[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[thenodrog]

just watched the news, and cannot believe that whilst other European countries are struggling under the weight of taking in people fleeing the abyss of Syria, Northern Iraq and Afghanistan, we are far from taking any kind of fair share, in fact we are in the midst of building a higher fence to stop the few coming here getting in.

Yet the BBC interview a few people and all of them are under the impression that we are the only ones getting these people, and that we "are full".

It's also terrible we are not doing enough to help those people in their own country, which would have stopped this before these scenes.

Plenty of reasons to stay above it all.

1. Our attempts to help the arab world i.e. 'help' for Kuwait followed by our quest for WMD's and the subsequent down throw of Sadam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bin Laden et al plus our support for the arab spring is frequently cited as the reason for ISIL. Al Qaeda are lurking in the background with a grudge all the while with the Taliban and Boko Harem gaining strength. Assad is another who we don't appear to know is good or bad, and we are trying to get Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. Have we not interfered enough?

2. There are all nationalities of economic migrants and Refugees trying to scam their way across the european border. Almost all are muslims. We know from many bitter experiences that Islam is the continual source of strife and terrorism across the world, we are also all aware that Europe has way more than it's fair share of muslims anyway so why are Islamic nations not all over this like a rash with offers of help and sactuary? How about the major powers of China and Russia? Are they throwing down the red carpet to welcome them? I doubt it.

3. A refugee is someone who escapes to the first safe country to escape persecution. If they then move on they are economic migrants. I said months ago that once we open our borders the floodgates will open. Well they are doing and it'll be damned difficult to slam em shut but shut em we must! If not for ourselves then for the sake of future generations "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.'

4. The graphic images of one poor drowned child has turned our sensitive western stomachs and pricked our collective conscience but why does that make these deaths our responsibility? It doesn't, and it shouldn't. How about all the thousands of kids already slaughtered by ISIL simply because they don't worship their version of Islam? Why have they not had the same publicity?

Now is a time for strong leadership which puts the LONG TERM welfare and well being of our citizens first and foremost. I am seeing much political point scoring and electioneering from certain political sectors which is at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous to future generations.

It's a mess alright but it's not our mess.

When has there not been a discussion ? I read and hear the Muslim question in the mainstream media every day. Corbyn (who you presumably dislike) actually talks to these extremists.

As did that other left wing nutter George Galloway.

[jim mk2]

Plenty of reasons to stay above it all.

It's a mess alright but it's not our mess.

I'm all right Jack and screw the rest of the planet.

You've posted some vile stuff in your time but this one just about takes the biscuit.

Even Baroness Warsi - an unlikeable woman and one of the worst sort of Tories - admitted on radio today we have a responsibility to take more refugees.

[wolfie]

Plenty of reasons to stay above it all.

1. Our attempts to help the arab world i.e. 'help' for Kuwait followed by our quest for WMD's and the subsequent down throw of Sadam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bin Laden et al plus our support for the arab spring is frequently cited as the reason for ISIL. Al Qaeda are lurking in the background with a grudge all the while with the Taliban and Boko Harem gaining strength. Assad is another who we don't appear to know is good or bad, and we are trying to get Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. Have we not interfered enough?

How much 'help' would we have given them if they didn't have massive oil reserves?

Quest for WMD's? Everyone (except you, apparently) knows there never were any WMD's.

I stopped reading there, Gordon.

Poor from you, Gordon.Very poor

[Baz]

Plenty of reasons to stay above it all.

1. Our attempts to help the arab world i.e. 'help' for Kuwait followed by our quest for WMD's and the subsequent down throw of Sadam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bin Laden et al plus our support for the arab spring is frequently cited as the reason for ISIL. Al Qaeda are lurking in the background with a grudge all the while with the Taliban and Boko Harem gaining strength. Assad is another who we don't appear to know is good or bad, and we are trying to get Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. Have we not interfered enough?

2. There are all nationalities of economic migrants and Refugees trying to scam their way across the european border. Almost all are muslims. We know from many bitter experiences that Islam is the continual source of strife and terrorism across the world, we are also all aware that Europe has way more than it's fair share of muslims anyway so why are Islamic nations not all over this like a rash with offers of help and sactuary? How about the major powers of China and Russia? Are they throwing down the red carpet to welcome them? I doubt it.

3. A refugee is someone who escapes to the first safe country to escape persecution. If they then move on they are economic migrants. I said months ago that once we open our borders the floodgates will open. Well they are doing and it'll be damned difficult to slam em shut but shut em we must! If not for ourselves then for the sake of future generations "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.'

4. The graphic images of one poor drowned child has turned our sensitive western stomachs and pricked our collective conscience but why does that make these deaths our responsibility? It doesn't, and it shouldn't. How about all the thousands of kids already slaughtered by ISIL simply because they don't worship their version of Islam? Why have they not had the same publicity?

Now is a time for strong leadership which puts the LONG TERM welfare and well being of our citizens first and foremost. I am seeing much political point scoring and electioneering from certain political sectors which is at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous to future generations.

It's a mess alright but it's not our mess.

As did that other left wing nutter George Galloway.

1) no need to go and invade, plenty of room to try and help resolve the problem as a combined attempt with many other countries.

2) doesn't matter what china and russia do, it's what we do. They are Muslims, because they are running from a war zone where fascists (in the name of Islam) are killing them, and destroying their lives. Muslims are people too.

3) they are refugees not migrants, they are fleeing a war zone. Despite where they make their claim. 800,000 in germany, we wont even let them near our border to make a claim.

4) plenty of pictures, its just that the media here haven't led with them.

[thenodrog]

How much 'help' would we have given them if they didn't have massive oil reserves?

Quest for WMD's? Everyone (except you, apparently) knows there never were any WMD's.

I stopped reading there, Gordon.

Poor from you, Gordon.Very poor

Factual and pragmatic though wolfie.

btw WMD's? Not my fantasy at all. That was down to Blair and Blair's publicity machine, including the Beeb and the popular press wasn't it?

4) plenty of pictures, its just that the media here haven't led with them.

Hmmmm......

[thenodrog]

3) they are refugees not migrants, they are fleeing a war zone. Despite where they make their claim. 800,000 in germany, we wont even let them near our border to make a claim.

Did you not take a word I said in? Once they have reached the nearest place of safety they are refugees. If they then choose to move again they become economic migrants.

[Baz]

Did you not take a word I said in? Once they have reached the nearest place of safety they are refugees. If they then choose to move again they become economic migrants.

I was pointing out you are wrong. They are refugees. It's pedantic at best to think otherwise.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/07/02/isis-executioners-spare-no-one-killing-74-children-for-crimes-including-not/

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/the_facts_about_asylum

Asylum Seeker:

A person who has left their country of origin and formally applied for asylum in another country but whose application has not yet been concluded.

Economic migrant

Someone who has moved to another country to work. Refugees are not economic migrants.

[thenodrog]

My definition was clear and concise. Yours is vague. I'm surprised you thought it fit to argue otherwise.

[jim mk2]

I'm all right Jack and screw the rest of the planet.

You've posted some vile stuff in your time but this one just about takes the biscuit.

Even Baroness Warsi - an unlikeable woman and one of the worst sort of Tories - admitted on radio today we have a responsibility to take more refugees.

[ultrablue]

Did you not take a word I said in? Once they have reached the nearest place of safety they are refugees. If they then choose to move again they become economic migrants.

Wrong on every level thenodrog.

They are refugees for as long as they are unable to return to their homes due to war.

They are the responsiblity not of the first country they flee to, but of the country that accepts their asylum application.

You've seen the train stations in Hungary and the boats in Italy. These places can't handle that volume of people alone. That's why we have the Dublin Agreement.

As for the Muslim world, neighbouring Jordan is spending millions trying to help the 600,000 refugees that came over its border.

This is a humanitarian crisis that Britain should not close its doors to. We have always been seen as a fair and welcoming nation. That reputation, and infinitly more importantly, the lives of innocent people, are at stake.

[Baz]

My definition was clear and concise. Yours is vague. I'm surprised you thought it fit to argue otherwise.

My definition is from the refugee council, and is clear in that it says people fleeing from war / persecution are refugees. Yours just fits your opinion.

Heres a piece from the UN:

http://www.unhcr.org/55df0e556.html

Anyway, yesterday everyone's favourite PR man said that we are doing our bit, I presume you'll be angry should he change his mind and decide to take more refugees over the next few days?

[wolfie]

Factual and pragmatic though wolfie.

btw WMD's? Not my fantasy at all. That was down to Blair and Blair's publicity machine, including the Beeb and the popular press wasn't it?

You mean it's factual and pragmatic that we were helping ourselves, the fact that Kuwat benefitted was purely by-the-by. If the invading power was one of our allies I doubt there would have been much of a rush to 'help'. It would have been dismissed as a local issue and none of our business.

WMD's was not your fantasy, neither was it Blair's. We both know that it was a George Bush fantasy and his favourite poodle merely rolled over. The fact that you admit to it being a fantasy undermines your own argument, somewhat.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Come on get real, 90-95% of these people are leaving their countries for an economically better life, not because they're in danger of being killed. Look at the number of legal migrants we have entering the UK already, 300,000+ a year. Add up what every other country in Europe has and what does that make? 5 million a year, minimum? 5 million a year that were already coming over here before ISIS even set up. There's nothing different about the vast majority of the most recent batch, they're not here because of any wars, they're here because the smuggling network to get them over here is becoming more sophisticated and more accessible to people in third world countries by the year.

Once again I must point out I don't blame them. Why wouldn't you move countries for a significantly better living standard if you had the means? I probably would, so would most other people on this board. But what are the long-term effects of Europe letting migrants in?

1. More come next year, far more. Word will spread amongst these countries that if you turn up on Europe's door, then start forcefully barging against it, it will crumble and you'll be accepted with open arms. We're talking about hundreds of thousands now, soon it will be millions, then it will be tens of millions. There are about 1.3 billion people currently living in the Africa and the Middle East, a number that is rising fast. So there is literally an endless supply of people who want to move to this country, and every time we let some in, ten times more will set off.

2. The population of Europe will sky rocket, and I mean sky rocket. Its simple maths, we're already admitting 330,000 net migration a year to this country, plus maybe 50-100,000 who get in illegally, plus what the EU wants us to admit now. All those figures will increase year on year if the current leniency is continued. A million a year pretty soon? Having on average 4-5 kids per family? The population of England will be in the hundred millions in mere decades. This isn't an exaggeration, look at how the populations of countries such as Nigeria and India have exploded in no time at all.

3. Vast overpopulation will result in a total collapse in living standards. The infrastructure will be over-run, trains/the police/schools/councils will be totally unable to cope. Every single person (or at least every single working class person) currently living in this country will suffer.

4. The countries these migrants come from will stagnate. The most dynamic, intelligent people are leaving their countries en masse. The talent pool will drain, the will to stand up to terrorists in these countries will vanish, they will never catch up with the West.

This is usually dismissed as "scaremongering" by the liberals, a term used without any back-up, logic or thought. A term used to shut people up because they don't want to think about it. Some of the pictures in the media such as the drowned boy are very upsetting, some are very ugly (the lawless, violent behaviour of migrants at any point their journey through Europe is impeded). But take out emotional knee-jerk reactions and apply common sense, Europe freely admitting migrants will simply magnify the numbers of new migrants vastly. We are at the start of a huge global migration and claims of this being short-term, ISIS induced or whatever are short-sighted in the extreme.

[jim mk2]

The right wing is misreading the mood of the nation. Ordinary Britons see the difference between desperate refugees and economic migrants more clearly than a prime minister who uses the same language as the xenophobes (swarms of migrants?). A large, rich and ageing continent such as Europe desperately needs new people and can easily absorb such newcomers and will profit greatly from their energy and enterprise

[ultrablue]

Come on get real, 90-95% of these people are leaving their countries for an economically better life, not because they're in danger of being killed. Look at the number of legal migrants we have entering the UK already, 300,000+ a year. Add up what every other country in Europe has and what does that make? 5 million a year, minimum? 5 million a year that were already coming over here before ISIS even set up. There's nothing different about the vast majority of the most recent batch, they're not here because of any wars, they're here because the smuggling network to get them over here is becoming more sophisticated and more accessible to people in third world countries by the year.

The sheer ignorance of this paragraph is outstanding. 90 - 95%??? Where the hell did you get these numbers? I'll give you a clue - you're sat on it.

Any points you may have about economic migration into the UK are totally lost because you seem not to know the difference between a student from Spain and a refugee from Syria.

Some real numbers for you:

Net migration to the UK last year = 318,000. Students, doctors, workers, asylum seekers, the whole spectrum. Many of these come from within the EU, rendering your 5 million calculation for migration into Europe complete tripe.

11 million Syrians have left their homes since 2011 due to the civil war in that country. Over 3 million have fled to immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. 6.5 million are internally displaced.

There have been 350,000 refugees who have tried to enter EU countries so far this year - up from 280,000 for all of 2014. This is not only from Syria, but also Eritrea, Libya and Afghanistan.

Now clearly the conditions within Syria have worsened and put increasing strains on the ability of its neighbours to cope with the influx. This means that many are still in danger and at risk of disease and starvation in camps such as Zaatari in Jordan. So of course, those with the means and the will are desperately trying to get to safety further and further away from home. They are still displaced by war - they are refugees.

Even a cursory glance at the facts says these people genuinely need our help. The debate we are having should be how many can we help long term, and what can we do in the short term to help those stuck in the bottlenecks of Hungary, Greece and Italy whilst they are being processed.

I would say the UK, other EU countries, and yes countries further afield can and should do more.

Hypnotoad(?), if you are still reading this, go read http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 instead. I hope you change your mind on this topic.

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

[ABBEY]

Did you not take a word I said in? Once they have reached the nearest place of safety they are refugees. If they then choose to move again they become economic migrants.

They are cowards. I'm glad our parents and grandparents didn't run away when the nazis took Europe.

[thenodrog]

The right wing is misreading the mood of the nation. Ordinary Britons see the difference between desperate refugees and economic migrants more clearly than a prime minister who uses the same language as the xenophobes (swarms of migrants?). A large, rich and ageing continent such as Europe desperately needs new people and can easily absorb such newcomers and will profit greatly from their energy and enterprise

Are you incapable of clear thought? Two questions for you....

1. If these people are refugees then do you think that once the situation in their homeland (seems to be most of sub Saharan Africa, the horn of africa,large swathes of the middle East, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Pakistan, afghanistan and even Tibet) is resolved that they will be repatriated in their homeland?

2. How about a civil war breaking out in China or India? The population of EACH of those countries is 50% more than the combined total of Europe!! How could we accommodate them under your criteria?

We need to learn the lesons of history, the lessons we learned from Amin's rule in Uganda. Amin wanted Asians out of Uganda so he persecuted them until we adopted them. Same thing in Kenya where only Kenyans were allowed work permits remember. So what is to stop any despot the world over simply persecuting peoples in his country that that country doesn't want safe in the knowledge that Europe will take those minorities? Russia hates Chechnyans, Turkey hates Kurds, Muslims hate Hindus and sikhs and vice versa, Muslims are persecuting Christians and other religions across africa, what's to stop them committing atrocities until Europe comes to the rescue?

The possibilities and potential consequences are terrifying.

The right wing is misreading the mood of the nation. Ordinary Britons see the difference between desperate refugees and economic migrants more clearly than a prime minister who uses the same language as the xenophobes (swarms of migrants?). A large, rich and ageing continent such as Europe desperately needs new people and can easily absorb such newcomers and will profit greatly from their energy and enterprise

In case you hadnt noticed the trickle has now become a swarm. Camerons prediction was accurate. This latest u-turn by him is not based on clear thinking but rather political experience. Maybe selecting to help some refugees in camps allows us the chance to pick and choose and select the useful before the useless but selecting the most qualified, the honest and hard working won't help their homeland recover when the conflict is over will it? Far better to provide those in the camps with food and medical supplies and leave them where they are.

Try not to consider ONLY the children suffering from this conflict try to consider the future for our own children and grandchildren! We brought them into the world and they ARE our primary responsibility.

[thenodrog]

1) no need to go and invade, plenty of room to try and help resolve the problem as a combined attempt with many other countries.

2) doesn't matter what china and russia do, it's what we do. They are Muslims, because they are running from a war zone where fascists (in the name of Islam) are killing them, and destroying their lives. Muslims are people too.

3) they are refugees not migrants, they are fleeing a war zone. Despite where they make their claim. 800,000 in germany, we wont even let them near our border to make a claim.

4) plenty of pictures, its just that the media here haven't led with them.

So what happens when another 800000 want to go to Germany? Have you considered that? Has Merkel and the germans for that matter?

[thenodrog]

They are cowards. I'm glad our parents and grandparents didn't run away when the nazis took Europe.

Not that simple though was it abbey. If your grandparents had been German Jews you might have a different slant on things. Also the last thing Israelis are in my book is cowardly.

[Al]

They are Muslims and Muslims cause problems wherever they go in the world. We did not heed Enoch Powell's warning and look a towns like Blackburn now. Are we set to ignore the future problems again?

[ultrablue]

They are cowards. I'm glad our parents and grandparents didn't run away when the nazis took Europe.

They are Muslims and Muslims cause problems wherever they go in the world. We did not heed Enoch Powell's warning and look a towns like Blackburn now. Are we set to ignore the future problems again?

Two of the most hateful comments I think I've read considering the human suffering that is going on.

I don't need to read stuff like this, let alone think of ways to reply.

After 12 years on the site I think I'm out. I'll stick to facebook from now on for my Rovers news.

[ABBEY]

Hateful ? Would you not stand and fight for your home if your land was invaded ? Or would you run?

How many of the rich Muslim countries ie Saudi, Bahrain etc have taken "refugees"?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The right wing is misreading the mood of the nation. Ordinary Britons see the difference between desperate refugees and economic migrants more clearly than a prime minister who uses the same language as the xenophobes (swarms of migrants?). A large, rich and ageing continent such as Europe desperately needs new people and can easily absorb such newcomers and will profit greatly from their energy and enterprise

Disagree entirely. My major bug-bear in politics is that the overly vocal left dominate to a disproportionate extent. In recent years every time there are general or local elections, the media and the left are taken aback by the strength of support for the right. They're taken aback because there's a silent majority in England whose views are considered unfashionable and unacceptable by the bullying left, and who generally stay quiet because of it. The left constantly misread the mood of the nation, but rarely seem to care except just after being spanked in an election. And even then it's more bitter denial than realisation.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Hypnotoad(?), if you are still reading this, go read http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 instead. I hope you change your mind on this topic.

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

Why on earth would, or at least should, I still be reading it? Talking tripe, talking out my backside, oh yes please ultrablue continue, i'm all ears! I know it's standard practice amongst liberals to get angry and then get insulting whenever someone puts forward an opposing view to theirs. But for the record that fascist approach will only ever work on the weak willed.

[K-Hod]

Got a right bee in your bonnet about 'liberals' haven't you SKH?

;-)