UK net migration hits record high

[KZNSeagull]

OK, if you say that your post was not overly sarcastic, then fair enough, but that is how I read it. This reads in a far more reasonable manner, rather than the clever one-liner. If you give it, then you have to take it. As I understand it, the UK is taking in folk from Syria under some vulnerable persons scheme, including orphaned children, which is where the figure of 216 comes from. Might this be what you are thinking of? This is in addition to the thousands from the refugee camps, which might not necessarily concentrate on the most vulnerable, but this is of course very difficult to assess. And yes, you are right, this does seem a better way of going about things, in that if they have presumably been registered and identified, then the risk of potential terrorists getting into the UK is theoretically reduced. But it is of course by no means a guarantee, and similarly so when they get here and possibly fall under the spell of some rogue mullah.
As an aside, my friend, you are not very keen on other's views, are you? You seem very quick to rile, and yet you told us of your altruistic kind nature.

My original question was not sarcastic or clever in any way, you have just interpreted it that way.

The figure of 216 is the number of people (I think Syrians) already in the UK under that scheme, the influx of 20,000 will come under the same scheme and will comprise of the the most vulnerable (orphaned and vulnerabe children, disabled, the elderly etc) as reported on the news last night. If a concern is that these people will come under the spell of a rogue mullah, then it is up to the UK authorities to sort out these rogues before that can happen - that is no reason to not accept them as refugees. The fact that the UK is doing it this way will allow them to pick and choose, not just accept everyone who turns up at the UK border which is far riskier.

No, I don't rile easily. I just think debates should be about reasonable answers to reasonable questions without having to resort to insults or aggressive/antagonistic behaviour, which does not get anyone anywhere. My other peeve is people posting information from dubious sources and dressing them up as fact, or people dismissing information out of hand from legitimate sources, as that also does not get anyone anywhere either. By the way, your response to my second question was perfectly reasonable, as was your questioning of Soulman's sources the other day, which I commended you for earlier in the thread. There is no sarcasm in this post either, just in case you were wondering.

 

[BadFish]

No, you're worried that the 20,000 most vulnerable refugees we've agreed to take over 5 years are going to come into direct competition for social housing. I merely said that to start with, I suspect they'll be happy to be safe. I have no idea how to predict how long they'll stay, will they go into education, become trained professionals, already trained to get work, not need social housing...who knows. Lets hope they make a success of it either way. After all, we're all coming at this from the same motivations.

This.

 

[Hastings gull]

My original question was not sarcastic or clever in any way, you have just interpreted it that way.

The figure of 216 is the number of people (I think Syrians) already in the UK under that scheme, the influx of 20,000 will come under the same scheme and will comprise of the the most vulnerable (orphaned and vulnerabe children, disabled, the elderly etc) as reported on the news last night. If a concern is that these people will come under the spell of a rogue mullah, then it is up to the UK authorities to sort out these rogues before that can happen - that is no reason to not accept them as refugees. The fact that the UK is doing it this way will allow them to pick and choose, not just accept everyone who turns up at the UK border which is far riskier.

No, I don't rile easily. I just think debates should be about reasonable answers to reasonable questions without having to resort to insults or aggressive/antagonistic behaviour, which does not get anyone anywhere. My other peeve is people posting information from dubious sources and dressing them up as fact, or people dismissing information out of hand from legitimate sources, as that also does not get anyone anywhere either. By the way, your response to my second question was perfectly reasonable, as was your questioning of Soulman's sources the other day, which I commended you for earlier in the thread. There is no sarcasm in this post either, just in case you were wondering.

Thanks. At this rate, we are going to be parting the best of friends! And given your revulsion at antagonistic behaviour, you won't be saying that people you help are a hundred times nicer then myself!
I do fully see what you are saying and in theory could not agree more. I say in theory, because one person's view of a legitimate source may not be another's of course. I am not having a dig (not to do with you!) but another post gave facts and figures from a "legitimate source" where the person concerned had concluded, after "research" that there is no evidence that if we take the current crop of refugees, then others will follow. In this case, it might be reasonable to dismiss that out of hand.

 

[Hastings gull]

No, you're worried that the 20,000 most vulnerable refugees we've agreed to take over 5 years are going to come into direct competition for social housing. I merely said that to start with, I suspect they'll be happy to be safe. I have no idea how to predict how long they'll stay, will they go into education, become trained professionals, already trained to get work, not need social housing...who knows. Lets hope they make a success of it either way. After all, we're all coming at this from the same motivations.

Actually the point about the housing was meant to be a response to something else, and not meant directly at the figure of 20,00 hence my confusion at your post. But it is of course linked. Yes, it can go either way and if some go on to make a magnificent contribution to British life, as refuges have done in the past, then great. It could also result in civil strife, if the 20,000, plus the hundreds of thousands that we are also taking, compete for social housing.The figure of 20,000 seen in isolation, is probably manageable, of sorts, and we are of course under huge moral pressure to act. But my fear, and I think you would agree that it is the fear of large sections of British society, is that that figure is not in isolation, and next year will see another 20,000, and even more, and more and more.

 

[Hastings gull]

Actually the point about the housing was meant to be a response to something else, and not meant directly at the figure of 20,00 hence my confusion at your post. But it is of course linked. Yes, it can go either way and if some go on to make a magnificent contribution to British life, as refuges have done in the past, then great. It could also result in civil strife, if the 20,000, plus the hundreds of thousands that we are also taking, compete for social housing.The figure of 20,000 seen in isolation, is probably manageable, of sorts, and we are of course under huge moral pressure to act. But my fear, and I think you would agree that it is the fear of large sections of British society, is that that figure is not in isolation, and next year will see another 20,000, and even more, and more and more.

Just realised that the figure of 20,000 is spread over 5 years, or whatever, but I am sure you see my point.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Actually the point about the housing was meant to be a response to something else, and not meant directly at the figure of 20,00 hence my confusion at your post. But it is of course linked. Yes, it can go either way and if some go on to make a magnificent contribution to British life, as refuges have done in the past, then great. It could also result in civil strife, if the 20,000, plus the hundreds of thousands that we are also taking, compete for social housing.The figure of 20,000 seen in isolation, is probably manageable, of sorts, and we are of course under huge moral pressure to act. But my fear, and I think you would agree that it is the fear of large sections of British society, is that that figure is not in isolation, and next year will see another 20,000, and even more, and more and more.

Don't worry, I'm well aware of your fears having contributed to this thread for over a week.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Thanks. At this rate, we are going to be parting the best of friends! And given your revulsion at antagonistic behaviour, you won't be saying that people you help are a hundred times nicer then myself!
I do fully see what you are saying and in theory could not agree more. I say in theory, because one person's view of a legitimate source may not be another's of course. I am not having a dig (not to do with you!) but another post gave facts and figures from a "legitimate source" where the person concerned had concluded, after "research" that there is no evidence that if we take the current crop of refugees, then others will follow. In this case, it might be reasonable to dismiss that out of hand.

I'll try to restrain myself!

I am not sure what you are referring to in your second paragraph.

My definition of a legitimate source is one where the facts being reported are likely to have been researched thoroughly and there would be comeback on them if they were not - you do not have to agree with what they have posted of course. There have been 2 references to a particular website on this thread already, where all posts are anonymous and there are no contact details etc. You know the sort of site I mean - that is the sort of place that is not a legitimate source as far as I am concerned.

 

[Nibble]

Social housing is affordable in London , it just goes to the wrong people.

What people with no money as opposed to people on 25K a year?

 

[alfredmizen]

What people with no money as opposed to people on 25K a year?

No, people who have no connection to this country and have contributed nothing, and if you think 25k a year is a good wage you must be on a pittance yourself.

 

[Nibble]

No, people who have no connection to this country and have contributed nothing, and if you think 25k a year is a good wage you must be on a pittance yourself.

Try and resist the urge to get personal.
Now, 25k is not much but it is 25K more than nothing. If he wants to make his money go further, move away.

For the record I don't think people should just be able to rock up and get a free house. And not does anyone else cos it rarely, if ever , happens.

 

[alfredmizen]

We're currently taking the most vulnerable I think I'm right in saying, orphans, sick, injured, elderly etc. I suspect to start with at least, they'll just want to be safe.

Like these ?? They look extremely grateful.......

 

[alfredmizen]

Try and resist the urge to get personal.
Now, 25k is not much but it is 25K more than nothing. If he wants to make his money go further, move away.

For the record I don't think people should just be able to rock up and get a free house. And not does anyone else cos it rarely, if ever , happens.

They turn up, are granted indefinite leave to remain, and then hey presto they're not refugees anymore and can access social housing.

 

[pastafarian]

Historically, photos can be extremely powerful and can sway public opinion overnight - the photo of the dead child is moving for any human being - but the conspiracy theorist in me has suspected that this was a deliberate act of social engineering by the mainstream media and powers that be. I was amazed how public opinion over the issue U-turned so quickly following the release and publication of that picture.

It has since transpired that the child was moved, seemingly for a photo opportunity. Link (warning, very graphic): http://i.imgur.com/n7vrowC.png
.

Think you are being a little unfair on the mass media and the powers that be here. They have published a very powerful image in good faith,(didn’t the images come from reuters?).If you are correct and the body was moved for a photo op that would be a vile thing to do in what is already a horrible situation,It doesn’t make the mass media bad however for being duped,just the individual doing the act.
I cant imagine any checks carried out on images by the press before printing would even imagine someone could re position a childs body because it made a better picture.

It’s a growing problem though.Many news organisations were caught out after showing fake Gaza footage and images a few years ago without conducting full checks,their enthusiasm to get footage out before rivals without giving it proper scrutiny not only does everyone a disservice it can also have dire or even deadly consequences .

At least people are more aware of The Pallywood fake propaganda machine now though,you yourself will probably have noticed in news reports over the past few years you are quite likely to hear a quick disclaimer now in the description along the lines of "this footage cannot be verified"

 

[heathgate]

Like the footage of the starving desperate migrants on the Macedonian border who yesterday were turning down boxes and boxes of food and care products because the supplies were provided free of charge by the red cross......racists by any other name.....check the footage out.

It seems strange that they are happy to accept the charity and govt assistance they will get in their chosen target destination.

 

[Guy Crouchback]

By the way, it looks like UK government authorised targeted airstrike in Syria...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...elp-create-safe-havens-in-syria-politics-live

... and now France considers doing the same...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/france-considers-air-strikes-syria-islamic-state

I think it's a rather splendid idea--let's bomb them into democracy! Those people have always had tyrants, kings, sultans, caliphs etc. so we have to teach them that it's wrong--with every falling bomb their love of democracy will undoubtedly grow, and the stream of refugees will decrease. Whenever I doubt that Europe is ruled by geniuses, something like this happens and restores my faith in the genius of our political elites.

 

[daveinprague]

Like the footage of the starving desperate migrants on the Macedonian border who yesterday were turning down boxes and boxes of food and care products because the supplies were provided free of charge by the red cross......racists by any other name.....check the footage out.

It seems strange that they are happy to accept the charity and govt assistance they will get in their chosen target destination.

'The video was initially posted on its website with the following caption: «the refugees refuse food» after spending the night in the rain without being able to cross the border.»
A french journalist who also shot the scene gave us the same explanation. In his report for the French channel Itélé, a refugee is quoted : « we don’t want food, we just want to croos the border '

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/2015...ect-food-aid-because-it-was-not-halal_1377253

Yours was a good 'story' though.

 

[Soulman]

It's interesting how right wingers across the country have become so compassionate towards the homeless, the poorly paid and benefit claimants since the escalation of the refugee crisis.

Maybe, but more interesting that after months of banging on about the poorly paid, homeless, no affordable housing etc Here.... We now see these people bending over backwards to donate and home those that have come from miles away.

 

[alfredmizen]

'The video was initially posted on its website with the following caption: «the refugees refuse food» after spending the night in the rain without being able to cross the border.»

A french journalist who also shot the scene gave us the same explanation. In his report for the French channel Itélé, a refugee is quoted : « we don’t want food, we just want to croos the border '

Yours was a good story though.

I googled the story behind the video as well, there is no definitive proof that either version is true , i know which i believe , and i'm pretty sure i know what you do too.

 

[Soulman]

As was stated, we have no fear from the vulnerable or disabled asylum seekers or refugees like that fellow with hooks for hands and one eye...

 

[symyjym]

The biggest problem seems to be the refugee camps are not being financially supported. Children as young as 7 are being sent out to work the fields for a dollar a day in Lebanon just so they can buy their food. UN agencies are broke and failing and the countries that can help financially have turned a blind eye to it, Saudi Arabia being one.

"Not to spend more on humanitarian aid is a bad strategy, not to say a suicidal one.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/refugee-crisis-un-agencies-broke-failing