Is it right for the media to use images of refugee tragedy?

[The9]

How can you " statistically " prove one opinion against another? He didn't say anything that's provable one way or the other.

 

You can statistically prove that something that doesn't have an impact isn't having an impact, at that point any opinion about whether there's an impact or not becomes moot. The impact of immigrants on the UK is a tiny percentage of cost or expenditure and far more issues have far more tangible effect on people's actual lives. Immigrants are only significant as they're easy scapegoats, just like various other media-driven folk demons of various previous periods. It's a sociological construct, people who aren't doing well always find someone else to blame, and people who are doing well often use them to deflect the blame.

[The9]

So what's so bad or dangerous about Turkey?

 

Salmonella?

[Sour Mash]

It's a pretty straightforward, popularly held, statistically proven to be utterly wrong, view. For morons.

 

So how many immigrants would you consider too many?

[Sour Mash]

How can you " statistically " prove one opinion against another? He didn't say anything that's provable one way or the other.

 

His view of the world is that anyone he disagrees with is wrong, those are the stats he likes I guess.

[hutch]

His view of the world is that anyone he disagrees with is wrong, those are the stats he likes I guess.

To be fair, that's not what he said. He just said that any opinion that's different from his is "moot", so not worthy of further consideration as to whether it is actually right or wrong.

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11841292/If-you-want-to-save-Syrian-children-save-Syria.html

[Whitey Grandad]

There's plenty of room in plenty of places at the moment, the overpopulation of the planet isn't an immigration problem, it's a birth control problem. We can probably manage for another 30 or so years before the bits we want to live in get a bit too busy. Arbitrary figure btw.

 

Arbitrary? That is the population of Syria. The rightful place for Syrians is in Syria, in their own homes and in their own society. They are being displaced by tens of thousands of ISIS/rebel fighters. If all those fleeing were to stay behind and maybe join the Syrian army and fight for their way of life then perhaps their families could stay in their own homes.

 

There certainly isn't plenty of room in England. I don't know where you get that idea from. How many are you prepared to put up in your house, in your own bed?

[Whitey Grandad]

You can statistically prove that something that doesn't have an impact isn't having an impact, at that point any opinion about whether there's an impact or not becomes moot. The impact of immigrants on the UK is a tiny percentage of cost or expenditure and far more issues have far more tangible effect on people's actual lives. Immigrants are only significant as they're easy scapegoats, just like various other media-driven folk demons of various previous periods. It's a sociological construct, people who aren't doing well always find someone else to blame, and people who are doing well often use them to deflect the blame.

 

I don't consider an extra 10 to 20 million immigrants (from all sources) into the UK to be tiny or insignificant. That is what we have seen over the last decade or two. This country is becoming uninhabitable very quickly.

[Batman]

So what's so bad or dangerous about Turkey?

 

you see pictures/reports of immigrants trying to get out of Hungary and even Austria

what is so bad in that part of the world?

[holepuncture]

It seems around 70/80% are men I there 20-30s, with iPhones, Rayban sunglasses, Nike trainers etc (that the Hungarians providing refuge can barely afford), so, how many are:

 

ISIS cells

Turks et al blagging it

 

?

[JRM]

Clearly the economic migrants seizing the opportunity to by pass visa requirements and rush into western Europe are to blame in part in creating difficulties in helping true refugees . Help where possible should be provided to children but putting your kids in a boat at night from Turkey to Greece is not "fleeing war" they've already accomplished that leaving Syria.

 

And Germany's righteous position is partly caused by the national guilt still hanging over them from creating so many refugees 70 years ago

[Joesaint]

My answer - Yes.

 

Ignorance is bliss, but we gotta help. I would be happy for a temporary refugee camp in Southampton, and would be proud.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You can statistically prove that something that doesn't have an impact isn't having an impact, at that point any opinion about whether there's an impact or not becomes moot. The impact of immigrants on the UK is a tiny percentage of cost or expenditure and far more issues have far more tangible effect on people's actual lives. Immigrants are only significant as they're easy scapegoats, just like various other media-driven folk demons of various previous periods. It's a sociological construct, people who aren't doing well always find someone else to blame, and people who are doing well often use them to deflect the blame.

 

The number of migrants considered " enough " is subjective . For some a UK population of 60 million is too many , for some its 100 million . He didn't say anything about the expense or the effect on peoples lives. Just that in his and many others opinion we have had enough immigration. That can't be proved or disproved by any statistics.

[aintforever]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11841292/If-you-want-to-save-Syrian-children-save-Syria.html

 

That sort of article is just written to make Telegraph readers feel better about themselves about not giving a ****.

 

Of course the situation in Syria needs sorting out, but that's a long term problem. I can't be done over night. We should take our fair share of refugees AND sort out the mess our government caused when we created the vacume in Northern Iraq. It shouldn't be an either/or, highliging the root cause is just avoiding the immediate issue.

[Batman]

I'm sure Romania and Bulgaria are down many thousands on their population. Why can't the EU put these people there?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Would I risk my families lives fleeing Isis , of course I would. Would I put them in an overcrowded boat without life jackets in the dead of night to flee Turkey , I'm pretty damn sure I wouldnt .

 

Would anybody else on here ?

[aintforever]

Would I risk my families lives fleeing Isis , of course I would. Would I put them in an overcrowded boat without life jackets in the dead of night to flee Turkey , I'm pretty damn sure I wouldnt .

 

Would anybody else on here ?

 

I'm pretty sure you havn't got a ****ing clue what it's like to flee your home in fear of your life and end up homeless in a place like Turkey.

 

Weird how people seem to have a problem taking in a few thousand of these people yet happily subscribe to be part of the EU and let hundreds of thousands of people who already have homes in their homeland in every year to take our jobs and use our services.

Edited 3 September, 2015 by aintforever

[Sour Mash]

I'm pretty sure you havn't got a ****ing clue what it's like to flee your home in fear of your life and end up homeless in a place like Turkey.

 

Weird how people seem to have a problem taking in a few thousand of these people yet happily subscribe to be part of the EU and let hundreds of thousands of people who already have homes in their homeland in every year to take our jobs and use our services.

 

But he's always pretty clear on his views on the EU. Who's decided we'd only have to take a few thousand?

[Sour Mash]

I'm sure Romania and Bulgaria are down many thousands on their population. Why can't the EU put these people there?

 

Look at the pictures from Budapest Station this morning. These people don't want Eastern Europe and aren't stopping there.

[Batman]

Look at the pictures from Budapest Station this morning. These people don't want Eastern Europe and aren't stopping there.

 

We all know where they want to go.

The golden ticket of France/Germany/UK

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm pretty sure you havn't got a ****ing clue what it's like to flee your home in fear of your life and end up homeless in a place like Turkey.

 

Weird how people seem to have a problem taking in a few thousand of these people yet happily subscribe to be part of the EU and let hundreds of thousands of people who already have homes in their homeland in every year to take our jobs and use our services.

 

What does " in a place like Turkey " mean?

[Whitey Grandad]

What does " in a place like Turkey " mean?

 

I'm fairly certain that Turkey compares favourably to Syria at the moment.

[aintforever]

But he's always pretty clear on his views on the EU. Who's decided we'd only have to take a few thousand?

 

If everyone in the EU pulled their weight then it would be 10s of thousands max, not exactly a big deal when you think of the hundreds of thousands who rock up from Poland ever single year.

 

Surely we have a moral obligation considering we ****ed up their region so we could enjoy the benefits of cheap oil.

[Sour Mash]

If everyone in the EU pulled their weight then it would be 10s of thousands max, not exactly a big deal when you think of the hundreds of thousands who rock up from Poland ever single year.

 

Surely we have a moral obligation considering we ****ed up their region so we could enjoy the benefits of cheap oil.

 

But they don't want to go to a lot of the EU. Hungary is part of the EU isn't it? And what happens if/when they're given permanent status? Where in the EU will they head to then?

[View From The Top]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3221090/PIERS-MORGAN-Don-t-shut-eyes-picture-did-make-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

 

Some of you lot turn my stomach. Callous c**ts.

 

It'll be the last time I visit this thread.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If everyone in the EU pulled their weight then it would be 10s of thousands max, not exactly a big deal when you think of the hundreds of thousands who rock up from Poland ever single year.

.

 

Do you think it'll end at that , what's to stop hundreds of thousands following .

[aintforever]

What does " in a place like Turkey " mean?

 

I would rather be a refugee here than Turkey. My point was the fact that these people are homeless, jobless and probably skint and hungry - you don't have the faintest idea what they are going through.

 

I've caught the ferry from Turkey to Kos, you don't attempt that in a inflatable dingy unless you are desperate.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would rather be a refugee here than Turkey. My point was the fact that these people are homeless, jobless and probably skint and hungry - you don't have the faintest idea what they are going through.

 

I've caught the ferry from Turkey to Kos, you don't attempt that in a inflatable dingy unless you are desperate.

 

Doesn't the Geneva convention state that you have to claim asylum in the first safe country you come to ?

 

Do you think these poor unfortunate parents should take a little bit of responsibility for what happened ?

[aintforever]

Doesn't the Geneva convention state that you have to claim asylum in the first safe country you come to ?

 

Do you think these poor unfortunate parents should take a little bit of responsibility for what happened ?

 

Yes and yes but I doubt some Syrian family have read the Geneva convention and they were obviously desperate and made a stupid decision.

 

Don't you think the UK should take a little bit of responsibility for ****ing up the region, forcing millions of people into this situation?

[hypochondriac]

It's very difficult. It's much too simplistic to dismiss people as callous if they question the wisdom of giving all asylum seekers asylum. I think everyone agrees that that photo is awful. The problem we have is that if we collectively agreed to take them all, it would send a message out to all those still abroad to come and try their luck. I have no doubt that many are fleeing war then Syria but there will also be a number of economic migrants trying it on and attempting to take advantage. I'm not sure what the answer is but letting everyone in will just encourage loads more to try.

[hypochondriac]

Yes and yes but I doubt some Syrian family have read the Geneva convention and they were obviously desperate and made a stupid decision.

 

Don't you think the UK should take a little bit of responsibility for ****ing up the region, forcing millions of people into this situation?

 

I think they already have taken some responsibility, hence agreeing to take some asylum seekers and saving thousands in the med by sending the royal navy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yes and yes but I doubt some Syrian family have read the Geneva convention and they were obviously desperate and made a stupid decision.

 

Don't you think the UK should take a little bit of responsibility for ****ing up the region, forcing millions of people into this situation?

 

The UK should take a hell of a lot of responsibility , but you'll never stop people risking their lives if the end result is they end up in Germany , Sweden or the UK. They believe the risk is worth it ,

[st alex]

What's wrong with thinking our immigration figures are too high and we can't allow everyone that wants to live here to migrate. It's a pretty straight forward, popularly held view and will continue to be so.

 

Just because something's popular, it doesn't mean it's right. The trouble is the issues involved aren't straightforward and the right wing assumption that the refugee crisis can be solved with higher fences at Calais shows that.

 

The UK's previous strategy was to stop saving migrants drowning in the Med, that failed and the failure to try and understand the issues behind the mass migration and address it has led to the mess that Europe and the Middle East currently find themselves in.

 

The Eurosceptics seem to think that freedom of movement means that everybody with the opportunity to live in the UK will do so, but the Romanians and Bulgarians never arrived on mass, and guess what, there's still millions of people in Poland who aren't interested in coming to the UK.

 

To me it's just a repeat of the rhetoric the Daily Mail was spouting about German Jewish refugees in the 40s, different war, different religion but the same popular intolerance in greeting foreign people at a time of need which seems to based on nothing more than a sense of entitlement and selfishness.

[Sour Mash]

Just because something's popular, it doesn't mean it's right. The trouble is the issues involved aren't straightforward and the right wing assumption that the refugee crisis can be solved with higher fences at Calais shows that.

 

The UK's previous strategy was to stop saving migrants drowning in the Med, that failed and the failure to try and understand the issues behind the mass migration and address it has led to the mess that Europe and the Middle East currently find themselves in.

 

The Eurosceptics seem to think that freedom of movement means that everybody with the opportunity to live in the UK will do so, but the Romanians and Bulgarians never arrived on mass, and guess what, there's still millions of people in Poland who aren't interested in coming to the UK.

 

To me it's just a repeat of the rhetoric the Daily Mail was spouting about German Jewish refugees in the 40s, different war, different religion but the same popular intolerance in greeting foreign people at a time of need which seems to based on nothing more than a sense of entitlement and selfishness.

Look at the predicted immigration figures from 2004 from Eastern Europe and compare that to the numbers that have actually come over - many millions more.

 

What is your solution for the situation?

[Sour Mash]

Just because something's popular, it doesn't mean it's right. The trouble is the issues involved aren't straightforward and the right wing assumption that the refugee crisis can be solved with higher fences at Calais shows that.

 

The UK's previous strategy was to stop saving migrants drowning in the Med, that failed and the failure to try and understand the issues behind the mass migration and address it has led to the mess that Europe and the Middle East currently find themselves in.

 

The Eurosceptics seem to think that freedom of movement means that everybody with the opportunity to live in the UK will do so, but the Romanians and Bulgarians never arrived on mass, and guess what, there's still millions of people in Poland who aren't interested in coming to the UK.

 

To me it's just a repeat of the rhetoric the Daily Mail was spouting about German Jewish refugees in the 40s, different war, different religion but the same popular intolerance in greeting foreign people at a time of need which seems to based on nothing more than a sense of entitlement and selfishness.

 

Freedom of movement in the EU is one of the causes of this situation.

[hypochondriac]

Look at the predicted immigration figures from 2004 from Eastern Europe and compare that to the numbers that have actually come over - many millions more.

 

What is your solution for the situation?

 

Yep. There's many arguments you take here but that's a pretty stupid one considering how many more came than were predicted.

[Sour Mash]

Just because something's popular, it doesn't mean it's right. The trouble is the issues involved aren't straightforward and the right wing assumption that the refugee crisis can be solved with higher fences at Calais shows that.

 

The UK's previous strategy was to stop saving migrants drowning in the Med, that failed and the failure to try and understand the issues behind the mass migration and address it has led to the mess that Europe and the Middle East currently find themselves in.

 

The Eurosceptics seem to think that freedom of movement means that everybody with the opportunity to live in the UK will do so, but the Romanians and Bulgarians never arrived on mass, and guess what, there's still millions of people in Poland who aren't interested in coming to the UK.

 

To me it's just a repeat of the rhetoric the Daily Mail was spouting about German Jewish refugees in the 40s, different war, different religion but the same popular intolerance in greeting foreign people at a time of need which seems to based on nothing more than a sense of entitlement and selfishness.

 

And just to clarify, as it's not clear, do you think immigration to this country has been too high and do you think anyone that wants to move here should be allowed to stay?

[st alex]

And just to clarify, as it's not clear, do you think immigration to this country has been too high and do you think anyone that wants to move here should be allowed to stay?

 

I've got no problem with people from the EU living in the UK, it's of benefit to our economy and our cultural landscape. Given a few years I'd imagine that the rate of inward migration from Eastern Europe would decrease, and if it doesn't I couldn't care less. I don't know why people feel so threatened by foreigners being here, I've said before on these threads that I don't see it as a problem, if anything the UK is much better off for it.

 

If you're gonna pull the tired argument that the UK's infrastructure can't cope, I don't believe that that's down to EU migrants, I'd suggest it's more to do with the government having sold everything off in the 80's and as a result, there's an under performing rail network which makes huge profits for it's owners (often foreign governments) and fails the public, there's little public housing left after the stock was sold off in right to buy schemes and not replaced. And the continued unregulated housing market being treated as an investment opportunity instead of for housing people. Short term Tory policies have got the UK into trouble, not foreign workers, or scroungers as you probably assume they all are.

 

It's not even really a case of the size of the land we inhabit either. I know the UKIPers like to point to Australia or Canada and say how good they've got it with all their space and spare land. Fairer comparisons would be Belgium and the Netherlands which are far more densely populated than the UK and they seem to be surviving just fine.

 

I'm not sure how Eastern Europeans being in the UK has led to refugees spilling out of Syria? I'd have thought we could take tens of thousands of refugees. It should be a source of national pride. It cost £9 billion to host the Olympics. Refugees could be housed for a fraction of the cost, spread all around the country and no one would even notice.

 

There seems to be handful of right wingers on this forum who inevitably shut down any reasonable debate on these threads by barraging any sensible posters with sheer number of posts, the online equivalent of shouting the loudest. You can repeat your views all day long, it won't make them right.

 

And to answer the OP, unfortunately yes I think it is ok to publish the image as it seems to be the only way to get people to realise the situation, there seems to have been a shift in attitudes overnight. Although hypocritical given their stance last week even the Sun & the Mail have suddenly got front pages finally acknowledging that there is a humanitarian crisis on Europe's door step that will need a co-operative Europe wide response.

[buctootim]

Most of what you've written is wrong. Population density is just one

 

Number of people expected to be living per square kilometre in 2015 - by country

England - 419

Holland - 408

Belgium 369

Germany - 226

Italy - 205

Poland - 123

Portugal - 116

France - 105

Spain 92

Romania - 89

Bulgaria - 66

[Whitey Grandad]

I've got no problem with people from the EU living in the UK, it's of benefit to our economy and our cultural landscape. Given a few years I'd imagine that the rate of inward migration from Eastern Europe would decrease, and if it doesn't I couldn't care less. I don't know why people feel so threatened by foreigners being here, I've said before on these threads that I don't see it as a problem, if anything the UK is much better off for it.

 

If you're gonna pull the tired argument that the UK's infrastructure can't cope, I don't believe that that's down to EU migrants, I'd suggest it's more to do with the government having sold everything off in the 80's and as a result, there's an under performing rail network which makes huge profits for it's owners (often foreign governments) and fails the public, there's little public housing left after the stock was sold off in right to buy schemes and not replaced. And the continued unregulated housing market being treated as an investment opportunity instead of for housing people. Short term Tory policies have got the UK into trouble, not foreign workers, or scroungers as you probably assume they all are.

 

It's not even really a case of the size of the land we inhabit either. I know the UKIPers like to point to Australia or Canada and say how good they've got it with all their space and spare land. Fairer comparisons would be Belgium and the Netherlands which are far more densely populated than the UK and they seem to be surviving just fine.

 

I'm not sure how Eastern Europeans being in the UK has led to refugees spilling out of Syria? I'd have thought we could take tens of thousands of refugees. It should be a source of national pride. It cost £9 billion to host the Olympics. Refugees could be housed for a fraction of the cost, spread all around the country and no one would even notice.

 

There seems to be handful of right wingers on this forum who inevitably shut down any reasonable debate on these threads by barraging any sensible posters with sheer number of posts, the online equivalent of shouting the loudest. You can repeat your views all day long, it won't make them right.

 

And to answer the OP, unfortunately yes I think it is ok to publish the image as it seems to be the only way to get people to realise the situation, there seems to have been a shift in attitudes overnight. Although hypocritical given their stance last week even the Sun & the Mail have suddenly got front pages finally acknowledging that there is a humanitarian crisis on Europe's door step that will need a co-operative Europe wide response.

 

If you really believe that our social and physical infrastructure is overloaded because of government policies then there's no hope for any sensible debate.

[Ludwig]

Most of what you've written is wrong. Population density is just one

 

Number of people expected to be living per square kilometre in 2015 - by country

England - 419

Holland - 408

Belgium 369

Germany - 226

Italy - 205

Poland - 123

Portugal - 116

France - 105

Spain 92

Romania - 89

Bulgaria - 66

 

I'd be interested to see your source for that. Here's a named source that says you are wrong.

http://www.tavinstitute.org/infographics/

 

If you really believe that our social and physical infrastructure is overloaded because of government policies then there's no hope for any sensible debate.

 

And your post is the height of sensible debate?

[buctootim]

I'd be interested to see your source for that. Here's a named source that says you are wrong.

http://www.tavinstitute.org/infographics/

 

various sources. Here are couple that say I am right.

http://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/netherlands

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/netherlands-population/

[Sour Mash]

I've got no problem with people from the EU living in the UK, it's of benefit to our economy and our cultural landscape. Given a few years I'd imagine that the rate of inward migration from Eastern Europe would decrease, and if it doesn't I couldn't care less. I don't know why people feel so threatened by foreigners being here, I've said before on these threads that I don't see it as a problem, if anything the UK is much better off for it.

 

If you're gonna pull the tired argument that the UK's infrastructure can't cope, I don't believe that that's down to EU migrants, I'd suggest it's more to do with the government having sold everything off in the 80's and as a result, there's an under performing rail network which makes huge profits for it's owners (often foreign governments) and fails the public, there's little public housing left after the stock was sold off in right to buy schemes and not replaced. And the continued unregulated housing market being treated as an investment opportunity instead of for housing people. Short term Tory policies have got the UK into trouble, not foreign workers, or scroungers as you probably assume they all are.

 

It's not even really a case of the size of the land we inhabit either. I know the UKIPers like to point to Australia or Canada and say how good they've got it with all their space and spare land. Fairer comparisons would be Belgium and the Netherlands which are far more densely populated than the UK and they seem to be surviving just fine.

 

I'm not sure how Eastern Europeans being in the UK has led to refugees spilling out of Syria? I'd have thought we could take tens of thousands of refugees. It should be a source of national pride. It cost £9 billion to host the Olympics. Refugees could be housed for a fraction of the cost, spread all around the country and no one would even notice.

 

There seems to be handful of right wingers on this forum who inevitably shut down any reasonable debate on these threads by barraging any sensible posters with sheer number of posts, the online equivalent of shouting the loudest. You can repeat your views all day long, it won't make them right.

 

And to answer the OP, unfortunately yes I think it is ok to publish the image as it seems to be the only way to get people to realise the situation, there seems to have been a shift in attitudes overnight. Although hypocritical given their stance last week even the Sun & the Mail have suddenly got front pages finally acknowledging that there is a humanitarian crisis on Europe's door step that will need a co-operative Europe wide response.

 

So you think we can and should take in any immigrants that want to move here. And you then wonder why no-one takes your views seriously.

[st alex]

If you really believe that our social and physical infrastructure is overloaded because of government policies then there's no hope for any sensible debate.

 

Radical thinking I know, easier to just pin it on a scapegoat - which foreigners are we blaming this year?

[whelk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3221090/PIERS-MORGAN-Don-t-shut-eyes-picture-did-make-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

 

Some of you lot turn my stomach. Callous c**ts.

 

It'll be the last time I visit this thread.

 

I think this sums it up well

 

[whelk]

And sure this angle from the Mail in 1938 will strike a chord with many

[Ludwig]

various sources. Here are couple that say I am right.

http://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/netherlands

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/netherlands-population/

 

Interesting. Those links only show the Netherlands data but your list showed many more countries. Where did that list come from? I presume you didn't visit every country page from worldpopulationreview.com and compile the list yourself?

[buctootim]

Interesting. Those links only show the Netherlands data but your list showed many more countries. Where did that list come from? I presume you didn't visit every country page from worldpopulationreview.com and compile the list yourself?

 

No I used a Telegraph article as the basis and then to be sure it was accurate I fact checked it using those websites and added in a few countries which were missing, like Spain. Fact checking is a great discipline, it can avoid all sorts of problems, like accusing people of being wrong and making a bit of a tit of yourself. Having the most public outpouring of grief or most dramatic twitter post has zero correlation to doing the most to help. In the NHS vocal lobbyists who insist you must put millions into a particular group NOW otherwise PEOPLE WILL DIE have no concept of directing resources to where they will have most impact. They are called shroud wavers.

 

The truly destitute and desperate are still in Syria, unable to move. Those with money to leave and travel, mostly young men, are not who need our help most. Helping the vulnerable - children and the old in refugee camps with food, medical aid, shelter and after the war with rebuilding is what the priorities should be. Taking a few thousand out of their culture, language and family networks and dumping them in rental properties in Solihull is not a better solution than directly helping millions in country with aid. It just makes less good tv and the twitterati are denied an opportunity to feel like they changed the world.

Edited 4 September, 2015 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

No I used a Telegraph article as the basis and then to be sure I was right I fact checked it using those websites and added in a few countries which were missing, like Spain. Fact checking is a great discipline, it can avoid all sorts of problems, like accusing people of being wrong and making a bit of a tit of yourself. Having the most public outpouring of grief or most dramatic twitter post has zero correlation to doing the most to help. In the NHS vocal lobbyists who insist you must put millions into a particular group NOW otherwise PEOPLE WILL DIE have no concept of directing resources to where they will have most impact. They are called shroud wavers.

 

The truly destitute and desperate are still in Syria, unable to move. Those with money to leave and travel, mostly young men, are not who need our help most. Helping the vulnerable - children and the old in refugee camps with food, medical aid, shelter and after the war with rebuilding is what the priorities should be. Taking a few thousand out of their culture and language and dumping them in rental properties in Solihull is not a better solution than directly helping millions in country with aid. It just makes less good tv and the twitterati are denied an opportunity to feel like they changed the world.

 

That's pretty much spot on.

[Colinjb]

No I used a Telegraph article as the basis and then to be sure it was accurate I fact checked it using those websites and added in a few countries which were missing, like Spain. Fact checking is a great discipline, it can avoid all sorts of problems, like accusing people of being wrong and making a bit of a tit of yourself. Having the most public outpouring of grief or most dramatic twitter post has zero correlation to doing the most to help. In the NHS vocal lobbyists who insist you must put millions into a particular group NOW otherwise PEOPLE WILL DIE have no concept of directing resources to where they will have most impact. They are called shroud wavers.

 

The truly destitute and desperate are still in Syria, unable to move. Those with money to leave and travel, mostly young men, are not who need our help most. Helping the vulnerable - children and the old in refugee camps with food, medical aid, shelter and after the war with rebuilding is what the priorities should be. Taking a few thousand out of their culture, language and family networks and dumping them in rental properties in Solihull is not a better solution than directly helping millions in country with aid. It just makes less good tv and the twitterati are denied an opportunity to feel like they changed the world.

 

Absolutely agree.