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

[Ludwig]

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..

 

Fact checking is important. This site quotes UN figures which are, again, contradictory to your figures.

http://statisticstimes.com/population/countries-by-population-density.php

How do you decide which "facts" are right in the face of different figures? I thought the UN were a reliable source but it turns out that they're not. It's very difficult.

Are you confident that your sources are more reliable than the ones I've provided?

[alpine_saint]

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 ?

 

The Kurdi family are (were ) Kurdish. Turkey doesnt have a particularly good track record in their treatment of Kurds.

 

Sorry, this stuff about them being safe in Turkey is crap. They were Kurdish refugees trying to get to safety, not economic migrants.

[alpine_saint]

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.

 

Yes, the problem has to be solved at the source.

 

I fear when it comes down to it, the West are going to have to face up to ISIS across a battlefield....

[Goatboy]

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

 

Pretty close run thing if you're Kurdish.

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

There are over 8 million people in the country who were not born here.

[Whitey Grandad]

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/

 

Once again, this source compares the UK and not England.

 

 

And your post is the height of sensible debate?

 

I am saying that there is no point in trying to debte with somebody whose views are so obviously indoctrinated that they try to make political capital out of an issue that has little to do with politics.

[buctootim]

Fact checking is important. This site quotes UN figures which are, again, contradictory to your figures.

http://statisticstimes.com/population/countries-by-population-density.php

How do you decide which "facts" are right in the face of different figures? I thought the UN were a reliable source but it turns out that they're not. It's very difficult.

Are you confident that your sources are more reliable than the ones I've provided?

 

You seem to be in difficulty again. That site confirms, not contradicts, my figures. England is the most densely populated country in Europe. Scotland is relatively sparse so overall the UK is not especially high but the issue is that refugees largely don't want to go to Scotland, most want to go to London.

Edited 4 September, 2015 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

There are over 8 million people in the country who were not born here.

 

And mainly concentrated into a few areas. Yet some people want many more to arrive.

[trousers]

Turkey doesnt have a particularly good track record in their treatment of Kurds. Sorry, this stuff about them being safe in Turkey is crap.

 

I don't know enough about the situation to doubt what you say here, but do you have a link to any reports confirming how Turkey is (mis)treating fleeing Syrians so I can bring myself up to speed?

 

I thought Turkey wanted to join the EU? Mistreating fleeing refugees doesn't seem to be the cleverest way of going about it I would venture.

[trousers]

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.

 

[sadoldgit]

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 ?

 

Would you have done that to flee the Nazis if you were Jewish or a Slav?

[Colinjb]

I don't know enough about the situation to doubt what you say here, but do you have a link to any reports confirming how Turkey is (mis)treating fleeing Syrians so I can bring myself up to speed?

 

I thought Turkey wanted to join the EU? Mistreating fleeing refugees doesn't seem to be the cleverest way of going about it I would venture.

 

Well, I would recommend some research into their classification of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) as a terrorist group as a start. There is a very antagonistic relationship between the Turks and Kurds.

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't know enough about the situation to doubt what you say here, but do you have a link to any reports confirming how Turkey is (mis)treating fleeing Syrians so I can bring myself up to speed?

 

I thought Turkey wanted to join the EU? Mistreating fleeing refugees doesn't seem to be the cleverest way of going about it I would venture.

 

I know nothing about the sources:

 

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/syrian-refugees-turkey-long-road-ahead

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

[Sour Mash]

Would you have done that to flee the Nazis if you were Jewish or a Slav?

 

Are Kurdish refugees being murdered in Turkey?

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

Isn't it unfortunate that we are not able to take an indeterminate quantity of refugees and economic migrants because those nasty 1980's Tories privatised the railways , so that they will not be able to travel around the UK, and because the housing stock which was sold off too will mean that they will have nowhere to live? Undoubtedly it is also the Tories' fault that they will also not be able to fully avail themselves of education for their children and the provision of health services because of the nasty Tory Government of the 80's too.

 

Quite why Labour didn't do anything to repair this damage caused by those wicked Tories when they were subsequently in power from 1997 to 2010 is a bit of a mystery, but you go ahead and pin it on the government of the 80's if it pleases you.

 

You complain that a handful of right-wingers shut (shout?) down and any reasonable debate by barraging (barracking?) any sensible posters, however, I'm afraid that the opinions you have expressed don't really qualify as being very reasonable or sensible, as they are rather ill-thought out on the one hand, or as demonstrated by Buctootim, just wrong.

[sadoldgit]

Are Kurdish refugees being murdered in Turkey?

 

Everything is relative. I am sure that people are risking their lives and the lives of their families for a reason.

[Sour Mash]

Everything is relative. I am sure that people are risking their lives and the lives of their families for a reason.

I'm sure they are. Doesn't make it comparable to Jews/Germany/1930s.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Would you have done that to flee the Nazis if you were Jewish or a Slav?

 

Of course I would my life would have been in danger.

 

Its interesting that an ally Turkey now seems a dangerous place for these people, according to some posters on here. What is their thoughts regarding people holidaying in regimes that are so dangerous and unwelcoming that people are losing their lives fleeing from this oppression . And why arent the rest of the EU putting Turkey under pressure regarding the human rights of these people. Instead of lecturing us the Germans should be on to the Turks. There could be another explanation though, it could be that these people are perfectly safe in turkey , but its a pretty dire existence and they could get a better life in the EU. Nothing wrong with wanting that, and perfectly understandable, but that makes them economic migrants.

[sadoldgit]

I'm sure they are. Doesn't make it comparable to Jews/Germany/1930s.

 

I am not saying it is. I am just saying that desperate times call for desperate measures and I am pretty sure no one would risk the lives of their loved ones with good reason. We have no idea what these people have been through and what their circumstances are.

[buctootim]

Well, I would recommend some research into their classification of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) as a terrorist group as a start. There is a very antagonistic relationship between the Turks and Kurds.

There is an antagonistic relationship with the PKK who want an independent country and have committed terrorist / freedom fighter acts to get it. One nation Kurds like the HDP are in government. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/turkey-president-approves-interim-pre-election-cabinet-agency-164315352.html?.tsrc=lgwn#TfR8fKK

[sadoldgit]

Of course I would my life would have been in danger.

 

Its interesting that an ally Turkey now seems a dangerous place for these people, according to some posters on here. What is their thoughts regarding people holidaying in regimes that are so dangerous and unwelcoming that people are losing their lives fleeing from this oppression . And why arent the rest of the EU putting Turkey under pressure regarding the human rights of these people. Instead of lecturing us the Germans should be on to the Turks. There could be another explanation though, it could be that these people are perfectly safe in turkey , but its a pretty dire existence and they could get a better life in the EU. Nothing wrong with wanting that, and perfectly understandable, but that makes them economic migrants.

 

I don't know what the circumstances of these people are, but perhaps they are terrified of being shipped back to Syria?

[Sour Mash]

I am not saying it is. I am just saying that desperate times call for desperate measures and I am pretty sure no one would risk the lives of their loved ones with good reason. We have no idea what these people have been through and what their circumstances are.

 

If it's not the same, not comparable, why mention it?

[sadoldgit]

If it's not the same, not comparable, why mention it?

 

It is not the same but it is comparable, but then you know that and are just looking for a wind up.

[Sour Mash]

It is not the same but it is comparable, but then you know that and are just looking for a wind up.

 

You just said above it wasn't comparable.

[sadoldgit]

Is this a five mute argument or a full half hour?

[Sour Mash]

Is this a five mute argument or a full half hour?

 

A what?

 

Just trying to get some sense from what you're trying to post.

[sadoldgit]

It is a quote from Monty Python. In answer to your earlier question, I am trying to do two things at once and didn't read your first response properly but yes I do think the situations are comparable.

[Saint-Armstrong]

A piece from David Miliband today.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/david-miliband-britain-is-betraying-its-proud-history-of-helping-the-displaced-a2927366.html

[Sour Mash]

A piece from David Miliband today.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/david-miliband-britain-is-betraying-its-proud-history-of-helping-the-displaced-a2927366.html

A lot of words from Milliband, but doesn't say what should actually in practice happen long term. The UK should take more? How many more? If safe routes to Europe are set up, how many more hundreds of thousands would head to Western Europe?

[Wes Tender]

A lot of words from Milliband, but doesn't say what should actually in practice happen long term. The UK should take more? How many more? If safe routes to Europe are set up, how many more hundreds of thousands would head to Western Europe?

What exactly does he mean by "safe routes"?

 

How many should we in the UK be taking according to him? Tens of thousands. How many tens?

 

And I note that he wishes to change the rules for Asylum seekers to, so that they should be shared around Europe, rather than having an obligation to claim asylum at the first safe country they enter.

 

On what basis should this distribution of refugees between countries be settled?

 

And what are his thoughts on the treatment of economic migrants rather than refugees? He starts out by stating that he knows the difference between the two, but then only speaks of refugees.

[Lord Duckhunter]

How many refugees have the rich states of Saudi Arabia , UAE, Qatar & Kuwait taken, I'd imagine they're doing their bit to help.

[Hatch]

I see that poor lad has been buried today, back in the town they were fleeing from.

 

Does that mean the Father has to go through the whole 'escape' thing again, or does he get a helicopter ride out of there. ( paid for by some newspaper somewhere)

[Sour Mash]

Anyone know how many of these we're lucky enough to be getting? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222419/Riots-erupt-Greek-island-Lesbos-200-frustrated-refugees-throw-stones-police-coastguard-officials-blocked-getting-mainland-bound-ferry.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline.

[Batman]

I think the PM has it right.

we will help those, basically not already in europe.

[solentstars]

I expect having read this thread alot of people said the same things in the 1930s about the Jews . I think it's great to see the postive side of Britain .its the biggest crisis since the 2nd world war and all European governments are struggling how to deal with it.

[Batman]

there will be social unrest/trouble in germany in a few years with the numbers they are taking in (satisfying their guilty conscience)

 

we are seeing Germany send this continent down the pan again

Edited 4 September, 2015 by Batman

[Sour Mash]

there will be social unrest/trouble in germany in a few years with the numbers they are taking in (satisfying their guilty conscience)

 

we are seeing Germany send this continent down the pan again

 

Already starting with the Pegida stuff last year, but they're trying to deal with their collective guilty conscience as you say.

 

Agree, the German driven EU is ruining Europe, the 3rd time they've managed in in 100 years, some achievement.

[Whitey Grandad]

Already starting with the Pegida stuff last year, but they're trying to deal with their collective guilty conscience as you say.

 

Agree, the German driven EU is ruining Europe, the 3rd time they've managed in in 100 years, some achievement.

 

4th if you include the Franco-Prussian war but I personally don't subscribe to this latest view..

[Griffo]

Let's take them all in and when Syria is safe again they will surely all just pop off straight home, yes? F*ck the ones trying to get through europe here. It's for one reason and one reason only. Those in the camps in Turkey etc I can sympathise with, all the others travelling through Europe are economic migrants, not refugees.

Edited 4 September, 2015 by Griffo

[Sour Mash]

Is it right that the father of the boys has now gone back to his home town? So wasn't fleeing immediate danger?

[angelman]

I'm more than happy to help out refugees if they return home when it is safe. But they become like any other migrant and become permanent. Migrants should go home as well after a set period of years. Give some others a chance.

 

But I do find there is a huge amount of double standards going on. Where was the clamour to take in millions of Tutsis when the Hutus started butchering them. And butcher them they did, on a scale that has possibly never been seen before - about 1 million of them in less than 3 months. That they didn't turn up on our doorstep seems to be the main difference.

 

One thing that I found interesting. The horrific lorry that had 71 people dead in the back - 59 were men.

[Saint-Armstrong]

[Jonnyboy]

Cameron the weathervane is spinning so fast I think his head might fall off...

[Verbal]

Most want to go to London.

 

That's okay though, isn't it? Greater London today still has a lower population than it did in 1939 (the lowest point in the city's population drift to the suburbs and provinces was as recently as 1981).

 

The city may seem crowded but it's been much more so up until the second world war.

 

The other reason it's not such a bad idea is that even after Thatcher's right-to-buy, London has a stock of social housing that's unrivalled anywhere else in the country - a legacy not just of council housing, but a significant housing association presence as well as big pre-council-stock social housing trusts like Guinness, Peabody and Sutton. For now at least, with the Sutton Trust you can even live just off the king's Road in affordable-rent housing.

 

I'm with Ludwig on the stats generally. And you've identified the reason he's right: London. Aside from the dubiousness of calling England a 'country', if you take London out of the density equation England's density overall falls dramatically. London massively distorts the numbers. Which is kind of what you'd expect, because London, is (and always has been) such a huge city. Take a closer look at the Tavistock link that Ludwig supplied. It's pretty authoritative.

 

And your point about no one wanting to go to Scotland seems at variance with, for example, Glasgow's substantial population of recent refugees from war zones, including Syria and Iraq.

[st alex]

Isn't it unfortunate that we are not able to take an indeterminate quantity of refugees and economic migrants because those nasty 1980's Tories privatised the railways , so that they will not be able to travel around the UK, and because the housing stock which was sold off too will mean that they will have nowhere to live? Undoubtedly it is also the Tories' fault that they will also not be able to fully avail themselves of education for their children and the provision of health services because of the nasty Tory Government of the 80's too.

 

Quite why Labour didn't do anything to repair this damage caused by those wicked Tories when they were subsequently in power from 1997 to 2010 is a bit of a mystery, but you go ahead and pin it on the government of the 80's if it pleases you.

 

You complain that a handful of right-wingers shut (shout?) down and any reasonable debate by barraging (barracking?) any sensible posters, however, I'm afraid that the opinions you have expressed don't really qualify as being very reasonable or sensible, as they are rather ill-thought out on the one hand, or as demonstrated by Buctootim, just wrong.

 

Firstly, I reject your suggested use of words, thanks for correcting me, but I think it reads better the original way. Is barracking even a word? I feel my post made more sense than yours. I'm not even sure what point your trying to make in the opening paragraph.

 

I never suggested that refugees couldn't be sheltered because of 1980's tory policy. I'd suggested that the reason's for the shortage in housing and the poor performance of the railways (infrastructure), which you'll no doubt blame on immigration started then and have been getting worse since. And you're right Labour didn't fix the growing problem of inadequate public transport and the housing shortage. But the Government's asset stripping then was a short term gain and a slow long term failure for successive governments. That's down to government policy and you must be a pretty sad sap to seriously blame that entirely on inward migration.

 

My reason in mentioning that was that because even no-one entered or left the country we'd still have a growing population because of birth rates, and more than likely we'd still have a housing shortage and a ****e infrastructure, and that couldn't then be blamed on immigration. You're trying to escape poor government policy by blaming ethnic minorities, I've never suggested we let the entire world's population in (as if they'd even want to come here), but we could easily take a few more refugees.

 

The UK's increasingly poor infrastructure and housing shortage are blamed on foreigners rather than on government policy because it makes for an easier scapegoat. I think the UK could take a lot more refugees than it has done, not millions but a few thousand at the very least.

 

The PM's u-turn and the response of the tabloids has just shown a huge change in people's attitudes overnight, more in line with what the 'looney lefties' had been saying for months.

 

Finally, as if to prove my earlier comment, it's since been the the same handful of posters all over this thread like a rash pushing their anti-foreigner agendas and ganging up on anyone who disagrees.

[st alex]

There are over 8 million people in the country who were not born here.

 

That figure's meaningless. You realise the likes of Boris Johnso, John Barnes, Emma Watson, Eddie Izard, Bradley Wiggins even Andrew Surman (list goes on and on but don't have time) were all born abroad and therefore included in that figure along with many others who are equally as 'British'.

 

A few weeks ago the right wing would hardly even acknowledge the existence of refugees, preferring to paint everyone wanting to come into Europe as economic migrants looking to scrounge off the state, a couple more high profile deaths and and now everyone's compassionate. I don't think anyone's suggesting the UK take on the entire population of Syria, but it could certainly do far more than it is to tackle the problem at source and in the meantime stand with other european countries in giving refugee to those who need it.

[melmacian_saint]

How many refugees have the rich states of Saudi Arabia , UAE, Qatar & Kuwait taken, I'd imagine they're doing their bit to help.

 

They are, but much more would trigger both social and political conflict and the start of a number of Civil War for most of them, and given their size/power it could leave the world in a terrible place.

 

None of the Arab nations with a Sunni Muslim majority in their population will be picking sides on this or ISIS. The problem is too ingrained in society, separated in panislamist ultra-conservatives and more moderate wings, aside from the well-documented sectarian divides at national level. In most cases, demography does not favour the powers that be.

 

Remember Lebanon's Civil War in 1975, which started with the eviction of (not necessarily powerless) Palestinian refugees from Jordan, and led to the bursting of a fragile yet successful society.

Europe (and the UK) must provide the humanitarian aid, however lest we think that the conflict goes away with the distance from the battle ground. It won't, just like it didn't then. These people, destitute or paying thousands to reach Kos, will keep in touch with the reality back home, and they will live the struggle of their side just as much here as there.

 

To keep it short, anything that doest not involve intervention in Syria is folklore. It does seem like it could be coming though.

Edited 5 September, 2015 by melmacian_saint

[Saint in Paradise]

I think that ALL European countries should just match the help that the oil rich Middle East countries are giving.

That would soon end this crisis.

 

These economic migrants, and the extended families that they will demand on being allowed to enter the UK later, will hate the UK

winter so be prepared for you Taxpayers to cough up even more money to help. Of course letting the UK pensioners, who have

worked hard and fought wars for the UK suffer and die earlier than they need to because the UK Govt. won't help will go towards

part of the cost of these economic migrants. So if you hate your own grand parents keep shouting to let these economic migrants

into the UK, but just remember that YOU will be old and "in the way" in years to come.

[hutch]

That's okay though, isn't it? Greater London today still has a lower population than it did in 1939 (the lowest point in the city's population drift to the suburbs and provinces was as recently as 1981).

 

The city may seem crowded but it's been much more so up until the second world war.

 

The other reason it's not such a bad idea is that even after Thatcher's right-to-buy, London has a stock of social housing that's unrivalled anywhere else in the country - a legacy not just of council housing, but a significant housing association presence as well as big pre-council-stock social housing trusts like Guinness, Peabody and Sutton. For now at least, with the Sutton Trust you can even live just off the king's Road in affordable-rent housing.

 

I'm with Ludwig on the stats generally. And you've identified the reason he's right: London. Aside from the dubiousness of calling England a 'country', if you take London out of the density equation England's density overall falls dramatically. London massively distorts the numbers. Which is kind of what you'd expect, because London, is (and always has been) such a huge city. Take a closer look at the Tavistock link that Ludwig supplied. It's pretty authoritative.

 

And your point about no one wanting to go to Scotland seems at variance with, for example, Glasgow's substantial population of recent refugees from war zones, including Syria and Iraq.

I think the numbers shown by Tim are useful for comparative purposes if not actually correct in absolute terms, in that they show the population densities of the major European nations relative to one another. Strip out all of the capital cities if you want, but I doubt if the order would change. That is interesting in the debate, more so than whether the UK has 421 people per square kilometre, or 387.

[hutch]

Finally, as if to prove my earlier comment, it's since been the the same handful of posters all over this thread like a rash pushing their anti-foreigner agendas and ganging up on anyone who disagrees.

Where?