I have read different stories to this. We are taking children from Syria, and hard pressed european countries like Italy and Greece which are currently struggling to cope, but have resisted taking children already in other european countries like France.
Yeah, read the same tonight. Seems we’ve said we won’t take from Belgium and French, but only direct from Syria. Perhaps not as bad as the posts above make out.
This article may be of interest. Different press releases with distinctly different tones. Cameron is trying to appease the rabid right in his own party and beyond, while at the same time trying desperately not to appear a total cock to pretty much everybody else.
I heard the relevant Minister (whose name I forget) talking on the radio today. He refused to give even a rough idea of how many Syrian children we would allow onto this sceptred isle; the reasons for this reticence are, of course, self evident. Make it sound like a relatively tiny number and he’ll be savaged by those with a sense of humanity; make it sound like something more and he’ll be savaged by those with no sense of humanity. He was at great pains to talk about all the money we’ve spent (beyond the magnificent £10 million promised to this specific cause) on helping displaced Syrians. Don’t remember him mentioning how much we’re spending on bombing the fuck out of the country they’re fleeing though. Funny old world, eh?
4 Likes
Yeah, but we’re not. Unless you’ve seen new evidence I’m not aware of.
We’re not bombing the fuck out of the country they’re coming from. We’re just not. We’re bombing the people who are killing them in the country they’re coming from. I’m all for a bit of Cameron bashing, but this is quite an important distinction.
Minor point in a good post, but I’m frustrated how easy it is to fall into the same old rhetoric. Unless you’ve got new evidence I’m not aware of.
We are attempting to bomb the fuck out of the people who are killing them on one side and not doing anything about the other side whilst selling arms to a regime that’s giving arms to the people who are killing them. Or have I confused myself. and sometimes there will be civilian deaths. Anyway I’d rather not live in a country where there was not only a war going on but you’ve also got several other countries halpfully bombing it too.
3000 kids. Quite frankly not a lot at all. Oh and why is the adoption process fucked? Probably the new time scales the government imposed. We do struggle to find foster placements as it is and the assessment can be lengthy (you’d want it to be thorough?) So it will be interesting to see how this goes if we do take those vulnerable children in.
3 Likes
I’ve use a term to describe coders that kinda make it up as they go along and don’t think big picture up front. A fix-to-fix-a-fix.
The public services situation under the Conservatives, especially as it pertains to the chain of failure in asylum processing, assessment and adoption is it’s fucked-because it’s fucked-because it’s fucked.
Situation is that there are orphaned Kids in camps’ (pretty shocking phrase) both already in the Balkans *where it is fucking freezing, which may not be exactly the safest places on the planet as well as others still in Syria. We should be taking a fucking lead and doing all we can irrespective of our ‘quota’.
If there was a big campaign, and some money allocated to more rapid assessments, I bet there are enough families in the country who would welcome some of these kids to foster. I would.
Pap is right though, the current adoption and fostering systems are not realy fit for purpose - unders funded, under resourcedand policy is a fricken minefield - a legacy of the underfunded problems of the other social services…
3 Likes
OK, I’ll rephrase - though I think Intiniki provided a very good response to your point. The Minister made no mention of how much we’re spending on munitions that we’re dropping on Syria (the country that thes people have fled). Apparently money for military action is limitless, but a paltry £10 million to assist in settling child refugees in this country is overwhelming in its generosity.
If I thought for one second that our bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria would improve the situation in those countries, and help pave the way to a genuine, peaceful, long-term settlement in the area, I would approve of it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a single instance where military intervention of this kind improved matters, or not caused massive civilian casualties.
4 Likes
The lack of balance is a real problem. For as much as Lou talks of the same old rhetoric, the narrative on the news follows an identical path, pumping out the same old stuff, but without the context needed to inform citizens.
We all know that a whopper of omission can be just as damaging as an outright lie. The PM is saying that we shouldn’t take those kids, and that we bear no responsibility for them.
The reports on the news back him up. If that was all you had to go on, you’d think that the refugees had just been magicked out of nowhere for malevolent ends.
If I said that they would want me hanging within the hour on here Lou, I don’t agree with the bombing at all, we should be staying well out but fair play for the post.
I hope people realise the European settlement laws and what is changing around Europe at the moment, in short young people are being sent and then through immigration laws they will get the whole family in as they are settled in Europe under current legislation hence quick redrawing of it in many Countries, why would Cameron take anyone in from Europe when they should be safe? Syria yes of course.
People need to learn a bit before spouting off concerning this as its not a pick and mix, either Europe is safe or it is not?
They’ll only get fiddled with. Prob safer where they are.
1 Like
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that we should accept refugees from France, Belgium or any other ‘wealthy’ EU country.
5 Likes
Totally an utterly agree, the knockers on this as per didn’t read the situation as per as it didn’t fit in their European immigration agenda, they also fail to realise many Countries are changing it quickly (their consititution) as they don’t want anymore, we are easily one of the most tolerant Nations on the planet with few extremists (look at our extreme parties where they are and their standing compared to other fellow European Nations) , we simply have a load of dramas queens who hate this Country.
Yep.
Should we accept people directly from Syria etc, yes. Should we accept people from Greece, arguably yes as they have been swamped and they cannot cope. Should we accept people from France, fuck off.
2 Likes
From a practical, fair share perspective it’s difficult to argue against that. BUT we are talking about orphaned kids and I prefer not to think of them as some sort of burden or political tennisball - these are vunerable children whose welfare should be the priority, not some opportunity for fuckwit politicians to bargain and score points. If the French or other ‘rich nation’ dont want to offer them help or safety, then they can fuck off, we are bigger than that or fucking well should be. Argue about the rights and wrongs of who should be more helpful AFTER these kids are safe.
4 Likes
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Originally posted by @Goatboy
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that we should accept refugees from France, Belgium or any other ‘wealthy’ EU country.
Totally an dutterly agree, the knockers on this as per didn’t read the situation as per as it didn’t fit in their European immigration agenda, they also fail to realise many are changing it quickly as they don’t want anymore, we are easily one of the most tolerant Nations on the planet with few extremists (look at our extreme parties where they are and their standing compared to other fellow European Natiosn) , we simply have a load of dramas queens who hate this Country.
WTF? You might make a better case if it is in English
1 Like
Why wouldn’t the French offer them help and safety? If they won’t they should be fucking made to.
1 Like
I totally get what your saying, and you know what, 3000 orphaned kids? Let’s get them in, but what the fuck is the point of The EU if countries like France don’t take on their own moral, legal and humanitarian responsibilities.
As per usual, everyone is a True European until it doesn’t suit, or might cost a few domestic votes, then it is pull up the ladder time.
5 Likes
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Originally posted by @Goatboy
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that we should accept refugees from France, Belgium or any other ‘wealthy’ EU country.
Yep.
Should we accept people directly from Syria etc, yes. Should we accept people from Greece, arguably yes as they have been swamped and they cannot cope. Should we accept people from France, fuck off.
From a practical, fair share perspective it’s difficult to argue against that. BUT we are talking about orphaned kids and I prefer not to think of them as some sort of burden or political tennisball - these are vunerable children whose welfare should be the priority, not some opportunity for fuckwit politicians to bargain and score points. If the French or other ‘rich nation’ dont want to offer them help or safety, then they can fuck off, we are bigger than that or fucking well should be. Argue about the rights and wrongs of who should be more helpful AFTER these kids are safe.
I totally get what your saying, and you know what, 3000 orphaned kids? Let’s get them in, but what the fuck is the point of The EU if countries like France don’t take on their own moral, legal and humanitarian responsibilities.
As per usual, everyone is a True European until it doesn’t suit, or might cost a few domestic votes, then it is pull up the ladder time.
Bazza has always said national interests supercede this vanity project.