This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"Bunch"
noun
1.a connected group; cluster:a bunch of grapes.
2.a group of things:a bunch of papers.
3.Informal. a group of people: They're a fine bunch of students.
"Migrant"
adjective
1.migrating, especially of people; migratory.
noun
2.a person or animal that migrates.
3. Also called migrant worker. a person who moves from place to place to get work, especially a farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally.
Problem?
noun
1.a connected group; cluster:a bunch of grapes.
2.a group of things:a bunch of papers.
3.Informal. a group of people: They're a fine bunch of students.
"Migrant"
adjective
1.migrating, especially of people; migratory.
noun
2.a person or animal that migrates.
3. Also called migrant worker. a person who moves from place to place to get work, especially a farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally.
Problem?
7
6
In reply to Big Ger:
definition
noun
1.
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
We need a better definition of her responsibilities.
2.
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries. An online dictionary resource, such as Dictionary.com, can give users direct, immediate access to the definitions of a term, allowing them to compare definitions from various dictionaries and stay up to date with an ever-expanding vocabulary.
3.
the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined:
His biceps have great muscle definition.
4.
Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5.
Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.
connotation
noun
1. the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.”.
the act of connoting; the suggesting of an additional meaning for a word or expression, apart from its explicit meaning.
2. something suggested or implied by a word or thing, rather than being explicitly named or described:
“Religion” has always had a negative connotation for me.
3. Logic. the set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term and thus determining the range of objects to which that term may be applied; comprehension; intension.
problem.
definition
noun
1.
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
We need a better definition of her responsibilities.
2.
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries. An online dictionary resource, such as Dictionary.com, can give users direct, immediate access to the definitions of a term, allowing them to compare definitions from various dictionaries and stay up to date with an ever-expanding vocabulary.
3.
the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined:
His biceps have great muscle definition.
4.
Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5.
Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.
connotation
noun
1. the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.”.
the act of connoting; the suggesting of an additional meaning for a word or expression, apart from its explicit meaning.
2. something suggested or implied by a word or thing, rather than being explicitly named or described:
“Religion” has always had a negative connotation for me.
3. Logic. the set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term and thus determining the range of objects to which that term may be applied; comprehension; intension.
problem.
16
In reply to Big Ger:
The use of Bunch would have been ok, if he had not previously used Swarm , people therefore immediately assume it was used in a pejorative manner.
The use of Bunch would have been ok, if he had not previously used Swarm , people therefore immediately assume it was used in a pejorative manner.
In reply to Jim C:
I think Cameron knew exactly what he was saying, and used it to get the desired effect.
I think Cameron knew exactly what he was saying, and used it to get the desired effect.
3
1
In reply to Jim C:
That's their problem. Its an absolute storm in a teacup whipped up for pointscoring purposes. Remember, in less than a year from now Donald Trump may be the most powerful man in the world with his language on migrants. This really is a non issue.
> The use of Bunch would have been ok, if he had not previously used Swarm , people therefore immediately assume it was used in a pejorative manner. >
That's their problem. Its an absolute storm in a teacup whipped up for pointscoring purposes. Remember, in less than a year from now Donald Trump may be the most powerful man in the world with his language on migrants. This really is a non issue.
6
In reply to pec:
Agreed, and the usual chumps fell for it.
Agreed, and the usual chumps fell for it.
> A spokesman for the Labour leader said the prime minister’s comments were evidence of a “wholly contemptible” attitude to refugees. “The people that we saw in Calais and Dunkirk at the weekend – families, kids, babies – I don’t think it’s right to refer to them as a ‘bunch of migrants’,” he said.
> Cameron’s language also drew criticism from backbench Labour MPs, including Chuka Umunna, the former shadow business secretary, who said it was inflammatory and unbecoming of the prime minister’s office, and Mary Creagh, a former Labour leadership hopeful, who said it was “dehumanising language”.
> Diane Abbott, the shadow international development secretary, said the comments were “callous”.
2
In reply to pec:
That is extremely unlikely. Even if you accept the premise that the president of the US is the second most powerful person in the world (which is highly debatable). The chances of Trump being elected and Putin dying shortly after are remote, to say the least.
> Remember, in less than a year from now Donald Trump may be the most powerful man in the world
That is extremely unlikely. Even if you accept the premise that the president of the US is the second most powerful person in the world (which is highly debatable). The chances of Trump being elected and Putin dying shortly after are remote, to say the least.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
the problem is that the word "migrant" is insidiously replacing the word"immigrant".
If the people in question want to come and work here seasonally they are migrants; if they want to come and live here they are immigrants.
the problem is that the word "migrant" is insidiously replacing the word"immigrant".
If the people in question want to come and work here seasonally they are migrants; if they want to come and live here they are immigrants.
In reply to Big Ger:
I don't think Cameron's language about migrants was offensive nor does it require and apology; but it did trivialise a serious issue for the sake of pathetic point-scoring typical of PMQs. I do however think that his schoolboy jibes that totally failed to respond to the valid questions about tax avoidance require an apology. We pay a lot of money for these people to attend turn up at the House and answer questions. What we get at PMQs isn't worth the price of a panto ticket.
I don't think Cameron's language about migrants was offensive nor does it require and apology; but it did trivialise a serious issue for the sake of pathetic point-scoring typical of PMQs. I do however think that his schoolboy jibes that totally failed to respond to the valid questions about tax avoidance require an apology. We pay a lot of money for these people to attend turn up at the House and answer questions. What we get at PMQs isn't worth the price of a panto ticket.
12
In reply to Big Ger:
It is a bit of a daft thing to become headline news, though it was inssensitively trivialising a serious problem and peoples suffering.
But then, our PM not giving the slightest shut about the suffering of others maybe should be a headline. Unfortunately too many of the population don't care so not much we can do.
Also that he completely avoided addressing the question....AGAIN. while Jeremy Corby is doing a fine job of showing David Cameron for the arrogant, callous, twisted bastard he is it appears there's nothing you can do about it other than suffer.
Great.
It is a bit of a daft thing to become headline news, though it was inssensitively trivialising a serious problem and peoples suffering.
But then, our PM not giving the slightest shut about the suffering of others maybe should be a headline. Unfortunately too many of the population don't care so not much we can do.
Also that he completely avoided addressing the question....AGAIN. while Jeremy Corby is doing a fine job of showing David Cameron for the arrogant, callous, twisted bastard he is it appears there's nothing you can do about it other than suffer.
Great.
6
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Because they are people, replace Migrants with "Jews" does that change things for you. It should
Because they are people, replace Migrants with "Jews" does that change things for you. It should
Post edited at 07:22
3
3
In reply to krikoman:
IN fairness, there are hundreds of words you could replace with migrant with to make it more offensive. He didn't use any of them, he used migrant...a generic term that doesn't refer to race, skin colour, religion.
If he had said bunch of people would you have been equally horrified? Because you could change people to "Jews" as well.
IN fairness, there are hundreds of words you could replace with migrant with to make it more offensive. He didn't use any of them, he used migrant...a generic term that doesn't refer to race, skin colour, religion.
If he had said bunch of people would you have been equally horrified? Because you could change people to "Jews" as well.
Post edited at 08:51
7
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
But it's about context, isn't it? and while I'm not offended by it, I do think it's disrespectful and as PM he should be more careful in his choice of words. But I suspect he doesn't care, so he won't be bothered!
It was probably a mistake on his part, he obviously wouldn't want to say, "thousands of refugees" too emotive on the other side, "a number of migrants"- doesn't really convey enough distaste (which was his intended purpose).
His whole idea was to make someone who is trying to help, find out the facts, and maybe propose something useful, as a bad thing. Instead he made himself look like an arse again.
He could of said, "a bunch of people needing a helping hand" , which would have been fine, but he didn't.
A "bunch of cancer patients" , " a bunch of French people killed by terrorists", is just as disrespectful.
But it's about context, isn't it? and while I'm not offended by it, I do think it's disrespectful and as PM he should be more careful in his choice of words. But I suspect he doesn't care, so he won't be bothered!
It was probably a mistake on his part, he obviously wouldn't want to say, "thousands of refugees" too emotive on the other side, "a number of migrants"- doesn't really convey enough distaste (which was his intended purpose).
His whole idea was to make someone who is trying to help, find out the facts, and maybe propose something useful, as a bad thing. Instead he made himself look like an arse again.
He could of said, "a bunch of people needing a helping hand" , which would have been fine, but he didn't.
A "bunch of cancer patients" , " a bunch of French people killed by terrorists", is just as disrespectful.
Post edited at 09:48
2
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Obviously not, like I said it's about context and intent.
> Is a "bunch" of friends disrespectful? Bunch of climbers?
Obviously not, like I said it's about context and intent.
1
2
In reply to krikoman:
Yes and taken in context, where, in the statement he referred to two other groups he is openly dismissive of (Unions, Argentinians with land claims), then it kind of gave the impression that he was being equally dismissive of migrants as a group (bunch) too.
Yes and taken in context, where, in the statement he referred to two other groups he is openly dismissive of (Unions, Argentinians with land claims), then it kind of gave the impression that he was being equally dismissive of migrants as a group (bunch) too.
3
In reply to krikoman:
What if he had called them "farmers" or "workers" or "job seekers"? I still cannot work out f I'm supposed to be offended by "bunch" or "migrants".
Never mind, I suppose there's plenty enough people in the UK to take offence on behalf of others as it is.
> Because they are people, replace Migrants with "Jews" does that change things for you. It should
What if he had called them "farmers" or "workers" or "job seekers"? I still cannot work out f I'm supposed to be offended by "bunch" or "migrants".
Never mind, I suppose there's plenty enough people in the UK to take offence on behalf of others as it is.
4
5
In reply to Big Ger:
Of everyone thinking he's a wanker?
> I think Cameron knew exactly what he was saying, and used it to get the desired effect.
Of everyone thinking he's a wanker?
1
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I'm sure if that's what he got you thinking then, yes he had the desired effect.
I'm sure if that's what he got you thinking then, yes he had the desired effect.
In reply to Big Ger:
Well there was this one thing. Something to do with yahoo maybe, or ask jeeves but the funny thing is, I was watching prime minister's questions yesterday and my head went all funny, and now I can't seem to remember what it was.
At least we've still got the EU to sort it out.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/28/eu-could-force-google-to-pa...
Well there was this one thing. Something to do with yahoo maybe, or ask jeeves but the funny thing is, I was watching prime minister's questions yesterday and my head went all funny, and now I can't seem to remember what it was.
At least we've still got the EU to sort it out.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/28/eu-could-force-google-to-pa...
In reply to Big Ger:
Indeed. Scripted apparently.
> I think Cameron knew exactly what he was saying, and used it to get the desired effect.
Indeed. Scripted apparently.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Maybe someone might want to ask why that camp is there at all now(, when the rest of the world is being welcomed with open arms into Germany.)
If I was in that camp, in terrible conditions, and not wanted by the French or the British, why would I not just go to Germany?
> the problem is that the word "migrant" is insidiously replacing the word"immigrant".
If the people in question want to come and work here seasonally they are migrants; if they want to come and live here they are immigrants.Maybe someone might want to ask why that camp is there at all now(, when the rest of the world is being welcomed with open arms into Germany.)
If I was in that camp, in terrible conditions, and not wanted by the French or the British, why would I not just go to Germany?
In reply to Jim C:
And what would you call people who would like to live where the came from but were forced out because they might get killed, and who might only need a little help to stay alive long enough to go back once the warring factions have killed enough of each other to call it a day?
Haven't these people suffered enough, to have the Prime Minister of a major country to talk about them with a modicum of respect?
> If the people in question want to come and work here seasonally they are migrants; if they want to come and live here they are immigrants.
And what would you call people who would like to live where the came from but were forced out because they might get killed, and who might only need a little help to stay alive long enough to go back once the warring factions have killed enough of each other to call it a day?
Haven't these people suffered enough, to have the Prime Minister of a major country to talk about them with a modicum of respect?
6
In reply to krikoman:
* A major country who is bombing their own country.
> Haven't these people suffered enough, to have the Prime Minister of a major country to talk about them with a modicum of respect?
* A major country who is bombing their own country.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
More insidious is that 'migrant' is replacing 'refugee', which is probably a more accurate description of those fleeing Syria.
> the problem is that the word "migrant" is insidiously replacing the word"immigrant".
More insidious is that 'migrant' is replacing 'refugee', which is probably a more accurate description of those fleeing Syria.
4
In reply to captain paranoia:
That's the point of this whole discussion.... that migrant implies voluntary! It heavily implies they're coming to get some sweet UK dole-money because they want a bigger telly and fancier shoes.
Refugee is of course the more accurate term, but by calling them migrants - you're able to trivialize why they are coming, and making it easier to rationalize why they can f(*^ off back to Turkey for all we care - rather than to provide help for people in the equivalent position the Jewish were in 60 years ago.
"The Jews 60 years ago? No they were forced out, running for their lives. But Syrians just want to get more money, that's why the TV calls them migrants".
The entire point was that he could just say "but look at the dictionary! They are migrating aren't they, therefore they're migrants!", but as my second post clearly shows - the definition alone, is not the meaning of a word.
> More insidious is that 'migrant' is replacing 'refugee', which is probably a more accurate description of those fleeing Syria.
That's the point of this whole discussion.... that migrant implies voluntary! It heavily implies they're coming to get some sweet UK dole-money because they want a bigger telly and fancier shoes.
Refugee is of course the more accurate term, but by calling them migrants - you're able to trivialize why they are coming, and making it easier to rationalize why they can f(*^ off back to Turkey for all we care - rather than to provide help for people in the equivalent position the Jewish were in 60 years ago.
"The Jews 60 years ago? No they were forced out, running for their lives. But Syrians just want to get more money, that's why the TV calls them migrants".
The entire point was that he could just say "but look at the dictionary! They are migrating aren't they, therefore they're migrants!", but as my second post clearly shows - the definition alone, is not the meaning of a word.
3
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
I must have missed the bit where someone said we were talking exclusively about Syrians rather than immigrants as a whole.
I must have missed the bit where someone said we were talking exclusively about Syrians rather than immigrants as a whole.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
You lot crack me up. What positive is it that these people are flocking in? Why should we take them? There's only negative outcomes with them coming here. So many of you are so blind sighted by wanting an all caring, all loving world that you completely forget to realise that is not the world we live in. You would happily allow massive impacts to the people of this country in order to help people from others. Oh and to the person crawling up jezza C's asshole.. I think he's the world's biggest c#nt
You lot crack me up. What positive is it that these people are flocking in? Why should we take them? There's only negative outcomes with them coming here. So many of you are so blind sighted by wanting an all caring, all loving world that you completely forget to realise that is not the world we live in. You would happily allow massive impacts to the people of this country in order to help people from others. Oh and to the person crawling up jezza C's asshole.. I think he's the world's biggest c#nt
4
8
In reply to krikoman:
Perhaps people might have a bit more respect for them if they weren't attacking lorry drivers on an almost daily business and forcing their way on to ferries and trains.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/30/lorry-drivers-refugees-calais-...
They are already in a civilised, stable, affluent, democratic country. If they have escaped from such terrible situations they would be greatful to be in a such a place and would apply for asylum there or indeed any other Schengen area country they could have easily got to like Germany who seem to be willing to take anyone. The rights of asylum seekers to find a place of safety do not extend to picking any country they please. None of them need to be living in these circumstances.
> Haven't these people suffered enough, to have the Prime Minister of a major country to talk about them with a modicum of respect? >
Perhaps people might have a bit more respect for them if they weren't attacking lorry drivers on an almost daily business and forcing their way on to ferries and trains.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/30/lorry-drivers-refugees-calais-...
They are already in a civilised, stable, affluent, democratic country. If they have escaped from such terrible situations they would be greatful to be in a such a place and would apply for asylum there or indeed any other Schengen area country they could have easily got to like Germany who seem to be willing to take anyone. The rights of asylum seekers to find a place of safety do not extend to picking any country they please. None of them need to be living in these circumstances.
2
1
In reply to elliott92:
If you are talking about the bellend who got sacked from Top Gear I am right behind you.
Not sure about the rest of your post, however....
If you are talking about the bellend who got sacked from Top Gear I am right behind you.
Not sure about the rest of your post, however....
8
In reply to SenzuBean:
But being in The Jungle camp is voluntary, they have no reason to be there other than they are determined to get to Britain when they could actually apply for asylum almost anywhere in Europe. Clearly they do think the tellies are bigger in the UK or somethigng along those lines.
> That's the point of this whole discussion.... that migrant implies voluntary! It heavily implies they're coming to get some sweet UK dole-money because they want a bigger telly and fancier shoes. >
But being in The Jungle camp is voluntary, they have no reason to be there other than they are determined to get to Britain when they could actually apply for asylum almost anywhere in Europe. Clearly they do think the tellies are bigger in the UK or somethigng along those lines.
2
4
In reply to pec:
Many of them have been learning English for years and don't want to start again with a new language, and many have family and relatives in the UK. I hope you were just having a laugh and actually didn't believe the bollocks that mainstream outlets come out with.
> But being in The Jungle camp is voluntary, they have no reason to be there other than they are determined to get to Britain when they could actually apply for asylum almost anywhere in Europe. Clearly they do think the tellies are bigger in the UK or somethigng along those lines.
Many of them have been learning English for years and don't want to start again with a new language, and many have family and relatives in the UK. I hope you were just having a laugh and actually didn't believe the bollocks that mainstream outlets come out with.
1
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
No you didn't. I was just making a point using Syrians as the archetypal immigrant for the purpose of a false narrative.
> I must have missed the bit where someone said we were talking exclusively about Syrians rather than immigrants as a whole.
No you didn't. I was just making a point using Syrians as the archetypal immigrant for the purpose of a false narrative.
In reply to SenzuBean:
Understood. Out of interest, do you happen to have any idea what proportion of the "bunch" are Syrian refugees? In spite of the power and influence of Google I'm having a lot of difficulty finding out.
Understood. Out of interest, do you happen to have any idea what proportion of the "bunch" are Syrian refugees? In spite of the power and influence of Google I'm having a lot of difficulty finding out.
In reply to SenzuBean:
Well once they've got asylum they'll be able to visit them, with a visa if necessary, or vice versa and after they've got citizenship they will have the right to live here anyway.
So which media outlets should I believe if not the BBC, Channel 4 news, Reuters etc? The Morning Star or Socialist Worker perhaps? I think its you that's spouting bollocks. Do you seriously dispute that the migrants in Calais could easily apply for asylum in France or any number of other European countries that would all be regarded as safe?
> Many of them have been learning English for years and don't want to start again with a new language, >
So what, you don't get the right to live in a country of your choice just because you chose to learn their languge.> and many have family and relatives in the UK. >
Well once they've got asylum they'll be able to visit them, with a visa if necessary, or vice versa and after they've got citizenship they will have the right to live here anyway.
> I hope you were just having a laugh and actually didn't believe the bollocks that mainstream outlets come out with. >
So which media outlets should I believe if not the BBC, Channel 4 news, Reuters etc? The Morning Star or Socialist Worker perhaps? I think its you that's spouting bollocks. Do you seriously dispute that the migrants in Calais could easily apply for asylum in France or any number of other European countries that would all be regarded as safe?
3
3
In reply to Tom Valentine:
And if they are fleeing war and or persecution they are refugees.
> the problem is that the word "migrant" is insidiously replacing the word"immigrant".
> If the people in question want to come and work here seasonally they are migrants; if they want to come and live here they are immigrants.
And if they are fleeing war and or persecution they are refugees.
Post edited at 17:11
1
In reply to pec:
.... the migrants in Calais could easily apply for asylum in France or any number of other European countries that would all be regarded as safe?
Spot on, surely Germany would be an obvious alternative choice to almost anyone living in these camps for years, when a German welcome has been offered , but snubbed , why?
Edit ( and of course once they get European citizenship in Germany they are able come into Britain)
.... the migrants in Calais could easily apply for asylum in France or any number of other European countries that would all be regarded as safe?
Spot on, surely Germany would be an obvious alternative choice to almost anyone living in these camps for years, when a German welcome has been offered , but snubbed , why?
Edit ( and of course once they get European citizenship in Germany they are able come into Britain)
Post edited at 17:58
1
In reply to krikoman:
What about a more uptodate example.... Palastinians.
> Because they are people, replace Migrants with "Jews" does that change things for you. It should
What about a more uptodate example.... Palastinians.
In reply to Jim C:
And I stand by it. That's not to deny that a proportion of either migrants or immigrants also qualify as refugees.
But to assume that all aspirant immigrants are refugees is not grown-up thinking.
And I stand by it. That's not to deny that a proportion of either migrants or immigrants also qualify as refugees.
But to assume that all aspirant immigrants are refugees is not grown-up thinking.
In reply to Hyphin:
The people in the Jungle camp may or may not have been refugees, some will some won't, but they've fled the wars and now they're in a safe country. The fact that they now want to move from one safe country to another, largely for economic reasons, makes them migrants.
> And if they are fleeing war and or persecution they are refugees. >
The people in the Jungle camp may or may not have been refugees, some will some won't, but they've fled the wars and now they're in a safe country. The fact that they now want to move from one safe country to another, largely for economic reasons, makes them migrants.
1
1
In reply to pec:
Suspect if you were in one of those camps you would be seeking refuge from it too.
> The people in the Jungle camp may or may not have been refugees, some will some won't, but they've fled the wars and now they're in a safe country. The fact that they now want to move from one safe country to another, largely for economic reasons, makes them migrants.
Suspect if you were in one of those camps you would be seeking refuge from it too.
1
In reply to Hyphin:
Yes, by claiming asylum in France or Germany or Holland or Belgium etc....
How many times do I have to say this; nobody is making them stay in the Jungle camp, its their choice to be there.
> Suspect if you were in one of those camps you would be seeking refuge from it too. >
Yes, by claiming asylum in France or Germany or Holland or Belgium etc....
How many times do I have to say this; nobody is making them stay in the Jungle camp, its their choice to be there.
1
1
1
In reply to pec:
'They'...All of them?
They, the swarm, are attacking lorry drivers and boarding ferries, this bunch of migrants . :-|
> Perhaps people might have a bit more respect for them if they weren't attacking lorry drivers on an almost daily business and forcing their way on to ferries and trains.
> They are already in a civilised, stable, affluent, democratic country. If they have escaped from such terrible situations they would be greatful to be in a such a place and would apply for asylum there or indeed any other Schengen area country they could have easily got to like Germany who seem to be willing to take anyone. The rights of asylum seekers to find a place of safety do not extend to picking any country they please. None of them need to be living in these circumstances.
'They'...All of them?
They, the swarm, are attacking lorry drivers and boarding ferries, this bunch of migrants . :-|
Post edited at 02:26
1
In reply to Big Ger:
This explains it quite eloquently ''taken in context, where, in the statement he referred to two other groups he is openly dismissive of (Unions, Argentinians with land claims), then it kind of gave the impression that he was being equally dismissive of migrants as a group (bunch) too.''
> What if he had called them "farmers" or "workers" or "job seekers"? I still cannot work out f I'm supposed to be offended by "bunch" or "migrants".
> Never mind, I suppose there's plenty enough people in the UK to take offence on behalf of others as it is.
This explains it quite eloquently ''taken in context, where, in the statement he referred to two other groups he is openly dismissive of (Unions, Argentinians with land claims), then it kind of gave the impression that he was being equally dismissive of migrants as a group (bunch) too.''
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It was both, the migrants were grouped together with Argentinians who want to claim the Falklands, against the Falkland islanders wishes, and unions, who everybody knows the Conservatives see as uppity or grumble-a-lots.
Can't you see how it was as good as saying the migrants are as bad as the other two examples (of silly things - in the tone used by the PM)?
Having thought about it, why should referring to migrants be a way of making fun of the opposition?
The only way it could be is if the migrants (or asylum seekers?) aren't really that important...
It was both, the migrants were grouped together with Argentinians who want to claim the Falklands, against the Falkland islanders wishes, and unions, who everybody knows the Conservatives see as uppity or grumble-a-lots.
Can't you see how it was as good as saying the migrants are as bad as the other two examples (of silly things - in the tone used by the PM)?
Having thought about it, why should referring to migrants be a way of making fun of the opposition?
The only way it could be is if the migrants (or asylum seekers?) aren't really that important...
Post edited at 23:15
In reply to elliott92:
I can only hope that one day you'll be in the same situation as those in Calais, when you meet someone with you attitude.
> You lot crack me up. What positive is it that these people are flocking in? Why should we take them? There's only negative outcomes with them coming here. So many of you are so blind sighted by wanting an all caring, all loving world that you completely forget to realise that is not the world we live in. You would happily allow massive impacts to the people of this country in order to help people from others. Oh and to the person crawling up jezza C's asshole.. I think he's the world's biggest c#nt
I can only hope that one day you'll be in the same situation as those in Calais, when you meet someone with you attitude.
3
1
In reply to pec:
I suppose that if you've spent all you life worth escaping a war where you might be killed at any moment, by either the state or the people who are "saving" you from the state, having risked you life and possibly the lives of what's left of you family to get there. THEN trying to break into a lorry might not be such a desperate act as you're making out.
The question is what would you do? In their situation, give up, go back home, sit and wait to be killed by either guns, bombs or starvation, watch you family die while you hope things will get better, or help will come?
What would you do?
> Perhaps people might have a bit more respect for them if they weren't attacking lorry drivers on an almost daily business and forcing their way on to ferries and trains.
I suppose that if you've spent all you life worth escaping a war where you might be killed at any moment, by either the state or the people who are "saving" you from the state, having risked you life and possibly the lives of what's left of you family to get there. THEN trying to break into a lorry might not be such a desperate act as you're making out.
The question is what would you do? In their situation, give up, go back home, sit and wait to be killed by either guns, bombs or starvation, watch you family die while you hope things will get better, or help will come?
What would you do?
In reply to Indy:
I think you can call Palestinians almost anything, no one seems to care (only half joking there).
Jews were the first thing that came to mind but a bunch of, Women, Homosexuals, Black people, all has the same effect.
What's even worse is this statement was scripted, so it wasn't just a slip of the tongue, he'd actually thought this through, had the opportunity to change it, yet didn't. It's a bit sick to be honest, and shows just how "caring" the Conservative party really is.
> What about a more uptodate example.... Palastinians.
I think you can call Palestinians almost anything, no one seems to care (only half joking there).
Jews were the first thing that came to mind but a bunch of, Women, Homosexuals, Black people, all has the same effect.
What's even worse is this statement was scripted, so it wasn't just a slip of the tongue, he'd actually thought this through, had the opportunity to change it, yet didn't. It's a bit sick to be honest, and shows just how "caring" the Conservative party really is.
2
In reply to krikoman: "....and shows just how "caring" the Conservative party really is."
Playing devils advocate here, but just a thought, others on this thread would probably say the Conservatives are being "caring"... of the Uk population, the same that voted in enough numbers to put them in power, and are probably pleased the Conservatives are trying to protect them from this mass migration. Ergo, the "care" can go in two directions...towards the migrants, or towards the electorate, which ever the government think is their main responsibility.
Playing devils advocate here, but just a thought, others on this thread would probably say the Conservatives are being "caring"... of the Uk population, the same that voted in enough numbers to put them in power, and are probably pleased the Conservatives are trying to protect them from this mass migration. Ergo, the "care" can go in two directions...towards the migrants, or towards the electorate, which ever the government think is their main responsibility.
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It was a textbook example of the dead cat strategy*, and it worked. While bleeding hearts are endlessly sifting through the minutiae of his choice of words, he's free to persue his policies unchallenged
*http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2013/11/24/the-dead-cat-strategy-how-the-to...
It was a textbook example of the dead cat strategy*, and it worked. While bleeding hearts are endlessly sifting through the minutiae of his choice of words, he's free to persue his policies unchallenged
*http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2013/11/24/the-dead-cat-strategy-how-the-to...
1
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
You think the dead cat strategy was to distract people from the Google tax fiasco?
You think the dead cat strategy was to distract people from the Google tax fiasco?
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I think there's a whole heap of sh1t he want's to distract attention from.
Taxation is one of them, because tory MEPs have been lobbying to assist google's tax avoidance http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/30/google-tory-battle-protec... Then there's the small matter of europe, climate change, middle eastern politics, the NHS etc etc. It's a long list and I don't think I can think of one item on it that has seen any improvement under Cameron's tories.
Unfortunately our 'opposition' is headed up by Jezza, whereas the tories can rely on the unwavering support of vested interests - particularly Murdoch and the city.
I think there's a whole heap of sh1t he want's to distract attention from.
Taxation is one of them, because tory MEPs have been lobbying to assist google's tax avoidance http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/30/google-tory-battle-protec... Then there's the small matter of europe, climate change, middle eastern politics, the NHS etc etc. It's a long list and I don't think I can think of one item on it that has seen any improvement under Cameron's tories.
Unfortunately our 'opposition' is headed up by Jezza, whereas the tories can rely on the unwavering support of vested interests - particularly Murdoch and the city.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
And you really think that everyone's suddenly forgotten all about this stuff? If Dave seriously thinks that the British public are stupid enough to fall for that then he must have as dim a view of us as he does of refugees.
If JC can put Dave under so much pressure that he has to resort to throwing in unsuccessful 'dead cats' unveiling his contempt for refugees, then I think JC is doing a sterling job.
> Taxation is one of them, because tory MEPs have been lobbying to assist google's tax avoidance http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/30/google-tory-battle-protec... Then there's the small matter of europe, climate change, middle eastern politics, the NHS etc etc. It's a long list and I don't think I can think of one item on it that has seen any improvement under Cameron's tories.
And you really think that everyone's suddenly forgotten all about this stuff? If Dave seriously thinks that the British public are stupid enough to fall for that then he must have as dim a view of us as he does of refugees.
> Unfortunately our 'opposition' is headed up by Jezza, whereas the tories can rely on the unwavering support of vested interests - particularly Murdoch and the city.
If JC can put Dave under so much pressure that he has to resort to throwing in unsuccessful 'dead cats' unveiling his contempt for refugees, then I think JC is doing a sterling job.
Post edited at 12:39
In reply to krikoman:
I guess anyone fleeing persecution, or even economic hardship would be be happy to be in the position as those in Calais, as they can walk out of there anytime they want and into into a country that will welcome them and improve their living conditions. They can then get European citezenships, and move elsewhere within Europe if they so wish.
No one has yet answered the question, why there is anyone still in that camp, it makes no sense.
> I can only hope that one day you'll be in the same situation as those in Calais, when you meet someone with you attitude.
I guess anyone fleeing persecution, or even economic hardship would be be happy to be in the position as those in Calais, as they can walk out of there anytime they want and into into a country that will welcome them and improve their living conditions. They can then get European citezenships, and move elsewhere within Europe if they so wish.
No one has yet answered the question, why there is anyone still in that camp, it makes no sense.
1
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Reading this thread, yes. And yes.
His extremely careful choice of words reveals no such contempt (more or less the point of the OP). This is exactly why the strategy worked.
Jezza really has his work cut out to avoid a massive spanking at the next general election (assuming he makes it that far). It could be that JC's campaigning can become a social media driven one thus avoiding print / BSkyB / Fox news etc but there's lots of Labour infighting ahead - Trident, possibly europe, certainly Syriah, which Murdoch and the tories will lap up.
The final thing that's most depressing is JC seems happy to sacrifice the opportunity to reverse the tory policies he hates on the altar of his principles, they know it and we're all doomed to endless austerity as a result.
> And you really think that everyone's suddenly forgot all about this stuff? If Dave seriously thinks that the British public are stupid enough to fall for that then he must have as dim a view of us as he does of refugees.
Reading this thread, yes. And yes.
> If JC can put Dave under so much pressure that he has to resort to throwing in unsuccessful 'dead cats' unveiling is contempt for refugees, then I think JC is doing a sterling job.
His extremely careful choice of words reveals no such contempt (more or less the point of the OP). This is exactly why the strategy worked.
Jezza really has his work cut out to avoid a massive spanking at the next general election (assuming he makes it that far). It could be that JC's campaigning can become a social media driven one thus avoiding print / BSkyB / Fox news etc but there's lots of Labour infighting ahead - Trident, possibly europe, certainly Syriah, which Murdoch and the tories will lap up.
The final thing that's most depressing is JC seems happy to sacrifice the opportunity to reverse the tory policies he hates on the altar of his principles, they know it and we're all doomed to endless austerity as a result.
1
In reply to Jim C:
Because nobody is dealing or processing them. the French are quite happy (I suspect with UK complicity) to have them be effectively stateless.
I very much doubt you'd be happy to be living in such conditions, you might have removed the fear of being shot or blown up, but it's still not a normal life is it?
> No one has yet answered the question, why there is anyone still in that camp, it makes no sense.
Because nobody is dealing or processing them. the French are quite happy (I suspect with UK complicity) to have them be effectively stateless.
I very much doubt you'd be happy to be living in such conditions, you might have removed the fear of being shot or blown up, but it's still not a normal life is it?
3
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Just because people are talking about this, doesn't mean they've forgotten about everything else that the tories are doing, google's tax deal especially:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35453772
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447152
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=633525
Well that doesn't seem to be how it's been interpreted, and given that it hasn't distracted at all from the other shit things the tories are doing, the strategy has failed catastrophically.
Points for a different discussion maybe, but I'd stand by my point that JC is exposing Dave for the callous, slippery tory that he is.
> Reading this thread, yes. And yes.
Just because people are talking about this, doesn't mean they've forgotten about everything else that the tories are doing, google's tax deal especially:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35453772
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447152
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=633525
> His extremely careful choice of words reveals no such contempt
Well that doesn't seem to be how it's been interpreted, and given that it hasn't distracted at all from the other shit things the tories are doing, the strategy has failed catastrophically.
> Jezza really has his work cut out to avoid a massive spanking at the next general election (assuming he makes it that far). It could be that JC's campaigning can become a social media driven one thus avoiding print / BSkyB / Fox news etc but there's lots of Labour infighting ahead - Trident, possibly europe, certainly Syriah, which Murdoch and the tories will lap up.
> The final thing that's most depressing is JC seems happy to sacrifice the opportunity to reverse the tory policies he hates on the altar of his principles, they know it and we're all doomed to endless austerity as a result.
Points for a different discussion maybe, but I'd stand by my point that JC is exposing Dave for the callous, slippery tory that he is.
Post edited at 12:59
In reply to krikoman:
But what (if anything ) is stopping them now travelling to Germany?
Are they debarred from travelling because they are already in the Calias camp?
If so, that then answers the question.
If they are not debarred,then they they are in Calais because they want to be there.
> Because nobody is dealing or processing them. the French are quite happy (I suspect with UK complicity) to have them be effectively stateless.
But what (if anything ) is stopping them now travelling to Germany?
Are they debarred from travelling because they are already in the Calias camp?
If so, that then answers the question.
If they are not debarred,then they they are in Calais because they want to be there.
Post edited at 13:07
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I get the impression that you wouldn't vote for Cameron whatever he did. I'm in the same boat. The dead cat strategy wasn't aimed at you!
> Just because people are talking about this, doesn't mean they've forgotten about everything else that the tories are doing, google's tax deal especially:
> Well that doesn't seem to be how it's been interpreted, and given that it hasn't distracted at all from the other shit things the tories are doing, the strategy has failed catastrophically.
> Points for a different discussion maybe, but I'd stand by my point that JC is exposing Dave for the callous, slippery tory that he is.
I get the impression that you wouldn't vote for Cameron whatever he did. I'm in the same boat. The dead cat strategy wasn't aimed at you!
In reply to Jim C:
Maybe they think England is nirvana, maybe they've ran out of money, maybe they don't know they can go to Germany. For what ever reason they are still there doesn't mean they should be treated worse than animals, or do you think this is OK?
Still the question people should be asking themselves is, "how far would I go to try and make my family safe?" The French it seems don't want to "process" them because they then have to make the decision, everybody would like them to "just go back to were they came from", yet most haven't got a were they came from left. People with nothing to lose will try anything.
You might ask, "how desperate would I have to be to try and swim across the channel"?
Then after you've answered those questions, you can then think about whether these people deserve some respect or scorn from our Prime Minister.
> But what (if anything ) is stopping them now travelling to Germany?
> Are they debarred from travelling because they are already in the Calias camp?
> If so, that then answers the question.
> If they are not debarred,then they they are in Calais because they want to be there.
Maybe they think England is nirvana, maybe they've ran out of money, maybe they don't know they can go to Germany. For what ever reason they are still there doesn't mean they should be treated worse than animals, or do you think this is OK?
Still the question people should be asking themselves is, "how far would I go to try and make my family safe?" The French it seems don't want to "process" them because they then have to make the decision, everybody would like them to "just go back to were they came from", yet most haven't got a were they came from left. People with nothing to lose will try anything.
You might ask, "how desperate would I have to be to try and swim across the channel"?
Then after you've answered those questions, you can then think about whether these people deserve some respect or scorn from our Prime Minister.
In reply to krikoman:
When have I suggested that breaking into a lorry is such a desperate act? I said people probably don't feel as much sympathy for them as they might because of the daily attacks on lorries.
If you'd read my numerous posts on this thread you would know that I've repeatedly said that since they are now in a safe country and have probably passed through several others to get there then they should claim asylum in one of them, then they wouldn't have to live in the Jungle camp etc. If they are genuine refugees (I'm sure many are) they'll get asylum in a safe country straight away.
The only reason they can be so determined top get to the UK is for economic reasons.
> . . . THEN trying to break into a lorry might not be such a desperate act as you're making out. >
When have I suggested that breaking into a lorry is such a desperate act? I said people probably don't feel as much sympathy for them as they might because of the daily attacks on lorries.
> The question is what would you do? In their situation, give up, go back home, sit and wait to be killed by either guns, bombs or starvation, watch you family die while you hope things will get better, or help will come? >
If you'd read my numerous posts on this thread you would know that I've repeatedly said that since they are now in a safe country and have probably passed through several others to get there then they should claim asylum in one of them, then they wouldn't have to live in the Jungle camp etc. If they are genuine refugees (I'm sure many are) they'll get asylum in a safe country straight away.
The only reason they can be so determined top get to the UK is for economic reasons.
2
1
In reply to Jim C:
From the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33907741
> No one has yet answered the question, why there is anyone still in that camp, it makes no sense.
From the BBC
> Ibrahim, 26, from Sudan, also believes better opportunities await across the Channel. "In England you get a big house," he says. None of the migrants can say where they got their information about Britain's housing system. "You can work in England [but] I will be a student there," Ibrahim adds. He says he will try to cross the Channel "every day" until he succeeds.
> "France is no good," says Robah. "In France there is no home and you spend months sleeping in the streets. It's different in England. They give you a house then you can wait while you get documents. "In England they give you documents after three months but in France you wait much longer."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33907741
1
1
In reply to pec:
There are no economic reasons. Refugees / asylum seekers are treated almost exactly the same in all western european countries. And once an asylum seeker has gained citizenship in an EU country they're free to move between whichever EU countries they wish.
There are no economic reasons. Refugees / asylum seekers are treated almost exactly the same in all western european countries. And once an asylum seeker has gained citizenship in an EU country they're free to move between whichever EU countries they wish.
1
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Except that many clearly are motivated in their destination of choice by what they percieve to be a better life here, the quote in the post above yours is typical of every interview I've seen or heard. Whether or not they are right in believing they will get a better deal in Britain is debatable but clearly they think they will otherwise they would apply for asylum somewhere else, hence they are now economic migrants seeking a life in the country of their choice rather than simply a place of safety which is what asylum is supposed to be for.
So the fact they don't go down this route suggests the real reason they want to get to the UK, backed up by an abundance of anecdotal evidence, is that they want to work illegally in the UK. You don't have to do much Googling along the lines of "why do the migrants want to come to the UK" before that starts to crop up repeatedly.
> There are no economic reasons. Refugees / asylum seekers are treated almost exactly the same in all western european countries. >
Except that many clearly are motivated in their destination of choice by what they percieve to be a better life here, the quote in the post above yours is typical of every interview I've seen or heard. Whether or not they are right in believing they will get a better deal in Britain is debatable but clearly they think they will otherwise they would apply for asylum somewhere else, hence they are now economic migrants seeking a life in the country of their choice rather than simply a place of safety which is what asylum is supposed to be for.
> And once an asylum seeker has gained citizenship in an EU country they're free to move between whichever EU countries they wish. >
So the fact they don't go down this route suggests the real reason they want to get to the UK, backed up by an abundance of anecdotal evidence, is that they want to work illegally in the UK. You don't have to do much Googling along the lines of "why do the migrants want to come to the UK" before that starts to crop up repeatedly.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Probably from reading the Daily Mail and Britain's First Facebook page
> "In England you get a big house," he says. None of the migrants can say where they got their information about Britain's housing system.
Probably from reading the Daily Mail and Britain's First Facebook page
1
2
In reply to pec:
The principal aim of respondents in the sample was to reach a place of safety. There were
a number of factors influencing choice of final destination. One of these was the ability to
pay for long distance travel. Some asylum seekers had to be satisfied with intermediate
destinations including, in some cases, the UK.
Agents played a key role in channelling the asylum seekers in the sample to particular
countries. Some agents simply facilitated travel to a destination chosen by the asylum
seeker. Other agents directed asylum seekers to particular countries without giving them any
choice. Yet other agents offered asylum seekers a priced ‘menu’ of destinations from which
the asylum seeker could then choose.
For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key
factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or
friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous
links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak
English or desire to learn it.
There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK
immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of
work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative
knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of
the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their
asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state
The principal aim of respondents in the sample was to reach a place of safety. There were
a number of factors influencing choice of final destination. One of these was the ability to
pay for long distance travel. Some asylum seekers had to be satisfied with intermediate
destinations including, in some cases, the UK.
Agents played a key role in channelling the asylum seekers in the sample to particular
countries. Some agents simply facilitated travel to a destination chosen by the asylum
seeker. Other agents directed asylum seekers to particular countries without giving them any
choice. Yet other agents offered asylum seekers a priced ‘menu’ of destinations from which
the asylum seeker could then choose.
For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key
factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or
friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous
links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak
English or desire to learn it.
There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK
immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of
work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative
knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of
the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their
asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state
In reply to pec:
Maybe they think the UK is a place where you get a fair crack of the whip, where it doesn't matter if you're black, white, Green or, yellow, gay, straight, or somewhere in between, where it's not where you were born but how hard you work that guarantees success. Maybe it's also the British sense of fair play, compassion and justice they've heard about!!
> Except that many clearly are motivated in their destination of choice by what they percieve to be a better life here, the quote in the post above yours is typical of every interview I've seen or heard.
Maybe they think the UK is a place where you get a fair crack of the whip, where it doesn't matter if you're black, white, Green or, yellow, gay, straight, or somewhere in between, where it's not where you were born but how hard you work that guarantees success. Maybe it's also the British sense of fair play, compassion and justice they've heard about!!
1
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Or the Guardian?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/british-families-open-homes-as...
> Probably from reading the Daily Mail and Britain's First Facebook page
Or the Guardian?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/british-families-open-homes-as...
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Hardly think that's current thinking mate.
> Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
> July 2002
> July 2002
Hardly think that's current thinking mate.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
That's nice. Thanks for the link. Hopefully in the years to come this country will be remembered for people like that in the article, and not the ones turning their backs on those who got the shit hand in the random lottery of where you are born.
That's nice. Thanks for the link. Hopefully in the years to come this country will be remembered for people like that in the article, and not the ones turning their backs on those who got the shit hand in the random lottery of where you are born.
1
1
1
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
And do you think the refugee situation in Calais is new? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrants_around_Calais
> Because the report is 14 years old.
And do you think the refugee situation in Calais is new? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrants_around_Calais
1
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
Maybe that's all true, but whatever they think about the UK it doesn't give them the right to come here. We can all think things, it doesn't give us any right to have what we want.
I see no benefit to the UK for letting in thousands of low or unskilled people into what is already the most densely populated country in Europe which can't provide the housing, infrastructure or public services for the people who are here already, especially at a time when we are subject to the largest levels of inward migration in history and any evidence for the economic benefits of migration do not extend to unskilled migrants from outside the EU.
Whilst I can understand what drove these people to leave their homes and understand why they might want to come here it doesn't give the right to do so. They have escaped the danger they fled, they are in a safe country, they do not have live in the squalor of The Jungle, they can apply for asylum in France.
> Maybe they think the UK is a place where you get a fair crack of the whip, where it doesn't matter if you're black, white, Green or, yellow, gay, straight, or somewhere in between, where it's not where you were born but how hard you work that guarantees success. Maybe it's also the British sense of fair play, compassion and justice they've heard about!! >
Maybe that's all true, but whatever they think about the UK it doesn't give them the right to come here. We can all think things, it doesn't give us any right to have what we want.
I see no benefit to the UK for letting in thousands of low or unskilled people into what is already the most densely populated country in Europe which can't provide the housing, infrastructure or public services for the people who are here already, especially at a time when we are subject to the largest levels of inward migration in history and any evidence for the economic benefits of migration do not extend to unskilled migrants from outside the EU.
Whilst I can understand what drove these people to leave their homes and understand why they might want to come here it doesn't give the right to do so. They have escaped the danger they fled, they are in a safe country, they do not have live in the squalor of The Jungle, they can apply for asylum in France.
2
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
So the war in Syria isn't their motivation for wanting to migrate, according to you. What an odd idea...
> As far as motivations go the World has not changed much in the last 100 years
So the war in Syria isn't their motivation for wanting to migrate, according to you. What an odd idea...
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Oh come on. Surely you are trolling now...
Can you spot the magic word?
Geddit?
Have people been fleeing from warzones for centuries?
No?
Doh?
Oh come on. Surely you are trolling now...
Can you spot the magic word?
> So the war in Syria (...)
Geddit?
Have people been fleeing from warzones for centuries?
No?
Doh?
Post edited at 00:46
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
How many of the people in the Calais camp are from Syria?
How many countries have the come through to get to Calais?
> So the war in Syria isn't their motivation for wanting to migrate, according to you. What an odd idea...
How many of the people in the Calais camp are from Syria?
How many countries have the come through to get to Calais?
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Surely it's you that is trolling?
You posted a report on migration from 2002, and when I say that things have changed since then, you claim that motivations have not changed in 100 years.
I'm sorry, but the reasons for migrants wanting to be in the UK, (and to not remain in safe haven in France,) have changed in 100 years. In fact they have changed since 2002 when your report was written, there was a massive change with the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and then in 2011 when Syria kicked off.
Oh sure the "motivation to escape war" has not changed in 100 years, but that becomes meaningless in regard to addressing the current problems and difficulties faced by migrants and our country.
Your "As far as motivations go the World has not changed much in the last 100 years", is approaching being a strawman argument.
Surely it's you that is trolling?
You posted a report on migration from 2002, and when I say that things have changed since then, you claim that motivations have not changed in 100 years.
I'm sorry, but the reasons for migrants wanting to be in the UK, (and to not remain in safe haven in France,) have changed in 100 years. In fact they have changed since 2002 when your report was written, there was a massive change with the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and then in 2011 when Syria kicked off.
Oh sure the "motivation to escape war" has not changed in 100 years, but that becomes meaningless in regard to addressing the current problems and difficulties faced by migrants and our country.
Your "As far as motivations go the World has not changed much in the last 100 years", is approaching being a strawman argument.
2
1
In reply to pec:
Agreed. There are no doubt that there are people more 'compassionate' than me ( and you) on here, but we did not vote or pay taxes ) for them to make decisions on who to allow in, on who to house and who to provide schooling for and who to provide health care.
Nor should they be allowed to force others salve their consciences with British taxpayers money, and public resources.
The British government provides a lot of our money to support refugees in their own countries, or in safe havens. there are ample opportunities for people to volunteer to go over seas to help, and many do, and I respect them for that.
There are very few things I agree with Cameron or the Tories on,( this might be the only thing in fact) but , I think they have got the balance just about right on this.
> Maybe that's all true, but whatever they think about the UK it doesn't give them the right to come here. We can all think things, it doesn't give us any right to have what we want.
> I see no benefit to the UK for letting in thousands of low or unskilled people into what is already the most densely populated country in Europe which can't provide the housing, infrastructure or public services for the people who are here already.
Agreed. There are no doubt that there are people more 'compassionate' than me ( and you) on here, but we did not vote or pay taxes ) for them to make decisions on who to allow in, on who to house and who to provide schooling for and who to provide health care.
Nor should they be allowed to force others salve their consciences with British taxpayers money, and public resources.
The British government provides a lot of our money to support refugees in their own countries, or in safe havens. there are ample opportunities for people to volunteer to go over seas to help, and many do, and I respect them for that.
There are very few things I agree with Cameron or the Tories on,( this might be the only thing in fact) but , I think they have got the balance just about right on this.
Post edited at 01:30
2
1
In reply to pec:
What's your evidence for them being low skilled, some of these people where bankers, teachers and doctors. Hardly low life dregs. But even with that in mind are you seriously suggesting we only let in people who are clever enough? What do you suggest we do with the one's that don't make the grade?
I don't suppose for one minute they wouldn't rather be back home, without the threat of being killed, living life like they used to.
No one is suggesting they have a "right" to come here, just as they don't have a "right" for anyone to care about them. The real issue is that people are quite happy to turn their backs on them, hoping they'll go away, when they are in need.
How can they apply for asylum when no one is helping them do that? How would you do it??
You keep coming out with they should do this and they should do that, but you're not offering and suggestions of how they should!
You might as well say, "they should all go back and put a stop to the war". A great idea, but how?
> I see no benefit to the UK for letting in thousands of low or unskilled people ....
What's your evidence for them being low skilled, some of these people where bankers, teachers and doctors. Hardly low life dregs. But even with that in mind are you seriously suggesting we only let in people who are clever enough? What do you suggest we do with the one's that don't make the grade?
I don't suppose for one minute they wouldn't rather be back home, without the threat of being killed, living life like they used to.
> Whilst I can understand what drove these people to leave their homes and understand why they might want to come here it doesn't give the right to do so. They have escaped the danger they fled, they are in a safe country, they do not have live in the squalor of The Jungle, they can apply for asylum in France.
No one is suggesting they have a "right" to come here, just as they don't have a "right" for anyone to care about them. The real issue is that people are quite happy to turn their backs on them, hoping they'll go away, when they are in need.
How can they apply for asylum when no one is helping them do that? How would you do it??
You keep coming out with they should do this and they should do that, but you're not offering and suggestions of how they should!
You might as well say, "they should all go back and put a stop to the war". A great idea, but how?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Have they? And your proof is?
And how does the location of a conflict correlate with the motivation of the civilians to flee war? Care to explain and back it up with facts?
That sentence makes no sense.
> I'm sorry, but the reasons for migrants wanting to be in the UK, (and to not remain in safe haven in France,) have changed in 100 years.
Have they? And your proof is?
> In fact they have changed since 2002 when your report was written, there was a massive change with the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and then in 2011 when Syria kicked off.
And how does the location of a conflict correlate with the motivation of the civilians to flee war? Care to explain and back it up with facts?
> Oh sure the "motivation to escape war" has not changed in 100 years, but that becomes meaningless in regard to addressing the current problems and difficulties faced by migrants and our country.
That sentence makes no sense.
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
Whilst many Syrian refugees are indeed well educated professionals most of the migrants in the Jungle camp aren't actually Syrian, they are Afghans or from the Horn of Africa, not places known for their well educated populations and most of the ones who are professionals have enough money not to need to go to Calais, they can pay people smugglers to get them on lorries into the UK
I'm seriously suggesting we don't let any of them in for reasons I've already given in previous posts, go back and read them,
I don't suggest we do anything with them. I'm suggesting that each country can only do so much and we are doing more than the rest of Europe put together in helping refugees nearer to their country of origin.
Its up to the other European countries who abandoned border controls to deal with the consequences of that short sighted decision and to that end I shall say for one final time, they should apply for asylum in France or some other European country.
I suggest you read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11584608/Migrants-i...
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people of your mindset providing food, education, healthcare and legal advice etc. in the camps and since, if you read the article above, it seems the French authorities are encouraging the migrants to claim asylum in France then it can hardly be said that the French government is turning their backs on them.
Certainly Angela Merkel hasn't turned her back on them, she's invited them all to Germany with open arms, like I've said repeatedly, they don't have to be in the Jungle, its their choice because they are determined to get to Britain. You don't seem willing or able to engage with that possibility.
Like this:-
http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/France/asylum-procedure/proce...
As I said, one of the services being provided by the charities in the camps is providing legal advice on asylum, to say no-one is helping them is simply wrong. If they were as determined to get asylum in France as they are to get to the UK I'm sure they'd work it out without too much trouble.
See the above
Well one of the reasons that Europe is now the Island of stability in a world of turmoil is that when it came to the crunch, the young men of Europe stood firm and fought to create what we enjoy today, they didn't just bugger off to somewhere where they thought things would be easier leaving the women and children and the old behind, the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Jungle are of course young men.
Anyway, that's a debate for another thread and on that note we're just going over the same old ground, you ask what I would do and I tell you, you don't like my answer so you ask me the same question again and inevitably get the same answer and so on ad infinitum, so I think I shall call it a day on this one, its run its course. Cheers.
> What's your evidence for them being low skilled, some of these people where bankers, teachers and doctors. Hardly low life dregs. >
Whilst many Syrian refugees are indeed well educated professionals most of the migrants in the Jungle camp aren't actually Syrian, they are Afghans or from the Horn of Africa, not places known for their well educated populations and most of the ones who are professionals have enough money not to need to go to Calais, they can pay people smugglers to get them on lorries into the UK
> But even with that in mind are you seriously suggesting we only let in people who are clever enough? >
I'm seriously suggesting we don't let any of them in for reasons I've already given in previous posts, go back and read them,
> What do you suggest we do with the one's that don't make the grade? >
I don't suggest we do anything with them. I'm suggesting that each country can only do so much and we are doing more than the rest of Europe put together in helping refugees nearer to their country of origin.
Its up to the other European countries who abandoned border controls to deal with the consequences of that short sighted decision and to that end I shall say for one final time, they should apply for asylum in France or some other European country.
I suggest you read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11584608/Migrants-i...
> No one is suggesting they have a "right" to come here, just as they don't have a "right" for anyone to care about them. The real issue is that people are quite happy to turn their backs on them, hoping they'll go away, when they are in need. >
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people of your mindset providing food, education, healthcare and legal advice etc. in the camps and since, if you read the article above, it seems the French authorities are encouraging the migrants to claim asylum in France then it can hardly be said that the French government is turning their backs on them.
Certainly Angela Merkel hasn't turned her back on them, she's invited them all to Germany with open arms, like I've said repeatedly, they don't have to be in the Jungle, its their choice because they are determined to get to Britain. You don't seem willing or able to engage with that possibility.
> How can they apply for asylum when no one is helping them do that? How would you do it?? >
Like this:-
http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/France/asylum-procedure/proce...
As I said, one of the services being provided by the charities in the camps is providing legal advice on asylum, to say no-one is helping them is simply wrong. If they were as determined to get asylum in France as they are to get to the UK I'm sure they'd work it out without too much trouble.
> You keep coming out with they should do this and they should do that, but you're not offering and suggestions of how they should! >
See the above
> You might as well say, "they should all go back and put a stop to the war". A great idea, but how? >
Well one of the reasons that Europe is now the Island of stability in a world of turmoil is that when it came to the crunch, the young men of Europe stood firm and fought to create what we enjoy today, they didn't just bugger off to somewhere where they thought things would be easier leaving the women and children and the old behind, the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Jungle are of course young men.
Anyway, that's a debate for another thread and on that note we're just going over the same old ground, you ask what I would do and I tell you, you don't like my answer so you ask me the same question again and inevitably get the same answer and so on ad infinitum, so I think I shall call it a day on this one, its run its course. Cheers.
Post edited at 23:21
3
1
In reply to pec:
you're quoting the Telegraph!! Why not through a few Britain First links.
>Like this:- ....asylumineurope.org/reports/country/France/asylum-procedure/procedures/registration-asylum...
Easy for you to say sat in your cosy armchair, with electricity and a laptop.
If they do get asylum in France they can come here anyway as French citizens.
Really you're comparing WW2 to Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan, FFS!! Who's side would you be on in Syria then? Imagining that you're Syrian.
You're right on one thing though you do keep coming around with the same arguments.
you're quoting the Telegraph!! Why not through a few Britain First links.
>Like this:- ....asylumineurope.org/reports/country/France/asylum-procedure/procedures/registration-asylum...
Easy for you to say sat in your cosy armchair, with electricity and a laptop.
If they do get asylum in France they can come here anyway as French citizens.
Really you're comparing WW2 to Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan, FFS!! Who's side would you be on in Syria then? Imagining that you're Syrian.
You're right on one thing though you do keep coming around with the same arguments.
2
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...