Of course, but knee-jerk reactions can change rapidly. A couple of weeks of stories about the refugees rioting in Europe or a couple of local atrocities committed by refugees will change minds dramatically. That's why logic is the best policy.

    But the media thrive on emotion. "Let's have a logical discussion about these events," doesn't sell papers.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,391
    edited September 2015
    Speedy said:

    After a 2 week vacation I return to find that people still have knee-jerk reactions.

    When I saw the newspapers front pages about the dead boy my first reaction was to ignore them, I would simply not let myself to make a judgement about an issue affecting hundreds of millions of people based on the death one small boy.

    That was/is the correct response... Sadly we live in an age where collective hysteria rules and quiet, sober reflection and analysis are frowned upon.

    I've been out of the country myself for a few days but from what I've seen the UK lost it's collective marbles this week, with everybody from Polly Toynbee to Paul Dacre using the death of a child to give David Cameron a bloody good kicking and the upshot is that we now have one of the most serious policy decisions a government can make, seemingly being made up on the hoof...
  • Sean_F said:

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    It'd be before they get on the boats, in the camps. From what I've read, there is some Internet there. Then there are the radios, and the agents of the people smugglers who will be making Western Europe sound like the promised land if it means the refugees will hand over money..

    Again, the smugglers really need tackling.

    Edit: there's this, from Al-j:
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/internet-access-zaatari-camp.html

    The following document is also pertinent: see how "Refugee rights" figures: Also, the way face-to-face communication is relied upon. That is not necessarily reliable ...

    data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/admin/download.php?id=7216
    Plenty have smartphones. It would be quite easy to obtain the information that once you cross the Med, you don't get returned.
    Agree about smartphones: I was arguing the other night that they're much cheaper than people think, and trying to claim that someone is in some way 'rich' because they have a phone is ridiculous. Access to data networks is a different matter ...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Dianafication is the only word for it.
    GIN1138 said:

    Speedy said:

    After a 2 week vacation I return to find that people still have knee-jerk reactions.

    When I saw the newspapers front pages about the dead boy my first reaction was to ignore them, I would simply not let myself to make a judgement about an issue affecting hundreds of millions of people based on the death one small boy.

    That was/is the correct response... Sadly we live in an age where collective hysteria rules and quiet, sober reflection and analysis are frowned upon.
  • @JossiasJessop These camps have internet access? That's a new one on me. I can't believe camps at times can have poor conditions to even exist in but yet still have wi-fi. I'm also wondering in regard to @Speedy's link how do these refugees get the money to go buy SIM cards etc? I can believe though that smugglers feed all kinds of informs to the refugees. Also @Richard_Tyndall If that's the case it's a bit strange how some of the richest, most well-developed nations on earth are not on the front line of news.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2015
    CD13 said:

    Mr Speedy,

    "After a 2 week vacation I return to find that people still have knee-jerk reactions."

    Of course, but knee-jerk reactions can change rapidly. A couple of weeks of stories about the refugees rioting in Europe or a couple of local atrocities committed by refugees will change minds dramatically. That's why logic is the best policy.

    But the media thrive on emotion. "Let's have a logical discussion about these events," doesn't sell papers.

    The press does it's best to desensitize people on stories that don't directly effect them.
    I remember 10 years ago I was frightened by stories about huge crime waves but since no crimes occurred in my area and I wasn't witness to anyone for years and years, I simply got used to those stories.

    Like Madeleine McCann stories, or Diana stories, people bin them after a while.

    And since all summer you got stories about an immigration crisis reading yet another story this time about that dead small boy is no longer shocking.
  • F1: pre-qualifying piece now up:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/italy-pre-qualifying.html

    No tip, as the odds are too short and weather makes things uncertain.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    We shouldn't worry, Russia is going to go in there and sort it out.....

    I noted a few night ago that a fair amount of kit and men appear to have turned up and about 72 hours later it appears no-one is really hiding it.

    Russia has requested fly over rights via Turkey for its military aircraft (unclear if its been approved) and a facility is being built by Russian troops and contractors.

    Putin calls it 'technical assistance' but theres an active component continuing to be put in place.

    The answer to Syrian refugees lies in the region not re-locating them to London or Berlin.
  • Sean_F said:

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    It'd be before they get on the boats, in the camps. From what I've read, there is some Internet there. Then there are the radios, and the agents of the people smugglers who will be making Western Europe sound like the promised land if it means the refugees will hand over money..

    Again, the smugglers really need tackling.

    Edit: there's this, from Al-j:
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/internet-access-zaatari-camp.html

    The following document is also pertinent: see how "Refugee rights" figures: Also, the way face-to-face communication is relied upon. That is not necessarily reliable ...

    data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/admin/download.php?id=7216
    Plenty have smartphones. It would be quite easy to obtain the information that once you cross the Med, you don't get returned.
    Agree about smartphones: I was arguing the other night that they're much cheaper than people think, and trying to claim that someone is in some way 'rich' because they have a phone is ridiculous. Access to data networks is a different matter ...
    Yep, it's more the type of brand that makes a smart phone expensive.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,994

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    Much of the developing world is surprisingly tech-savvy. They are often way ahead of my experience of trying to use the US phone system.
  • @JossiasJessop These camps have internet access? That's a new one on me. I can't believe camps at times can have poor conditions to even exist in but yet still have wi-fi. I'm also wondering in regard to @Speedy's link how do these refugees get the money to go buy SIM cards etc? I can believe though that smugglers feed all kinds of informs to the refugees. Also @Richard_Tyndall If that's the case it's a bit strange how some of the richest, most well-developed nations on earth are not on the front line of news.

    Yep, read the link I posted.

    ISTR they track elephant in Africa using mobile-phone collars ...
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Y0kel said:

    We shouldn't worry, Russia is going to go in there and sort it out.....

    I noted a few night ago that a fair amount of kit and men appear to have turned up and about 72 hours later it appears no-one is really hiding it.

    Russia has requested fly over rights via Turkey for its military aircraft (unclear if its been approved) and a facility is being built by Russian troops and contractors.

    Putin calls it 'technical assistance' but theres an active component continuing to be put in place.

    The answer to Syrian refugees lies in the region not re-locating them to London or Berlin.

    I doubt that the Americans or the Turks are going to let Russia get rid of ISIS.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,994
    RIP Rico, possibly the only ska trombonist you are ever going to know....
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2015

    @JossiasJessop These camps have internet access? That's a new one on me. I can't believe camps at times can have poor conditions to even exist in but yet still have wi-fi. I'm also wondering in regard to @Speedy's link how do these refugees get the money to go buy SIM cards etc? I can believe though that smugglers feed all kinds of informs to the refugees. Also @Richard_Tyndall If that's the case it's a bit strange how some of the richest, most well-developed nations on earth are not on the front line of news.

    If they are wealthy enough to pay a smuggler thousands of pounds they are wealthy enough to buy a SIM card. Google maps and Facebook do the rest.
  • Apocalypse "How would refugees have internet access" That statement shows just how naive you really are.
  • @JossiasJessop your ancedote on the elephant collar certainly backs up @MarqueeMarks' post that the developing world is very tech-savvy. But you wouldn't think the developing world would have access to such technology, that's the thing. @Speedy I'd always thought refugees were quite poor, tbh.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,967
    edited September 2015

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    Much of the developing world is surprisingly tech-savvy. They are often way ahead of my experience of trying to use the US phone system.
    Turkey, for example:

    The total number of mobile broadband users was 33.9 million corresponding to 43.7% population penetration rate at the end of Q1 2015. Mobile broadband users via mobile phones reached to 32.4 million while mobile broadband users via non-phone mobile devices increased to 1.5 million.

    http://www.ttinvestorrelations.com/turk-telekom-group/investing-in-turk-telekom/turkey-telecom-sector.aspx

    And Africa:

    http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/04/Africa-phones-7.png

    http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/04/Africa-phones-6.png
  • Apocalypse "How would refugees have internet access" That statement shows just how naive you really are.

    Why? It isn't exact obvious that camps would have internet access, and that refugees can afford to buy SIM cards. When most people think of a refugee, they think of someone with very little.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,994

    @JossiasJessop your ancedote on the elephant collar certainly backs up @MarqueeMarks' post that the developing world is very tech-savvy. But you wouldn't think the developing world would have access to such technology, that's the thing. @Speedy I'd always thought refugees were quite poor, tbh.

    Why wouldn't you think it? They have pretty much leapt right over the need for cables. I was told it was cheaper to start from scratch with mobile networks, than have to work integrating existing systems.
  • @JossiasJessop These camps have internet access? That's a new one on me. I can't believe camps at times can have poor conditions to even exist in but yet still have wi-fi. I'm also wondering in regard to @Speedy's link how do these refugees get the money to go buy SIM cards etc? I can believe though that smugglers feed all kinds of informs to the refugees. Also @Richard_Tyndall If that's the case it's a bit strange how some of the richest, most well-developed nations on earth are not on the front line of news.

    We get the news we are interested in. The news providers give us what they think will keep our attention.

    Plus in fact you are wrong. We do have access to all the information you could ever want about EU asylum policy and every other EU policy under the sun. I infrequently post information on here about EU policy and how the EU works to try and correct some of the misconceptions. If you, or anyone else in Europe does not know EU policy on something and are actually interested then they only have themselves to blame.

    For many of those in the camps looking to move into Europe, the nuances of asylum policy in the EU will be one of the most important bits of information they would be after. Why would they not seize every possible source of information they could find?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    @JossiasJessop your ancedote on the elephant collar certainly backs up @MarqueeMarks' post that the developing world is very tech-savvy. But you wouldn't think the developing world would have access to such technology, that's the thing. @Speedy I'd always thought refugees were quite poor, tbh.

    Refugees spend their entire fortune to come to the west, and work hard to get the money to immigrate.
    I remember I read a story about an afghan family having sold their multiple businesses in Kabul to get the money for their journey west.

    It's a shame that with the same money they can live a very comfortable life in their countries, but yet again in most instances the myths about roads paved with gold and the fact that in reality their countries no longer exist, convince them to pack up.
  • @JossiasJessop your ancedote on the elephant collar certainly backs up @MarqueeMarks' post that the developing world is very tech-savvy. But you wouldn't think the developing world would have access to such technology, that's the thing. @Speedy I'd always thought refugees were quite poor, tbh.

    Why wouldn't you think it? They have pretty much leapt right over the need for cables. I was told it was cheaper to start from scratch with mobile networks, than have to work integrating existing systems.
    Mainly because developing-countries generally aren't as wealthy as Western ones = that they'd not be able to afford a lot of the technology the West enjoys, or gets the technology at a later stage.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH
  • Meanwhile, in betting:

    Huge crossover now on Betfair between Cooper and Burnham. Burnham drifted out to 10 since I last looked.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Speedy said:

    Y0kel said:

    We shouldn't worry, Russia is going to go in there and sort it out.....

    I noted a few night ago that a fair amount of kit and men appear to have turned up and about 72 hours later it appears no-one is really hiding it.

    Russia has requested fly over rights via Turkey for its military aircraft (unclear if its been approved) and a facility is being built by Russian troops and contractors.

    Putin calls it 'technical assistance' but theres an active component continuing to be put in place.

    The answer to Syrian refugees lies in the region not re-locating them to London or Berlin.

    I doubt that the Americans or the Turks are going to let Russia get rid of ISIS.
    Going to let? If Russia drops a large amount of kit and some specialist troops in there, what are others going to do about it, blockade Tartus port and put up a no fly zone? This is Obama's Whitehouse, the chances of them facing Russia down to that extent is unlikely to happen.

    Secondly the US knew this was coming a few weeks back, The Russians did tell the Americans that they weren't going to sit and watch.

    What is unclear is exactly what Russia's prime objective is and secondly to what strength they are going to pursue it. If Putin does put sufficient force on the ground why should we criticise? The West has pansied about for years over Syria. Just Like ISIS took hold, you cant exactly blame others for getting in there and seizing the initiative for their objectives, if you don't take a strong hand yourself.

    Way way back on this forum I noted that plenty of fighters were coming over the Iraq border to Syria and both the US and Iraqis knew all about it. The Iraqi government just let them go thinking it would just clear some Sunni radicals off its patch. Those guys were a vanguard of what happened next and they came back over to haunt the Iraqis in 2014.

    The West hasn't got the will, it needs to get a spine.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Apocalypse "How would refugees have internet access" That statement shows just how naive you really are.

    Why? It isn't exact obvious that camps would have internet access, and that refugees can afford to buy SIM cards. When most people think of a refugee, they think of someone with very little.
    They do have little once they reach their destination, they start with a bag full of money first which is fleeced by smugglers and black marketers on their way to the german border.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Imagine Andrew Neil was Australian - he'd be Andrew Bolt. One of my favourite spade=shovel journalists. The whole piece is worth 5 mins. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_drowning_of_the_boy_is_tragic_but_proves_nothing_like_what_activists_cl/#.VerGmKcRzDg.twitter
    It always astonishes and appalls me to see how sanctimony blinds preachers to the devastating consequences of what they demand.

    Example: Tom Clarke, director of Communications at the Human Rights Law Centre, writing for the ABC on the drowning of a three-year-old boy whose family was trying to sail to Greece:

    Our politicians tell us we need to be cruel to be kind, but we don’t. They will wring their hands and tell us they don’t won’t to see more photos of drowned children, but the harsh reality is if the boy in the photographs - 3 year old Aylan Kurdi - had arrived in Australia, those same politicians would have condemned him and his family to indefinite detention in a place proven to be unsafe. That is no solution. It’s is a blight on our name that makes a mockery of our clearly fading belief in the “fair go”.

    First, there’s a reason that Aylan did not drown on the way to Australia, as did scores of children just like him. (Where was Tom Clarke then?)

    The reason is precisely those “cruel to be kind” policies Clarke now condemns.

    The boats were stopped and the drownings stopped with them. The previous policies had lured more than 1200 people to their deaths at sea - people just like Aylan, his mother and his brother.

    So Clarke cries for Aylan yet damns the policies which saved little boys just like him.

    And missing in all of this showy wailing is any attention to the details of this case - details which suggest deterrence is indeed the best response to boat people who do have more choices that Clarke prefers to imagine.
  • @JossiasJessop These camps have internet access? That's a new one on me. I can't believe camps at times can have poor conditions to even exist in but yet still have wi-fi. I'm also wondering in regard to @Speedy's link how do these refugees get the money to go buy SIM cards etc? I can believe though that smugglers feed all kinds of informs to the refugees. Also @Richard_Tyndall If that's the case it's a bit strange how some of the richest, most well-developed nations on earth are not on the front line of news.

    We get the news we are interested in. The news providers give us what they think will keep our attention.

    Plus in fact you are wrong. We do have access to all the information you could ever want about EU asylum policy and every other EU policy under the sun. I infrequently post information on here about EU policy and how the EU works to try and correct some of the misconceptions. If you, or anyone else in Europe does not know EU policy on something and are actually interested then they only have themselves to blame.

    For many of those in the camps looking to move into Europe, the nuances of asylum policy in the EU will be one of the most important bits of information they would be after. Why would they not seize every possible source of information they could find?
    I'm not wrong, because I've never said we don't have access to the information, simply that it isn't gone into detail in the news. I mentioned that, because a vast majority of people will get the information from mainstream news as opposed to having the impetus to look for information on complex policy matters of any topic. Most people won't read PB, so a large amount of info on here, the GBP will not know about.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Y0kel said:



    Speedy said:

    Y0kel said:

    We shouldn't worry, Russia is going to go in there and sort it out.....

    I noted a few night ago that a fair amount of kit and men appear to have turned up and about 72 hours later it appears no-one is really hiding it.

    Russia has requested fly over rights via Turkey for its military aircraft (unclear if its been approved) and a facility is being built by Russian troops and contractors.

    Putin calls it 'technical assistance' but theres an active component continuing to be put in place.

    The answer to Syrian refugees lies in the region not re-locating them to London or Berlin.

    I doubt that the Americans or the Turks are going to let Russia get rid of ISIS.
    Going to let? If Russia drops a large amount of kit and some specialist troops in there, what are others going to do about it, blockade Tartus port and put up a no fly zone? This is Obama's Whitehouse, the chances of them facing Russia down to that extent is unlikely to happen.

    Secondly the US knew this was coming a few weeks back, The Russians did tell the Americans that they weren't going to sit and watch.

    What is unclear is exactly what Russia's prime objective is and secondly to what strength they are going to pursue it. If Putin does put sufficient force on the ground why should we criticise? The West has pansied about for years over Syria. Just Like ISIS took hold, you cant exactly blame others for getting in there and seizing the initiative for their objectives, if you don't take a strong hand yourself.

    Way way back on this forum I noted that plenty of fighters were coming over the Iraq border to Syria and both the US and Iraqis knew all about it. The Iraqi government just let them go thinking it would just clear some Sunni radicals off its patch. Those guys were a vanguard of what happened next and they came back over to haunt the Iraqis in 2014.

    The West hasn't got the will, it needs to get a spine.
    First the West needs to get it's priorities straight.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited September 2015
    Fortunately I have never been to a refugee camp.. but it is quite conceivable that in the admin block there would be charge facilities and comp access..just as a norm..that is why the West, some of it, spend huge amounts of dosh supporting them.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    You might think their friends and relatives in the UK who phone or mail home and tell them might be a bit of a clue. It has even been mentioned on the news here in the context of the current crisis in Europe. I am sure you are well intentioned, but you naivety is frankly breathtaking sometimes. A few more facts and the ring of experience would be nice to supplement all the "I thinks" you have graced this thread and others with.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2015
    @Stodge
    No Stodge! Anything the UN does as a body usually ends up as a disaster. All the Arab states would say that Israel is to blame anyway - for existing. The Wahabis of Saudi hate the Clerics of Iran and will never agree, and with Russia in an expansionist mood and wanting Med bases, they will prop up Assad. Unless, that is, they dump him in a coup and put a more amiable puppet on the throne.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,052
    While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    It's all on T'Internet.
    How would a refugee have internet access? Even if they have a phone, I doubt internet access in the middle of nowhere and on boats is great.

    @Philip_Thompson and @Richard_Tyndall News in the UK barley talks about the ins and outs of EU immigration policy, let alone Syrian news. Although word of mouth, letters are good points.
    Much of the developing world is surprisingly tech-savvy. They are often way ahead of my experience of trying to use the US phone system.
    Turkey, for example:

    The total number of mobile broadband users was 33.9 million corresponding to 43.7% population penetration rate at the end of Q1 2015. Mobile broadband users via mobile phones reached to 32.4 million while mobile broadband users via non-phone mobile devices increased to 1.5 million.

    http://www.ttinvestorrelations.com/turk-telekom-group/investing-in-turk-telekom/turkey-telecom-sector.aspx

    And Africa:

    http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/04/Africa-phones-7.png

    http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/04/Africa-phones-6.png
    It's more than that, Africa is a pioneer of mobile phone banking and transactions , because they don't trust their banks (and who would trust an african bank with money anyway) they do most of their business through mobile phones, having their accounts on their SIM cards and making transactions through them.

    The free market works even in Africa in providing novel solutions.
  • Indigo said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    You might think their friends and relatives in the UK who phone or mail home and tell them might be a bit of a clue. It has even been mentioned on the news here in the context of the current crisis in Europe. I am sure you are well intentioned, but you naivety is frankly breathtaking sometimes. A few more facts and the ring of experience would be nice to supplement all the "I thinks" you have graced this thread and others with.
    If you don't want to read my posts, you don't have to. I use 'I think' because I'm generally used to using hedging language, most of the time. I don't like to be too certain about things.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Ho, Apocalypse Now
    I still think you are a figment of your imagination.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,052
    2 shock new polls in Greece have New Democracy taking a slim lead over Syriza ahead of the election on September 20th, Syriza having lost momentum after 25 MPs defected to form the hard left Popular Unity. ND now has a chance of a deal with PASOK and the centrist To Potami
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11844657/Alexis-Tsipras-faces-shock-election-defeat-as-voters-on-course-to-punish-Syriza-at-the-ballot-box.html
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html

    If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited September 2015
    MikeK said:

    Ho, Apocalypse Now
    I still think you are a figment of your imagination.

    You know what, I'm too tired for this kind of thing. Think what you like at the end of the day.

    PB is too used to 40+ Right-wing men being its main contributors.

    Hopefully we'll avoid either at the next PB meet in London.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    You can discuss this with @Saddened, he's hot on the subject of smart phones and migrants. ;)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,967
    edited September 2015

    @JossiasJessop your ancedote on the elephant collar certainly backs up @MarqueeMarks' post that the developing world is very tech-savvy. But you wouldn't think the developing world would have access to such technology, that's the thing. @Speedy I'd always thought refugees were quite poor, tbh.

    Why wouldn't you think it? They have pretty much leapt right over the need for cables. I was told it was cheaper to start from scratch with mobile networks, than have to work integrating existing systems.
    Mainly because developing-countries generally aren't as wealthy as Western ones = that they'd not be able to afford a lot of the technology the West enjoys, or gets the technology at a later stage.
    But technology is cheap.

    Brands, such as Apple and Audi, are expensive. But who needs Apple apart from fashion victims :-D ?

    Yet I can buy a quite full featured laptop from ebuyer.com with a 16" screen for £200, and that means somebody somewhere in Mexico, China, or Nigeria, is making it for £30-40 or less.

    I'll give you that it has revolutionised in about 10 years - One Laptop per Child was a cheap laptop project that only started in 2005.

    And the last 5-7 years are technology gains in PCs or Phones are mainly cosmetic. You don;t need a 2015 computer to run MS Word or even edit video. I was happily podcasting video in 2006 with a 2004 PC.

    The tech that was repectable - not leading edge - here in 2007 is quite adequate for 95% of tasks, and that reached developing countries years ago even with any delay.

    I was doing everything myself on a 2007 laptop until 6 months ago.

    The change in the dev world has been that all this has become availale within daily incomes of $2=5$.

    Large chunks of OXFAM have become redundant. Excellent - let the people empower themselves by the existence of a better trade system.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.

    *breathes in*

    Was this shown on the 6'o clock news? That's the news I generally watch on TV. You don't need to be so patronising.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    Turkey has almost 90% 3G access across the whole country. The only areas that do not have it are some of the more mountainous areas to the east of the country. The whole border area with Syria has 3G access. If, for example, you use most models of kindle, you have free 3G access through any local 3G network. I am not saying the refugees would all have access to such devices but there will be enough people in the camps who do to make sure that news is disseminated very quickly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,052
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html

    If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
    The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Indigo said:

    Apocalypse..Rest assured ,the Syrians will be very aware of every nuance of the Eu's Migration policy..They are refugees, that does not mean they are completely stupi.

    Not knowing exactly what's happen in recent years regarding EU immigration policy wouldn't make them stupid. But where would they get the information?
    You might think their friends and relatives in the UK who phone or mail home and tell them might be a bit of a clue. It has even been mentioned on the news here in the context of the current crisis in Europe. I am sure you are well intentioned, but you naivety is frankly breathtaking sometimes. A few more facts and the ring of experience would be nice to supplement all the "I thinks" you have graced this thread and others with.
    If you don't want to read my posts, you don't have to. I use 'I think' because I'm generally used to using hedging language, most of the time. I don't like to be too certain about things.
    Very wise, Miss Apocalypse, a example that some others on here would, perhaps, benefit from following. The dogmatic assertion of opinion masquerading as fact seldom helps intelligent discussion.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,994

    @JossiasJessop your ancedote on the elephant collar certainly backs up @MarqueeMarks' post that the developing world is very tech-savvy. But you wouldn't think the developing world would have access to such technology, that's the thing. @Speedy I'd always thought refugees were quite poor, tbh.

    Why wouldn't you think it? They have pretty much leapt right over the need for cables. I was told it was cheaper to start from scratch with mobile networks, than have to work integrating existing systems.
    Mainly because developing-countries generally aren't as wealthy as Western ones = that they'd not be able to afford a lot of the technology the West enjoys, or gets the technology at a later stage.
    You seem oblivious to the way business works in developing countries. They couldn't afford all the technology to drill ultra-deep offshore oil wells either. Doesn't mean external players won't fund them - if the risk-reward balance is right.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    2 shock new polls in Greece have New Democracy taking a slim lead over Syriza ahead of the election on September 20th, Syriza having lost momentum after 25 MPs defected to form the hard left Popular Unity. ND now has a chance of a deal with PASOK and the centrist To Potami
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11844657/Alexis-Tsipras-faces-shock-election-defeat-as-voters-on-course-to-punish-Syriza-at-the-ballot-box.html

    Tsipras is going to lose, the price of betrayal is simply the refusal of lending support when that is needed, and Tsipras has betrayed all of them.
    Says a lot about his intelligence to call an early election expecting to win them after what he did.

    But it also follows the usual pattern of a leftish government being abandoned by it's own supporters because of liberal economic policies, when you are not providing the goods that people voted for you, then why would they vote for you again?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html

    If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
    The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
    How many bombs do the americans drop on ISIS?
    One per week?

    That is called a fig leaf, or a symbolic gesture, not an actual action.
    I could use a water pistol on the Turkish-ISIS border and call it "military action" too.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited September 2015
    @HurstLlama Thanks.

    @MarqueeMark Yes, but tbh I doubt many 21 year olds know everything about how business works in developing countries. Or for that matter EU immigration policy. But then life is about learning.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,341
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html

    If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
    The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
    Corbyn is Chair of the Stop the War campaign which is against bombing IS on the grounds that the US are doing it. Whether they would be in favour of bombing IS if someone else were doing the bombing is not clear.

    I wonder whether, if he is elected Labour leader, he will continue to chair Stop the War.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,052
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    2 shock new polls in Greece have New Democracy taking a slim lead over Syriza ahead of the election on September 20th, Syriza having lost momentum after 25 MPs defected to form the hard left Popular Unity. ND now has a chance of a deal with PASOK and the centrist To Potami
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11844657/Alexis-Tsipras-faces-shock-election-defeat-as-voters-on-course-to-punish-Syriza-at-the-ballot-box.html

    Tsipras is going to lose, the price of betrayal is simply the refusal of lending support when that is needed, and Tsipras has betrayed all of them.
    Says a lot about his intelligence to call an early election expecting to win them after what he did.

    But it also follows the usual pattern of a leftish government being abandoned by it's own supporters because of liberal economic policies, when you are not providing the goods that people voted for you, then why would they vote for you again?
    Well indeed, Tspiras is gutless, he totally rejected the mandate he had after the referendum to reject the bailout and caved in to virtually everything the eurozone elite demanded so not suprisingly some of his supporters have defected to the more leftwing Popular Unity and the rest have decided if you are going to have austerity you may as well at least have ND who have been consistent in supporting it. Yanis Varoufakis may have crazy economic policies but at least he was consistent
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.

    *breathes in*

    Was this shown on the 6'o clock news? That's the news I generally watch on TV. You don't need to be so patronising.
    you don't need to be so touchy.

    people have simply pointed out to you that your assertion was wrong and why.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.

    *breathes in*

    Was this shown on the 6'o clock news? That's the news I generally watch on TV. You don't need to be so patronising.
    you don't need to be so touchy.

    people have simply pointed out to you that your assertion was wrong and why.
    I'm not being touchy, I've responded perfectly reasonably to other PBers on this thread. But then again, they did not patronise me.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.

    *breathes in*

    Was this shown on the 6'o clock news? That's the news I generally watch on TV. You don't need to be so patronising.
    you don't need to be so touchy.

    people have simply pointed out to you that your assertion was wrong and why.
    I'm not being touchy, I've responded perfectly reasonably to other PBers on this thread. But then again, they did not patronise me.
    Hmm. So if we are forthright we are rude and if we are gentle we are patronising.

    Ever thought the problem might just lie with you rather than everyone else?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.

    *breathes in*

    Was this shown on the 6'o clock news? That's the news I generally watch on TV. You don't need to be so patronising.
    you don't need to be so touchy.

    people have simply pointed out to you that your assertion was wrong and why.
    I'm not being touchy, I've responded perfectly reasonably to other PBers on this thread. But then again, they did not patronise me.
    Nor did I, I'd suggest you've taken offence where none was intended.
  • APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH

    Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
    well if you'd followed the News earlier this week the BBC were showing charging points at refugee receptions points in the Balkans and how phones and internet were an integral part of the migration with migrnats describing conditions on various parts of the route to those comiing behind them. This is a tech driven exodus.

    *breathes in*

    Was this shown on the 6'o clock news? That's the news I generally watch on TV. You don't need to be so patronising.
    you don't need to be so touchy.

    people have simply pointed out to you that your assertion was wrong and why.
    I'm not being touchy, I've responded perfectly reasonably to other PBers on this thread. But then again, they did not patronise me.
    Hmm. So if we are forthright we are rude and if we are gentle we are patronising.

    Ever thought the problem might just lie with you rather than everyone else?
    I never said the problem was with 'everyone else'. Again, you've misconstrued my words.
  • HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html

    If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
    The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
    They are bombing ISIS, but the 'safe buffer zone' they have created along the Turkish border wherein any Assad forces are bombed, and Turkey is now even bombing the Kurds (who due to the exclusion of Assad forces were de facto the only resistance to ISIS in the area), means that ISIS can re-stock, re-arm, re-fuel, and repair their injured over the Turkish border with impunity. Of course this fits with US and Turkish aims in the region. Do you really think they could keep restoring themselves after all this time with no outside help?
    http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/

    I'd be very interested in what @SeanT makes of this article; it seems extremely damning to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.