British Politics Thread.

[Path Walker]

I don't think you can seriously call Corbyn's beliefs radical, most of the electorate in blind polls on policy would agree with what he says.

2020 will see the Tories with either Gideon Osbourne or Boris Johnson in charge, that will not be popular.

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno.

They came out of last time fairly well because they made the Lib Dems the bad guys - their more vicious policies were seen as the Lib Dems failing, rather than Tory skulduggery.

I think we need Corbyn. There is a rising Lefty sentiment in Britain - and lot of people haven't been voting because the left has had no strong voice to represent that part.

And I wouldn't call Corbyn at all radical. He's a pretty standard Lefty if you ask me - a fairer distribution of the rewards of industry, social mobility. All things I can totally get behind.

The fact the other three candidates are so vehement about him not getting elected is showing the true problem with Labour. They're obsessed with being Diet Tory just so they can regain power, rather than because they believe it's right.

[grimmas]

The thing is the country does need and wants an alternative to the Tories and New Labour isn't it because let's face it the Tories do the same thing but better. We need something different I for one would welcome aparty that set out to look after the working people of Britain and that isn't going to be Middle Class guilt party that labour has become. May be Corbyn is the answer in don't know, he won't be however if he takes Labour back to the 70s

I'd say they need to look back further to their greatest triumph the NHS. If you read the statement they sent out regarding it's inception it's truly inspiring. It's proper by the workers for the workers stuff. I'm not really that left wing in all honesty, very much a right realist when it comes to crime, however only a fool doesn't realise that the country lives or dies by the people who do the work.

[Wolfshade]

Whilst I am not left wing, I find Corbyn to be distancing himself from the pack by actually having policies and ideas about what he wants and why

[Psychosplodge]

See he has some polices that like pw says a lot of people will support. But then other things he says are complete cloud cuckoo land.

The idea that if he dismantled trident the surrounding support skills base could be retained by transferring to other industries for example - well if the demand existed the jobs would already exist wouldn't they?

[Mr Mystery]

Is that not true of all Parties though? Random fringe pleasers to attract that part of the vote, knowing the policy itself would never fly in a Parliament? As long as the vote is held, manifesto has been adhered to.

[Wolfshade]

We need a credible nuclear deterrent, and that is trident, for now.

[Mr Mystery]

I really don't know that we do.

If a Nuclear war does go down, it's not gonna be us that starts it, nor is it gonna be started because of us - we're far, far too wee as a country. Which means the only Nuclear War that is going to happen to Britain is one where a Nuclear Deterrent has failed to deter some lunatic in another country from just pressing the big red button anyway. Nukes or not, stupid Britain, you go squish now.

[Psychosplodge]

I'd rather have them and not need them than the other way round.

Plus it's probably handy to be able to turn most of an average sized country to glass.

[Mr Mystery]

An expensive waste of time in my opinion. I just see no need for them in the modern day - leastways not pootling them about on Submarines. All that does is ensure we get a bit of genocide in before anyone else - which remains an utterly futile thing.

After all, it was us that came up with the idea of camouflaged missile silos in the first place, neatly hidden around so nobody knows where ours are, nor how many we've actually got. So why the Submarines as well? We're never, ever going to fire a Nuke in anger - and if we ever find ourselves in a situation where we would - we're screwed anyway, so what is the point?

[Psychosplodge]

No it ensures we can get ours in after someone gets theirs in, thats the point of the submarines.

[Kirsten]

We're never, ever going to fire a Nuke in anger - and if we ever find ourselves in a situation where we would - we're screwed anyway, so what is the point?

exactly. and there is still no proof whatsoever that nukes are in any way a deterrent

[Mr Mystery]

But why? What's the point of such violent retribution? Is it really worth the billions we spend on it, just on the off chance we can do a bit of reciprocal genocide?

[Psychosplodge]

exactly. and there is still no proof whatsoever that nukes are in any way a deterrent

I think the current trend of no full blown ww3 learns towards it being some deterrent?

[Mr Mystery]

And how many countries without Nukes have been nuked, other than Japan back in 1945?

[Kirsten]

that isn't proof. there are any number of factors involved in the absence of large scale conflicts. nukes haven't stopped all the other wars that have happened since then either.

[Mr Mystery]

There's a reasonable argument they've caused a great many proxy wars - like Russia in Afghanistan (which worked out so very well for everyone involved, and certainly didn't destabilise a region, landing us in the current, extremely expensive mess we're already in.

If anything, having Nukes has enabled some countries to act like bigger phalluses, safe in the knowledge no major world power will do much about it for fear of Armageddon kicking off.

[YorkNecromancer]

What Hiroshima was like from the perspective of an eyewitness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHbF9lG3lE

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 1.4 kilotons - the equivalent of 1,400 tonnes of TNT going off at once. It had a 28 km radius.

The largest bomb produced is 200 megatons. That's 200 million tonnes of TNT going off at once. The US alone has 20,000 nuclear missiles.

The moment the first nuclear missile is launched, humanity becomes extinct. It's genuinely that simple. Those who don't die in the initial blasts will die of radiation poisoning. Those who don't die of radiation poisoning will die of starvation within the first few weeks. Those who've holed up somewhere in a fortress compound with food and the rest will die the slowest deaths of all.

This is, of course, assuming the nuclear firestorm doesn't immediately cause the oxygen in the atmosphere to catch fire, thus burning away the atmosphere completely.

And, of course, assuming the initial blast allows the planet to remain intact.

Because both of those things could happen; no-one knows for sure. But what is absolutely definite is that no-one will survive. No-one.

And anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know enough about the nature of these weapons.

Those who wish to downplay the insane horror of the nuclear weapon would do well to watch this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

[Psychosplodge]

that isn't proof. there are any number of factors involved in the absence of large scale conflicts. nukes haven't stopped all the other wars that have happened since then either.

Its not proof no. But when you consider they're talking about spending £50bn to shave 15-30 mins off a two hour journey to London I don't see it as too much to spend on the possibility of it being a factor/insurance.

true mystery there is that with proxy wars, bt without them how many might have spilled over into bigger conflicts?

- - - Updated - - -



This is, of course, assuming the nuclear firestorm doesn't immediately cause the oxygen in the atmosphere to catch fire, thus burning away the atmosphere completely.

And, of course, assuming the initial blast allows the planet to remain intact.

Because both of those things could happen; no-one knows for sure. But what is absolutely definite is that no-one will survive. No-one.

They thought both those might happen with the detonation of the first one didn't they? and still did it anyway...

[Mr Mystery]

War is War - shifting them down to proxy wars, which have been precious little more than Richard waving and measuring contests at the expense of people who, on the whole, would much rather have just been left alone than become puppets of world powers has shifted the cost onto civilians, and meant the money which would be spent on a single whopping great war is instead frugally distributed to lots of utterly pointless operations the world over.

£50Bn to reduce train times to London is bonkers, yes. But nowhere near as bonkers as the paranoia needed to spend hundreds of billions on something we don't really need, and won't make a blind bit of difference anyway.

[YorkNecromancer]

They thought both those might happen with the detonation of the first one didn't they? and still did it anyway...

Yup.

These f**kers are abjectly terrifying.

[Psychosplodge]

Scientists or nukes? :D

[Mr Mystery]

Both.

[Kirsten]

the paranoia needed to spend hundreds of billions on something we don't really need, and won't make a blind bit of difference anyway.

yup

[CoffeeGrunt]

How would you propose we prove that nukes aren't a deterrent? It's like removing a country's armed forces, it's a vulnerability that can be exploited. Despite what James Bond movies would have us believe, no-one wants to get nuked. Anyone who fires one off has the certainty of retribution hanging over their heads, however futile it may be. It doesn't necessarily follow that every nuke in existence would be fired, as for example the US only has a part of its payload operational at any one time. The aftermath would most definitely kill Mankind if it went full global thermonuclear war.

Sure, it's lovely having the moral high ground if the country gets glassed. I'm sure we'll be remembered fondly as the valiant martyrs who never fired back lest we cause even more damage. That's precisely the mentality of war after all, right? ^_^

[Wolfshade]

The thing is with a lot of these very expensive public spending programmes it isn't really about the end result. Consider the James Webb Telescope, 8.7 Bn $US. Yet, NASA aren't blasting that money into space, in reality, the cost of the materials is a mere fraction of the budget. The costs go into the economy and surely employing people is better than just spending it on aid/social security.

[Morgrim]

The scientist in me wishes to point out several key fallicies noticed in this thread:

1) No nuclear weapon currently in existence, nor reasonably likely to exist at any point in the future, is capable of igniting the atmosphere. This was a query raised before the first test, yes. They were also quite convinced it wouldn't before they went ahead. We are now definitively sure, there is no mechanism to make it work. No, fusion bombs won't either. Even really big ones. Nitrogen is just that good at dampening things.

2) Even if the entire sum of the world's nuclear weapons were detonated in the most carefully calculated locations the planet will survive. Humans are utterly incapable of generating the energies required to break a planet. Even a little one.

3) We can't use nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth. We can cause the equvilient of a reasonably sized asteroid impact, or worse lots of smaller asteroid fragments hitting, but that'll cause a mass extinction at most. The radiation curve from uranium or plutonium fission (or hydrogen fusion) weapons has a very steep curve; it's ferocious in the immediate aftermath but tapers off quickly. The worst of it is out of the area within a few months. That's a pittance on geological timescales. Even if the weapons were carefully layered across land there will be plenty of areas life will survive.

Now, wiping out humans is a lot easier. THAT is possible. Although it'll mostly be knock-on effects from stuff like supply chains being destroyed and key farming regions having their harvests collapse for a decade or so. That said, humans will probably survive; there are a lot of more isolated areas with strong sustenance farming traditions in place like Africa or parts of South East Asia that are sufficiently far from any place interesting to dodge a direct hit, and sufficiently insulated from potential nuclear winter to allow cropping. But blasting surviving humanity back to about Roman levels of technology is quite doable.


I now return you to your previously scheduled politics thread.

[Mr Mystery]

How would you propose we prove that nukes aren't a deterrent? It's like removing a country's armed forces, it's a vulnerability that can be exploited. Despite what James Bond movies would have us believe, no-one wants to get nuked. Anyone who fires one off has the certainty of retribution hanging over their heads, however futile it may be. It doesn't necessarily follow that every nuke in existence would be fired, as for example the US only has a part of its payload operational at any one time. The aftermath would most definitely kill Mankind if it went full global thermonuclear war.

Sure, it's lovely having the moral high ground if the country gets glassed. I'm sure we'll be remembered fondly as the valiant martyrs who never fired back lest we cause even more damage. That's precisely the mentality of war after all, right? ^_^

Yet we'll all be dead, with the off chance of being radiation mutants, so the whole point is moot.

There is no point to Britain maintaining Trident. It's a needless, and ongoing expense.

Wolfie - you act as if the billions upon billions earmarked for Trident can only be spent on Trident. There's plenty other civil projects it could be ploughed into.

[Wolfshade]

What is wrong with ring fenced spending?

[Mr Mystery]

Depends upon the intent.

Ciggie Tax ring fenced for the NHS? All fine with me.

Trident? I'm so far from convinced we even need it, absolutely it's not cool. Not when the Treasury are swinging the scythe at things we, you know, kind of do need. Like Schools, Police, NHS etc.

But no. We need to keep our Big Shiney Penis, don't we. You never know when another country might threaten us with theirs, even when it's pretty clear that we can wave what we've got all we want, and we're still gonna get Tallywhacked.

[Wolfshade]

But the NHS over runs it's ring fencedness doesn't it.

£15Bn is the estimated cost, not a lot really is it, it is equivalent to the ring fenced funds for 2% of the uk road network.

[Mr Mystery]

It's £15bn we simply don't need to spend. It's the continuing costs as well. £15bn now, how much next Parliament, just to keep an imagined bogeyman at bay because we might be able to make a futile gesture should it ever come to it.

It's £15bn of cuts we wouldn't need to make to education.

[CoffeeGrunt]

But Mystery, your argument applies just as much to Trident as it does to our Navy, Air Force or other Armed Forces. We don't need them either. Right now. At this particular moment in history. Not really, not to look after our own borders.

However, the moment we got rid of them, we'd almost definitely need them. What do you think had kept the Falkland Islands British? Military threat and posturing, or asking the Argentine government to please stop using it as a political distraction? Because they don't give a fig about what the vote decided, they already decried it as meaningless.

Even Switzerland, a country that gently side-stepped both World Wars, has a pretty formidable standing army and a landscape they've rigged for defence. That's how they managed to avoid said World Wars. Not diplomatic savvy, but being armoured with too tough a shell for anyone to bother attacking. It's the same reason Eurofighter jets gently escort Russian bombers out of British airspace every time they come wandering through.

A military is an important part of every country's identity if only for the sake of being able to provide a response if things get a bit tense. Switzerland even move plans forward for arming itself with nuclear weapons during the Cold War, because it was a weapon that circumvented all their defenses that they couldn't hope to counter. That's the thing. You can't counter nuclear bombs mounted on ICBMs effectively, other than threatening the same in return. Every missile defense system has proved fallible, and the results of a nuke hitting a population center would be so catastrophic that you can't have that be your only line of defense.

In an ideal world, it wouldn't be necessary. Sadly, such a world is not the one we find ourselves in.

[Mr Mystery]

And why do we fight over the Falklands? Political point scoring.

[Kirsten]

But Mystery, your argument applies just as much to Trident as it does to our Navy, Air Force or other Armed Forces. We don't need them either. Right now. At this particular moment in history. Not really, not to look after our own borders.

it doesn't though. we had this argument last time. a nuclear weapon can only destroy. the armed forces intervene, act as police force, protect, defend... the comparison is false.

as for the science of it, that is a pretty pointless argument. 'oh no, nuclear war wont kill 'all' life, just most of it.' because that is totally fine.

[Alaric]

Id be very curious to see what actual vetrans of ww2 woyld say to getting rid of nukes. Since they actually understand living in war I would take their opinion over anyone elses.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd much rather ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Because, y'know - experience over opinion every time.

[CoffeeGrunt]

it doesn't though. we had this argument last time. a nuclear weapon can only destroy. the armed forces intervene, act as police force, protect, defend... the comparison is false.

as for the science of it, that is a pretty pointless argument. 'oh no, nuclear war wont kill 'all' life, just most of it.' because that is totally fine.

Intervene how, police how, defend how? Our Armed Forces don't intervene or police the populace. They intervene or police in times of massive crisis, or war. They defend a populace with force, often lethal. You don't need an army in peacetime, but every country maintains one. They have tanks, artillery and riflemen, and the funny thing is, all a bullet or bomb can do, is destroy. Yet we maintain these forces because sometimes, we need something destroyed.

We did have this discussion previously, but it went unresolved as such discussions always do. The need for nukes is an eternal Theoretical.


And why do we fight over the Falklands? Political point scoring.

If you want to simplify the issue like that, sure. Or we could point out that one side was an aggressor making an illegitimate claim not backed by the people who lived there. It's easy to wave away the need for military spending if you pretend every issue can be resolved through a quick chat. :)

Argentina invaded. The Falklands would be out of our hands if we didn't have a military to intervene.


Id be very curious to see what actual vetrans of ww2 woyld say to getting rid of nukes. Since they actually understand living in war I would take their opinion over anyone elses.

People picking over the nuclear bombing of Japan 70 years after the fact kinda remind me of anti-vaxxers. They're so far removed from a threat now resigned to history that they simply can't perceive it the way people at the time did, and react to the measures taken against it as pure evil. The Firebombing of Tokyo did far more damage and claimed more lives, in a slower campaign of burning down the wooden buildings with people inside them.

We can go back-and-forth forever on whether the Japanese would have managed to surrender as a nation without the bombs being dropped. There were far too many factors at play to make the issue so black-and-white.

[Alaric]

I'd much rather ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Because, y'know - experience over opinion every time.

Exactly.


Disagree CG, huge difference between vaccinations and war. I see what you mean though. As for me, I believe in the "rather have a nuke than be the only one without one." This is the world we live in sadly.

[Mr Mystery]

But it's utterly futile.

Having Nuclear Weapons does not prevent Nuclear War. There's plenty countries out there without them, and they've never been Nuked.

All Trident represents is a pointless ability to share the apocalypse. As I said earlier, anyone insane enough to trigger Nuclear War is not going to be put off because they might get nuked in return. And we'd still all be dead.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Disagree CG, huge difference between vaccinations and war. I see what you mean though. As for me, I believe in the "rather have a nuke than be the only one without one." This is the world we live in sadly.

Obviously. The point wasn't that nukes are like vaccines, the point was that, like vaccines, we've gotten so used to life with them that we've assumed things would continue on exactly the same without them, and thus start trying to get rid of them because of perceived secondary issues.


Having Nuclear Weapons does not prevent Nuclear War. There's plenty countries out there without them, and they've never been Nuked.

Stopped us being invaded. Eastern Europe and the Middle East? Not so much.


As I said earlier, anyone insane enough to trigger Nuclear War is not going to be put off because they might get nuked in return.

Most people in the world aren't Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains. If someone can do something without threat of reprisal, they're significantly more likely to do it.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes, because the rest of the world will just tut at anyone who uses Nuclear weapons in anger.....

And when were we under threat of invasion exactly?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yes, because the rest of the world will just tut at anyone who uses Nuclear weapons in anger.....

And when were we under threat of invasion exactly?

The Cold War. Referring to the potential invasion of Europe. Are you just ignoring that whole thing?

[Mr Mystery]

Cold War ended some time ago.....so why do we still need Trident, when those who have any beef with the UK at the moment don't actually have Nukes of their own, and no realistic delivery platform for them?

[Psychosplodge]

The same reason you have insurance, just in case.

[grimmas]

Well we could ask the Ukraine how getting rid of their Nuclear weapons has gone?

The thing with Nuclear weapons is they do tend to mean that other countries tend to leave you alone to get on with things when you need to. The UK definitely breached the rules of engagement in the Falkland Islands conflict but no one did antmything about it. Just look at ths sh*t Russia and Isreal get away with and Isreal are only rumoured to have nuclear weapons. Yes there are a whole raft of moral arguments against it but it is a nasty world and sometimes you need to do nasty things to counter it.

Would I be right in thinking that we all agree that Anti-vaxxers are down right daft? Could be a first.

Oh and there's Oil very near to the Falkland Islands probably got something to do with it.

[Mr Mystery]

The same reason you have insurance, just in case.

I have car insurance because it's a legal requirement to drive on Her Maj's highways.

- - - Updated - - -

But yes - Anti-Vaxxers are insane.

[Psychosplodge]

You wouldn't if it wasn't?

Nobody with any sense thinks anti vaxxers are sane.

[Mr Mystery]

Currently paying a relatively piffling £30 a month, and given an insurer fights my corner if some idiot crashes into me, and even better, takes financial responsibility if I turn out to the idiot, on that count? Yes.

But it's a pretty poor comparison.

How many countries don't have Nuclear Weapons. How many of those have been invaded recently?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Cold War ended some time ago.....so why do we still need Trident, when those who have any beef with the UK at the moment don't actually have Nukes of their own, and no realistic delivery platform for them?

I think you might have missed this big country called, "Russia," that has been testing the West by invading parts of Eastern Europe, sending bombers over Western Europe and into our airspace, has more nukes than it can count and so many are unaccounted for. I dunno about you, put Putin isn't the sort of man I would trust to always sue for peace.

- - - Updated - - -


Currently paying a relatively piffling £30 a month, and given an insurer fights my corner if some idiot crashes into me, and even better, takes financial responsibility if I turn out to the idiot, on that count? Yes.

But it's a pretty poor comparison.

How many countries don't have Nuclear Weapons. How many of those have been invaded recently?

Aghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Vietnam, Iraq again, Ukraine, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, The DRC, Somalia, Korea, etc, etc.

You may be noticing a trend that in Cold War terms, these are referred to as Third World Countries. They're neutral countries that had no nuclear armanent and thus were easily invaded by First/Second World countries who did, because it could occur without a counter-invasion or bombardment.

Yet the countries with nuclear armanent were never themselves invaded. Hence the Proxy Wars.

[Kirsten]

I think you might have missed this big country called, "Russia," that has been testing the West by invading parts of Eastern Europe, sending bombers over Western Europe and into our airspace, has more nukes than it can count and so many are unaccounted for. I dunno about you, put Putin isn't the sort of man I would trust to always sue for peace.


Russia aren't testing anything, they are just trying to seem threatening. they don't have the capability to attack, which is why they are trying to annex Ukraine secretly.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Russia aren't testing anything, they are just trying to seem threatening. they don't have the capability to attack, which is why they are trying to annex Ukraine secretly.

The numbers suggest otherwise. (http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia)

They're annexing Ukraine secretly because it's easier to take a country when no-one's stopping you. Putin's not an idiot, but don't underestimate Russia's military strength. That has never gone well, historically.

[Kirsten]

they can't afford it financially, the country can hardly run as it is, any assault they attempted would grind to a halt almost immediately.

[CoffeeGrunt]

they can't afford it financially, the country can hardly run as it is, any assault they attempted would grind to a halt almost immediately.

Primarily because of international sanctions that the US is struggling to keep up with as well. If they keep prices as they are now, it's going to do some pretty long-term damage to the Oil and Gas industry.

Sanctioning a country does one of two things, it makes them repent and start to cooperate, or it makes them see you as an enemy taking things from them and radicalises them against you. Putin's got a very suave propaganda machine working for him, and he's ex-KGB, he knows how to do dirty politics.

[Alaric]

Obviously. The point wasn't that nukes are like vaccines, the point was that, like vaccines, we've gotten so used to life with them that we've assumed things would continue on exactly the same without them, and thus start trying to get rid of them because of perceived secondary issues.



Stopped us being invaded. Eastern Europe and the Middle East? Not so much.



Most people in the world aren't Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains. If someone can do something without threat of reprisal, they're significantly more likely to do it.

I know what you meant, I even said so lol, I just didn't agree on your point is all ;)

I am in total agreement on needing nukes though.

[YorkNecromancer]

Russia is terrifying. (http://io9.com/ukraine-is-just-the-beginning-welcome-to-the-age-of-sh-1691073647)

And as for money, lest we forget, Putin is the richest man on the planet. He just hides his fortunes from those powers that keep track of them. (http://www.hive.co.uk/book/mafia-state-how-one-reporter-became-an-enemy-of-the-brutal-new-russia/12670985/)

Russia is doing what tyrannies have always done. Unlike every other tin-pot tyranny, however, they are very, very clever. They've learned the lessons of the past. Putin was, and remains, a man trained in warfare not by the army but by the KGB. He thinks and acts like a spy. Therefore, of course he's not going to act in the usual manner of a dictator. He's run rings around the West, never giving them the excuses they need to stop him.

He is a highly intelligent and deeply dangerous man. To see how dangerous, look at what happened to Litvinenko: murdered is broad daylight, in public, in the most horrible way imaginable, with a poison so rare it could only be provided by someone with access to nuclear reactors... And there aren't many men on that list. Everyone knows who did it, but Putin denies it, no government on Earth wants to try to prosecute him, and that's the end of it. So what purpose does this horrific assassination have? Litvinenko's death is an object lesson to anyone who would dare move against Putin: 'This man spoke out against me. He raised nothing but his voice and I did this to him. Think what will happen to the person who makes me angry.'

The Western press call Putin 'unpredictable' then imply he's insane, because that's the simplest way to characterise someone who is, essentially, the Hannibal Lecter of world politics. He's not insane; he's just completely unfettered by any remorse, doubt, or need to justify why the world and everything in it should belong to him. His motivation is pure greed, he's not shy about prosecuting his goals, and he's happy to use the political equivalent of Krav Maga to succeed. The man is the walking definition of 'by any means necessary'.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Just because it isn't happening here... (https://www.facebook.com/EducateInspireChange.org/videos/857711124316166/)

[Denzark]

Well, the Refugee thing is interesting. In the sense of the old Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times'...

[CoffeeGrunt]

The image of the drowned Syrian toddler is going viral, but the backlash from the right-wing genuinely depresses me. Either the majority of the people in the Independent's comment section are sociopaths, or we have a pretty massive lack of basic humanity in our culture. :(

[Wildeybeast]

Yes, not really sure what we do about it. Whilst we could be doing more to help look after refugees, Cameron is right in saying that doing so does nothing to stop the problem at the root cause. Though short of re-colonising most of North Africa and the Middle East, I don't know what we could to stop the problem.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I dunno, maybe we could stop invading the Middle East to start, that might help. ISIS are effectively a direct result of our crappy handling of Iraq. Keeping everyone together in one, massive PoW camp then just releasing them was idiotic, because then everyone's been coordinating and sharing info while they were held there. Once they were released, they were well-enough trained to take over the country after that. Syria's destabilisation didn't help either. We're all for making a half-hearted effort to take down Assad, but without proper handling that's just another power vacuum waiting to happen. Same with the rest of the Arab Spring. Wasn't that great? Just report on some Twitter videos that the entire region is undergoing revolution, but make no efforts to help with the transition and rebuilding of it all.

On top of that, Europe needs a coordinated strategy for this sort of thing. Zones migrants can be held at and looked after while their asylum is processed, with the basic necessities for survival. We need to work out just how many refugees each country can handle, and what share of the influx each country should take on. Organised transport, areas organised for housing, and help integrating them into their new societies.

But the Right Wing wouldn't want us to do that, it's all about Austerity, Austerity, Austerity. Except for Mr Cameron apparently relaxing efforts to get tax havens to help (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/uk-seems-relax-pressure-cayman-islands-company-register) with dealing with that deficit of tens of billions of pounds (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap2014Full.pdf).

No no, far easier to harass the comparatively miniscule £25 million or so (http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/the-cost-of-benefit-fraud) from Benefit Fraud/Cheating. The cost of immigration is harder to nail down as it primarily comes from illegal immigration, but even the Daily Mail quotes it as £3.7billion. Hefty, but not even close to how much a little effort against tax evasion would achieve.

Additionally, a fair amount of the cost of illegal immigration is mounting up massive border patrols and arresting people for deportation, which is pretty much what people are demanding yet more of. Oh well.

There's no easy solution or simple answer, but I dunno, the safest one seems to be the one that involves less desperate people washing up on European shores as corpses. Kids or adults, the fact such an event like this is happening en masse is terrible. Do we need corpses washing ashore at Margate before the UK takes note of the problem?

[Psychosplodge]

We simply don't have the infrastructure available. We already have an estimated 2 million needing homes. (http://www.independent.co.uk/money/two-million-cant-afford-to-move-out-of-their-parents-home-9635518.html)

[CoffeeGrunt]

We simply don't have the infrastructure available. We already have an estimated 2 million needing homes. (http://www.independent.co.uk/money/two-million-cant-afford-to-move-out-of-their-parents-home-9635518.html)

That's an issue of house prices, not lack of availability. As someone stuck living with their parents for that exact reason, the cost of living is too damn high to make it worth getting your own place. That said, my parents need my rent money to keep their own home, so everything's just f'd up right now.

The government's too focused with helping buyers, who are obviously going to be older, more affluent people, than the younger people out there. People who want to just rent don't get much in the way of help, at least, not as far as my research has found. Not when I could spend my entire wage and end up with a grotty one-bedroom flat in a crap part of town.

It'd help if they built more houses again, but after the housing crash a few years back they're reluctant to. That article recommends getting a mortgage with your partner or friends, which is fantastic if you have a partner and are certain your relationship is at That Level. Also sharing rent with friends is a quick way to have that friendship erode, which is something I've seen happen a couple of times. :/

[Psychosplodge]

Its a case of supply and demand. The houses are out of reach because there isn't enough of the damn things.
It takes a month for a non emergency appoint at my doctors. Upto 3 for the dentist.
The infrastructure is already strained.

I rented with friends. We weren't friends six months in to a 12 month fixed term. It was hell :(
and that was for a massively overpriced **** hole.

[eldargal]

We simply don't have the infrastructure available. We already have an estimated 2 million needing homes. (http://www.independent.co.uk/money/two-million-cant-afford-to-move-out-of-their-parents-home-9635518.html)

Technically they have homes, they just don't own them. There is, what, 600,000k refugees in Europe or heading to Europe right now? We could put those up in temporary housing and whatnot while we try and spread them out in more permanent accomdation across Europe/the world.

The reason this is happening now is because the camps in countries neighboring Syria hit capacity a long time ago and started running out of resources. We were told, we did nothing meaningful to help. If we had a coordinated effort to help Syria's neighbours then we wouldn't be in this mess now.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, we can either take in refugees from a situation we're largely responsible for.

Or we can drop the pretence we're anything like a civilised land.

[CoffeeGrunt]

We haven't dealt with the problem until it was long past being feasible to deal with it, yeah.


Its a case of supply and demand. The houses are out of reach because there isn't enough of the damn things.
It takes a month for a non emergency appoint at my doctors. Upto 3 for the dentist.
The infrastructure is already strained.

I rented with friends. We weren't friends six months in to a 12 month fixed term. It was hell :(
and that was for a massively overpriced **** hole.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg scenario. There's a tonne of demand but supply is being held back because said demand isn't rich enough. Not to mention budget cuts and a generally austere economy making things that bit more tight for people.

Still, many of those things are First World Problems. We can't afford our own homes, but we can afford comfortable homes with our comparatively small families. Our free healthcare takes a while, but it's free, and it's pretty competent most of the time.

It's so much more than any of the people camped out at Calais have ever had. Many of them would be happy with a simple roof over their head that isn't going to be shelled, some basic hygiene and food. Comparatively speaking, giving them a home somewhere with all that would be pretty cheap. No plasma TV or anything, but do they really need that?

Then we try and find work for them, help them integrate into the community. The problem is trying to avoid establishing ghettos where they stay forever poor compared to the world around them. There's no easy or correct answer, but we could be doing a lot more than we are now. We're not even trying to answer the problem...

[Psychosplodge]

No. The people at calias are in a safe country. there is zero reason for them to cross to the UK. If we take anyone they should come from the camps in turkey, because while turkey is technically safe, I think the bits the camps are in are bits we're advised not to visit?

[CoffeeGrunt]

No. The people at calias are in a safe country. there is zero reason for them to cross to the UK. If we take anyone they should come from the camps in turkey, because while turkey is technically safe, I think the bits the camps are in are bits we're advised not to visit?

There's actually a lot that's been revealed in interviews:

- They speak English, and thus want to come here,
- They have family/friends here who would help them integrate,
- The French have basically kept them in a homeless camp, and are dealing with higher numbers of immigrants than we are. The English Channel is really handy for helping us enforce our border,
- At the highest estimates there's about 3000 people in Calais. They're clearly not going anywhere, and that's a pretty small number for Britain to take on,
- And we can't exactly send them back home...

[Filthy Casual]

It's a safe country that's already taken in far more refugees than we have and it's time we stepped up and stopped with this ridiculous island mentality. We can either do that or we close our borders and sit back and watch as more and more people die fleeing a war we helped create.

Borders aren't a real thing, they're a totally societal construct, the whole idea of immigration and the right to reside in a particular country is a very new concept for humans, before then, people could move where they wanted, because you know, we all have as much right as anyone else to live in a particular place.

[Haighus]

We managed to run refugee camps effectively during WWII, when the country was on the verge of collapse, I'm sure the country is easily capable of affording it now- CG is right, they shouldn't cost much to run- they don't need luxury, just security and basic human rights.

Hmm, I would agree on the face of it Psychosplodge, but if we take the people from Calais, then more will be able to move into France through Europe. Logistically speaking, it would make sense to move everyone along one step than move people in all the way from Turkey. Also, Turkey isn't safe really- it was in the middle of a long-going civil war insurgency before IS started- the safe areas are the tourist traps in the West of the country. The reason Turkey has been so reticent to take sides in the conflict is because of the civil war- if they support the Kurds in Syria and Iraq then they indirectly support their own Kurdish rebels.

[eldargal]

France treats its migrants like **** and it has levels of islamophobia that make our problems with it look tame. If I were a Muslim migrant (or even a migrant with brown skin who could be mistaken for a Muslim migrant) I wouldn't want to live there.

[Psychosplodge]

It doesn't matter, it's safer than a warzone. How many safe countries must one have passed through to reach calais? to me that smacks of economic migration not refugees.

We should help organise the camps in turkey more. and take people from there.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I just feel that saying we're having it a bit tough so we can't help at all is a bit bullsh*t, really. Is it really that hard? For us, tightening our belts means not getting that new Curved LED screen for a while and having to slum it on the bus because the car's broken down. Might have to start buying Tesco Value food as well.

You telling me we can't provide basic food for migrants, when apparently we were providing school meals for 17p each a few years. Triple that to 50p each for inflation then triple it again for your three steady meals a day. The cost of feeding these 3000 people then translates to, what, £4,500 a day, at least until we start helping them get into work in order to cover it themselves? Add on basic housing and other amenities, and it still ends up being pretty cheap in the grand scheme of the government budget.

- - - Updated - - -


It doesn't matter, it's safer than a warzone. How many safe countries must one have passed through to reach calais? to me that smacks of economic migration not refugees.

We should help organise the camps in turkey more. and take people from there.

How many countries with the pass-them-on-we're-full mindset Britain has?

[Haighus]

Not to mention that they could easily be fed on the food that gets thrown away by this countries supermarkets every day because it hasn't been sold to customers.

If we could support refugees from across Europe when the entire country was on rations, we can do it now for sure.

[Psychosplodge]

How many countries with the pass-them-on-we're-full mindset Britain has?

That doesn't even make sense. I'm not saying we shouldn't take anyone at all, but I don't think its appropriate to take those at calais.

I don't understand how Germany seriously expects to take in 1% of its population in a year.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That doesn't even make sense. I'm not saying we shouldn't take anyone at all, but I don't think its appropriate to take those at calais.

How does it not make sense to help the people literally sitting at our doorstep?

[Psychosplodge]

Why would we help people who've made it to france?

[Filthy Casual]

Why would we help people who've made it to france?

to stop France becoming overburdened and to do our part to help these people?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Why would we help people who've made it to france?

Because the French have pushed them out to the edge of their society and refused to integrate them?

[Filthy Casual]

Never mind the fact that we're spending more keeping them out than it would take to let them in and give them the aid they need.

[Haighus]

We also had a big role to play in the reason they are trying to get in in the first place.

[Psychosplodge]

to stop France becoming overburdened and to do our part to help these people?

France has at least twice the land area we have. And if house programs on TV are anything to go by no issues with housing like here.


Because the French have pushed them out to the edge of their society and refused to integrate them?

And the answer to this is for us to pick up after france?




We also had a big role to play in the reason they are trying to get in in the first place.



That would depend more on where the individual is from.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we all agree theres a responsibility to help, I think we're probably never going to reach consensus on how to actually do that.

[Filthy Casual]

We have tons of empty houses, more than enough to home these people, housing isn't a problem. This is just an exercise in finding excuses to ignore people in need. We had an opportunity to show how great we can be as a country and show compassion to those who wanted to come here to avoid a war (that we had a hand in starting through our actions) and we instead decided to label the refugees as migrants, a wave, a swarm, like they were locusts come to devour everything we had, not people in need of shelter and food.

The same people who decry our nations lost "Christian values" encouraged us to turn away from people needing shelter.

[CoffeeGrunt]

France has at least twice the land area we have. And if house programs on TV are anything to go by no issues with housing like here.

Yeah, you probably shouldn't use A Place In The Sun as research for a country's housing economy...

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, you probably shouldn't use A Place In The Sun as research for a country's housing economy...

lols.

[Alaric]

We have tons of empty houses, more than enough to home these people, housing isn't a problem. This is just an exercise in finding excuses to ignore people in need. We had an opportunity to show how great we can be as a country and show compassion to those who wanted to come here to avoid a war (that we had a hand in starting through our actions) and we instead decided to label the refugees as migrants, a wave, a swarm, like they were locusts come to devour everything we had, not people in need of shelter and food.

The same people who decry our nations lost "Christian values" encouraged us to turn away from people needing shelter.

Out of curiosity, lets say you take in all these refugees and help em out and put them in these empty houses....then what? What will these people do now? Are there enuff jobs to support all these migrants? Its nice to wanna help your fellow man and all that but what happens in 6 months when they get stir crazy? Are your tax dollars gonna pay for them to just sit?

Interesting conversation to read for someone far removed from this situation.

[Haighus]

Well, past influxes of migrants and refugees generally just became part of the nation to my knowledge- got jobs, intermarried, settled down. Some of them went back when whatever they were hiding from stopped being an issue, but I think the majority of the refugees staying here in WWII stayed afterwards too.

[40kGamer]

Out of curiosity, lets say you take in all these refugees and help em out and put them in these empty houses....then what? What will these people do now? Are there enuff jobs to support all these migrants? Its nice to wanna help your fellow man and all that but what happens in 6 months when they get stir crazy? Are your tax dollars gonna pay for them to just sit?

Interesting conversation to read for someone far removed from this situation.

This is the problem with modern welfare and social safety net programs. We all need purpose in life and the way the government 'helps' people strips them of this. I am 100% for helping people at home and abroad but this help has to be more than a handout, it needs to be meaningful.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Well, our unemployment rate's been doing well these last few years (https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:uk:fr&hl=en&dl=en), due to various schemes. Again, it's a question of what's acceptable in people's eyes. Under our current system, these guys wouldn't be entitled to benefits for a while, so we'd have to provide some form of labour for them. That'd be a complicated thing at an individual level. Some people might already have contacts that could put them up, and thus the state wouldn't really have to bother. Others might be completely unprepared for working in Britain.

- - - Updated - - -


This is the problem with modern welfare and social safety net programs. We all need purpose in life and the way the government 'helps' people strips them of this. I am 100% for helping people at home and abroad but this help has to be more than a handout, it needs to be meaningful.

The American definition if welfare is very different from our more European Socialist understanding of it. :P

Basically, our current Jobseeker's system has people do work in order to earn their wage. This is normally stuff like working at a local Pound store, an equivalent to a dollar store, or things like that. On top of that, you get help writing a CV and are expected to send out applications for a certain number of jobs each week.

Some people do the bare minimum, take the handout and pray they never actually have to work. For most it's an interim thing between jobs. The difference is motivation, and let's be honest, the guys who have travelled across the Middle East and Europe to get here probably aren't lacking in motivation to build themselves a better life.

[Alaric]

Well, past influxes of migrants and refugees generally just became part of the nation to my knowledge- got jobs, intermarried, settled down. Some of them went back when whatever they were hiding from stopped being an issue, but I think the majority of the refugees staying here in WWII stayed afterwards too.

So, my next question would be: do you have enuff jobs to support the influx? Isn't your country on the recession ropes as well? (sheer ignorance on your economy, truly no idea where you stand, all I know is our dollar SUCKS vs. gbp right now) If it isn't then hell yeah, if you can take em in do so, but if you cant it seems your just hoopin yourself for the future..

[CoffeeGrunt]

So, my next question would be: do you have enuff jobs to support the influx? Isn't your country on the recession ropes as well? (sheer ignorance on your economy, truly no idea where you stand, all I know is our dollar SUCKS vs. gbp right now) If it isn't then hell yeah, if you can take em in do so, but if you cant it seems your just hoopin yourself for the future..

Culturally, we've always benefitted from previous waves of immigration. Americans coming over during the War loosened up a pretty stiff culture. Indians and Pakistani people brought delicious food, as did Asian cultures. Chinese, Indian, Greek and Turkish food is considered to be proppa' pub food right next to the humble Chippy.

I dunno, I'd personally rather integrate a new segment into our society to see what they can bring to it, rather than clamp down because of a fear of change. Britain's culture is all about waves of immigrants evolving the social landscape. It started with the Beaker Folk or most likely, even earlier cultures, it continued with the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and so many more. Each time we've evolved and gained something.

[Kirsten]

So, my next question would be: do you have enuff jobs to support the influx? Isn't your country on the recession ropes as well? (sheer ignorance on your economy, truly no idea where you stand, all I know is our dollar SUCKS vs. gbp right now) If it isn't then hell yeah, if you can take em in do so, but if you cant it seems your just hoopin yourself for the future..

Britain would manage. and regardless of how tough it might be, it is an utter disgrace to sit back and do nothing when people are dying in droves. job concerns for a few thousand refugees is utterly petty and ludicrous compared to people drowning by the thousand and being treated like criminals.

[Filthy Casual]

All studies show that migration has a net benefit for the country, its always better to welcome people in.

Welfare systems also have a net benefit, although our more right wing papers try and paint claimants as feckless and workshy, most are short term claims between jobs and the fraud rate is under 2% (more than we can say for taxes, where avoidance and evasion cost at least 100 billion), the disabled or those unable to work are looked after. This is being cut by the ruling conservative party, under the banner of austerity to reduce a deficit but really an ideological move by wealthy men who'd rather we had a more american style system.

This type of welfare system contributes in that the next generation have more chance of social mobility and actually being contributing, tax paying members of society, and thus less likely to resort to crime, cutting those costs too. The american system, as far as I can make out, seems to be "give them as little as possible in the hope they die out and aren't a problem any more", right?

[Mr Mystery]

Britain would manage. and regardless of how tough it might be, it is an utter disgrace to sit back and do nothing when people are dying in droves. job concerns for a few thousand refugees is utterly petty and ludicrous compared to people drowning by the thousand and being treated like criminals.

This.

100% this.

Whilst America tosses itself off over a bellend with ridiculous hairdo claiming he'll build a wall to keep 'em out, and make another country pay for it....let's crack on and remind them how a civilised society responds to the plight of the vulnerable and the lost.

[Filthy Casual]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door

[Alaric]

All studies show that migration has a net benefit for the country, its always better to welcome people in.

Welfare systems also have a net benefit, although our more right wing papers try and paint claimants as feckless and workshy, most are short term claims between jobs and the fraud rate is under 2% (more than we can say for taxes, where avoidance and evasion cost at least 100 billion), the disabled or those unable to work are looked after. This is being cut by the ruling conservative party, under the banner of austerity to reduce a deficit but really an ideological move by wealthy men who'd rather we had a more american style system.

This type of welfare system contributes in that the next generation have more chance of social mobility and actually being contributing, tax paying members of society, and thus less likely to resort to crime, cutting those costs too. The american system, as far as I can make out, seems to be "give them as little as possible in the hope they die out and aren't a problem any more", right?

ouch, truth hurts lol

fwiw I hope the problem is resolved without detriment to the countries helping. I wish the middle east could get its sh*t together, oldest cultures in the world and they just fight fight fight.

[Haighus]

Yeah, we are a country who's culture is essentially built on migrant waves- hell, our history is even taught in such terms: we learn about the Romans, Angle-Saxons, Vikings and Normans, simply because they are all large waves of migration that have heavily influenced our culture. Ironically, it seems to be the successful defenses of the nations soil that don't get taught about, except WWII with the Battle of Britain, but I think that is only because it is recent. Without immigration, English as a language would have genders for objects like tables. For that alone, migration is good in my book, and we've gained far more as a nation than that from it.

[40kGamer]

The American definition if welfare is very different from our more European Socialist understanding of it. :P

Basically, our current Jobseeker's system has people do work in order to earn their wage. This is normally stuff like working at a local Pound store, an equivalent to a dollar store, or things like that. On top of that, you get help writing a CV and are expected to send out applications for a certain number of jobs each week.

Some people do the bare minimum, take the handout and pray they never actually have to work. For most it's an interim thing between jobs. The difference is motivation, and let's be honest, the guys who have travelled across the Middle East and Europe to get here probably aren't lacking in motivation to build themselves a better life.

Interesting... your system sounds far better than ours. The US is so resistant to Socialist systems that it has created a weird semi-capitalist environment that punishes the poor. Although it seems the wealthy still run rampant in every system.

- - - Updated - - -


Culturally, we've always benefitted from previous waves of immigration. Americans coming over during the War loosened up a pretty stiff culture. Indians and Pakistani people brought delicious food, as did Asian cultures. Chinese, Indian, Greek and Turkish food is considered to be proppa' pub food right next to the humble Chippy.

I dunno, I'd personally rather integrate a new segment into our society to see what they can bring to it, rather than clamp down because of a fear of change. Britain's culture is all about waves of immigrants evolving the social landscape. It started with the Beaker Folk or most likely, even earlier cultures, it continued with the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and so many more. Each time we've evolved and gained something.

I take care of hundreds of people through my business and some of the most successful and industrious are immigrants. I agree that there are a lot of benefits to sharing cultures.

- - - Updated - - -


This type of welfare system contributes in that the next generation have more chance of social mobility and actually being contributing, tax paying members of society, and thus less likely to resort to crime, cutting those costs too. The american system, as far as I can make out, seems to be "give them as little as possible in the hope they die out and aren't a problem any more", right?

The American system is a disgrace. It strips people of their dignity and purpose and hopes to shuffle them off to a corner to be ignored. This is on top of the insane desire the country has to lock everyone poor in prison to die. The Land of the Free can be a cruel place if you lack wealth.

- - - Updated - - -


Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door

My history is a bit rusty... was it the French that added this to the statue of Liberty or was it carved after it arrived in the states?

Either way it doesn't represent the way the country behaves at the present.

[CoffeeGrunt]

America's a great demonstration that building a Giant F*cking Fence with a small army defending it doesn't do anything to actually stop immigrants getting through, actually. These people are desperate as all-hell to get somewhere better.

[Alaric]

America's a great demonstration that building a Giant F*cking Fence with a small army defending it doesn't do anything to actually stop immigrants getting through, actually. These people are desperate as all-hell to get somewhere better.

If I lived in mexico best believe Id wanna get the hell outta there as well. Scary place, I know there are good spots but I wouldn't wanna risk it.

[Al Shut]

America's a great demonstration that building a Giant F*cking Fence with a small army defending it doesn't do anything to actually stop immigrants getting through

I don't know about that. I can't prove it but I assume the numbers would be even higher with less of a fence.

[Filthy Casual]

My history is a bit rusty... was it the French that added this to the statue of Liberty or was it carved after it arrived in the states?

Either way it doesn't represent the way the country behaves at the present.

That was by an American poet after it had arrived, strange to see how much the USA moves away from some founding principles whilst clinging so vehemently to other, less important ones

[Kirsten]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4tWt41ujM

[CoffeeGrunt]

I don't know about that. I can't prove it but I assume the numbers would be even higher with less of a fence.

Your assumption is irrelevant if you admit you can't prove it.


That was by an American poet after it had arrived, strange to see how much the USA moves away from some founding principles whilst clinging so vehemently to other, less important ones

All Men Are Created Equal sorta died out and got replaced with Muh Gunz!

[Wolfshade]

Going back a few posts, sorry, what France could do, is issue all the refuges/asyslum seekers an EU passport and thanks to the open border policies they can enter the UK without any legal barrier.

[Haighus]

Going back a few posts, sorry, what France could do, is issue all the refuges/asyslum seekers an EU passport and thanks to the open border policies they can enter the UK without any legal barrier.
They could indeed, but then they would be able to settle properly in France too, and I suspect France doesn't want that.

[Wolfshade]

Yes, but if they are wanting to cross the the uk then I imagine they want to be there not in france, since if they wanted to be in france they could have just claimed asylum there.

On a side note it is a curious thing that there is a common border policy within the EU, but the criteria for asylum is not the same so these displaced people end up heading to countries with a more relaxed policy.

[Alaric]

Going back a few posts, sorry, what France could do, is issue all the refuges/asyslum seekers an EU passport and thanks to the open border policies they can enter the UK without any legal barrier.

To continue on being "that guy" i dont think this would be the best as you could end up giving passports to people who shouldn't have them, not everyone seeking asylum can be trusted...

[Denzark]

A couple of things to note. Firstly, it is either EU/UN policy (not sure which, or what nomenclature is correct) that refugees/asylum seekers are supposed to claim asylum in the first place they are safe.

Now, whilst the idea of living in France is foul to me, I must concede that the risk to life present in Syria, is absent in France/Italy/Greece etc. If they are in a EU country where their life is not at risk, that is where asylum should be claimed.

The truly needy are going on foot to refugee camps on the borders of wartorn Libya/Syria. The upper middle class there are the ones who can afford the several thousands of US dollars to pay a people smuggler to get to Europe. I find it hard to class these as refugees as opposed to Economic Migrants - because they are not stopping at the first country where their lives are no longer at risk, to claim asylum there. These people want to get to Germany or UK because of the financial benefits, not because their lives are in danger in Italy or Greece.

I also wanted to point out it is disingenuous to say the situation is of our making. If you are saying for example Libya is our fault for intervening, consider the only way to fix not the symptoms of Syria but the cause is to intervene. Which our democratic parliament chose not to do after tory rebels sided with weak Miliband.

Islam has 7 pillars, one of which is Charity. So, if Western intervention in the Middle East is bad, why don't hugely oil rich arab nations follow their religion, pay to fix the humanitarian crisis of their co-religionists and then consider internal military action against Daesh/Assad thus fixing the cause of the refugees without Western intervention?


PS it is hugely hypocritical to worry about pictures of dead children when they happen to wash up on European shores, because they have been dying in thousands for years in Syria now - where Miliband and tory rebels voted against intervening.

[Wolfshade]

Well that is my issue with the french camps, 'zark.

They are either asylum seekers who meet the criteria if so france should be granting them asylum. If they fail to meet that criteria then they should be removed as per each countries own guidelines.

But the french position is very simple, these people don't want to stay in france so why waste french tax payers money removing them or dealing with them.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That's kinda flawed logic, though. Some people probably aim for the UK and Germany because they're much less likely to get thrown back out in those places, or at least that's what the word on the grapevine is. Not to mention they might just get passed along until they reach one of those two, as we're seeing recently.

The other thing is that the whole movement is pretty disjointed, judging by interviews with refugees. They come from all over, the price varies depending on how you travel as well as demand, and it's simply impossible to place an accurate estimate of how wealthy these people are. Even if you did, it'd be a generalisation. Some people report it taking years for them to travel, others weeks.

Besides, surely it's more efficient to filter them out once they're here?

- - - Updated - - -

Also we could play the not-our-problem game with the other nations of the world forever, and the only progress would be the death toll. Whose problem it is can be sorted after you help the people. Get them safe, then start working out who owes who money.

[Denzark]

It just ain't that simple and the conditions of EU/international law granting asylum status, must be applied equally across nations. I don't buy that it is more likely that someone gets thrown out of Italy.

If we retain criminals in the UK because they successfully argue that returning them to their country runs the risk of them being killed, thus breaching their Article 2 right to life, that equally applies across the EU.

If you are saying EU countries are ignoring aspects of EU Human rights law pertaining to a crucial aspect, then you are saying the EU is fatally flawed because countries pick and choose what suits.

[Wolfshade]

It is true that different countries have different asylum laws, as they are defined at the "local" level rather than the UN level. So while all must adhere to the basic tenents of the article 2, how far one goes on that varies.

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/europe/asylum_eu_easy_or_not-45251

[Denzark]

Even if our 'fellow members' may have harsher criteria, that doesn't place a moral obligation on us to pick up their slack. People are truly in danger of death in Syria/Libya. They are not in any nation state in Europe. You just don't get the choice to keep travelling through non-wartorn countries and just happen to choose the one with the blingest benefit conditions to claim asylum - even if other family members have settled there.


I have absolutely no problem with the idea of activity to crush Daesh and render these homelands peaceful. But to treat symptoms and not cause is barking when we have (according to austerity opponents) increasing (child) poverty and an affordable housing crisis. If we were putting up the 'refugees' in tents, giving them rice, clean water and basic medicines FULL STOP that is one thing - but sure as shizzle they would not be coming here if that was the package on tap.

[Wolfshade]

No, nor should it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, because rolling in and bombing the bad guys away worked so well in Iraq...

[Denzark]

This is the problem CG.

The rolling in and bombing the bad guys worked very well - epically well in fact.

It was the nation building piece afterwards that went to shizzle.

I am quite sensitive about the distinction as my work requires me to do the first, but the latter is the responsibility of DFID/FCO - the people who get 0.7% of UK GDP to do foreign aid stuff.

Either way, to leave the root cause of the exodus in place seems counter intuitive to me.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Either way, to leave the root cause of the exodus in place seems counter intuitive to me.

The situation's too complex to really just throw bombs at, though. Not to mention that Western Interference is only going to rile up the more extremist elements and make their recruitment that much easier. Not only that, but how long before the replacement government collapses to something like ISIS, and how long will said war drag on with how many civilian casualties? If we move in, do we take on refugees as consequence for our actions, or tell them to wait at our borders until we finish shooting all the Bad Guys?

[Mr Mystery]

What needs to happen is an Arab League lead fight back.

ISIS, or whatever you want to call them are growing, but they're nowhere near numerous or well armed enough to fight a full on war.

And it needs to be lead by the Arab League to prevent something even worse replacing them in the power vacuum.

It may not seem it, but ISIS represent a golden opportunity for the West and the Middle East to work together and produce a more stable future.

[Denzark]

Sort of my point at #1110 above MM...

[CoffeeGrunt]

I fully agree. In the long term and at a large scale, the Middle East and Africa need to be cooperated over for the betterment of everyone. It'll be a hell of an undertaking to do so, but if we make these countries safe places to live and prosper, then we won't have this refugee influx.

But it's too late for prevention, the consequences of us hand-wringing and waving it away as someone else's problem are here, and have been coming across for a while now. In the long term, yes it'd be better for everyone if we stabilise these volatile regions, but ultimately we need a short-term and expedient solution to this refugee crisis. They, need a quick solution to their plight.

Whether we take them on and look after them until they can be deported to a safe home, or whether we take them in and integrate them, we need to do what needs to be done to make these people safe and healthy. That matter, of saving lives, should come first and foremost. Then afterwards we can consider the political and financial ramifications, and work out a plan to get them back home.

[Mr Mystery]

More importantly, when helping to stabilise the regions, it needs to be done for their benefit, not our own.

Would make a pleasant change to the West's typical approach.

[Deadlift]

More importantly, when helping to stabilise the regions, it needs to be done for their benefit, not our own.

Would make a pleasant change to the West's typical approach.

Western countries are at least doing something, I find it odd that the other Islamic countries in the region aren't offering aid to the Syrian refugees at all. What abou Russia or China ? Nothing ? Before people decry western countries for lack of action. Think of the non existent aid coming from elsewhere.

[Wolfshade]

The situation's too complex to really just throw bombs at, though. Not to mention that Western Interference is only going to rile up the more extremist elements and make their recruitment that much easier. Not only that, but how long before the replacement government collapses to something like ISIS, and how long will said war drag on with how many civilian casualties? If we move in, do we take on refugees as consequence for our actions, or tell them to wait at our borders until we finish shooting all the Bad Guys?

Really depends what you want the outcome to be.

Consider the cities in the late 1800's, the problem was people were dying as a result of living in slum conditions.

Most cities response was to clear the slums, that resolved the issue of people dying in them as a contemporary of the time quipped (IIRC) “Where there's no person living no person can die.”

So we must be very clear on the outcomes that we actually want, since crudely turning the region into glass will resolve the crisis. Though I doubt any one would be an advocate for that "solution".

Let us not forget Syria wasn't terrible before the arab spring, it is the response to an attempted coup. Most of us would expect our governments to put down a rebellion one way or another.

Maybe they just need to hug it out...

[Mr Mystery]

Well, that escalated quickly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475).

Full picture is of course not known yet, so lefty liberal as I am, I'm reserving judgement until we can tell if the evidence of their planning attacks within the UK is actual evidence, or WMD type evidence.

But a significant, and potentially terrifying step has been taken.

[Psychosplodge]

Did it?
If I'd found out they didn't kill them when they had the option I'd be questioning why not.

[Mr Mystery]

And there's the rub.

If you know someone is not just planning, but genuinely capable of a terrorist attack and do nothing - you're incompetent.

If you rub them out - you're a murdering tryant.

And hey - there so far seems no attempt at pretending they weren't specifically targeted. Being modern Government I'm fairly confident there's spin there somewhere - but to say 'yes we did, and we told you why' is something of an improvement to poncing around the issue neither confirming nor denying.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm genuinely surprised at the reaction of the labour politicians considering their recent history.

[Mr Mystery]

It is the job of the official opposition to finger point though.

I'm really torn on this one. I'm kind of worried Britain has suddenly jumped to authorising execution of her subjects in foreign countries. But at the same time, my normal rational approach, and generally trusting nature is confident this won't have been done on a whim, and there has likely been solid evidence.

For those catching up via this thread - this isn't a case of 'shouldn't be in that area if you don't want Droned' - these were specifically targeted attacks on UK Citizens by their Government.

I'm not losing any sleep over their demise - and I hope the same happens to the rest of ISIL or whatever they're calling themselves today - but this is still a big, big step taken by Her Maj's Government.

[Psychosplodge]

You could argue going off to join whatever acronym they're using this week is pretty effectively giving up your citizenship? Considering it's general attitude to the western world.

[Mr Mystery]

There is that.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Indeed, there's a solid line between authorising drone strikes on overseas British citizens who dissent against the government here, and those who join a militant organisation who are very open about their intentions and have already committed attacks on British citizens abroad to prove it.

To be fair to Mr Cameron, or any person in that position, you have to choose between being accused of being a murdering tyrant, or being accused of being an incompetent failure to defend your nation. The problem comes from the fact that we'd only know if these people were genuinely willing and able to commit terror attacks when we either caught them red-handed or they did the act, both of which are a bit too late and would result in scandal even if there were no casualties.

So, the only way to guarantee avoiding such a threat is to kill them when you have the chance. Who knows if they've been tracking these guys or have infiltrated ISIS to track them? They can't reveal sources or proof because that would compromise the ability to find further threats, which may then be delivered.

It's a scary evolution, but drone strikes are highly regulated in the RAF, and they don't happen to be used on specific targets like this without firm authorisation. I've got plenty of issues with how Mr Cameron runs things, but I think he made the right call here.

[Morgrim]

The logic being used by aussie politicians here is that if you join Daesh, you've joined a group that 1) calls themselves a state and 2) has declared war on australia, so you've automatically gotten yourself a treason charge. There is, I suppose, some logic in that.

[Alaric]

[QUOTE=Mr Mystery;512302][url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk

Glad to see your country is still doin the hard to do jobs.

[Haighus]

Yeah, I agree with CG on this one. Based on current evidence released to the public, it seems justified.

[Haighus]

What do people think about the whole '7-day NHS' concept that keeps occasionally being mentioned by the Government? (Yet to have any kind of plan though).

[Psychosplodge]

If they've only got the same amount of doctors and they're not currently struggling to access equipment all I can see it doing is pissing doctors off. If people are having to wait for access, not because of doctor numbers it kinda makes sense. Either way emergency care has always been available 24/7 so I'm not really sure what difference it'll make to the vast majority.

[Haighus]

Yeah, and there is also junior doctor, nursing and care assistant staff on over the weekend, with senior doctors available as an on call service for Hospitals. GPs do close entirely at weekends.

At the moment, they haven't laid out any plans, and other policies (like the current 'renegotiation' of the junior doctor contract) are all leaning towards reducing doctor numbers by forcing them abroad.

Not to mention that the 'weekend effect' is probably not worth such an expenditure in resources such a plan would entail. Personally I think the money would be much better spent elsewhere, it just seems a stupid idea in the first place. If the same money went into heart disease, obesity and diabetes, it would be far more cost-effective imo.

[Psychosplodge]

The other problem with I see with it is the people that have all the time in the world to go will still want the time slots meant for the people working the traditional working week (because lets face it thats who weekend opening is intended to benefit) It happened when our GP started having a late night and one saturday a month, it was still retired people that could have gone at anytime filling the waiting room.

[Haighus]

Yeah, although that may be partly because all the weekday appointments were full too. The NHS is practically running at full capacity, so any increase in capacity is likely to be taken up immediately.

[Psychosplodge]

No doubt to some extent, but I'd imagine they'd do the same if they weren't. Like they all feel the need to do their shopping at the weekends when they've had all week ¬_¬

[Wolfshade]

Like it or not, the NHS is a service based industry. If you aren't servicing your customers then you are doing something wrong.

If you can't be seen by your local GP then it is no wonder that A&E services are swamped by non-critical cases.

That being said, walk-in clinics in urban centres do take some pressure off but it is no good if you have a job where you can't pop off to it or don't live in an easily commutable location.

A friend of mine had her operation cancelled three times as each time she turned up for the surgery they had lost her blood tests, three times in a row, so that surgery theatre and surgeons were wasted for that slot. She had to waste time getting her bloods taken twice more than necessary, tested, twice more than necessary. There is wastage that need not apply.

It also causes frustration when a clinic offers appointments but grants everyone the same appointment slot.

I don't know how many of you have ever sat on a board of governors for a hospital, but some of them are just crazy, Dr X keeps failing to see all of his patients on time. Ok, so why is he and if there is a reason for it don't book so many slots for him. It's not exactly rocket science.

[Kirsten]

there are major organisational issues that need fixing. I have had a lot of appointments over the last few years and they have been appallingly bad, and they need not have been. but staff didn't follow their own guidelines, the receptionists treat work as some sort of terrible affliction they don't want to be associated with. some very serious cases being dealt with, and the attitude of the clinic is like they are a GP's office dealing with hypochondriacs.

[Psychosplodge]

Receptionists ask too many questions as if they're the ****ing doctor. I didn't realise I only needed their opinion on whether I needed to see a quack or not.

[Mr Mystery]

And in a complete surprise to no-one, Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's new leader. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news)

Finally, a Politician who hasn't subscribed to Thatcherism as the only possible way to run a country ever.

[Kirsten]

and a massive landslide too

[Psychosplodge]

And potentially stuck us with an even worse conservative next time. Thanks Labour *slow clap*

[Mr Mystery]

I think you may be surprised. The Left has had no voice in UK politics for a long old time.....

Young people are fed up with being made to carry the can by older generations - especially the Post War generation who had everything, took everything, gave nothing back and have spent their twilight years doing their best to smash the rungs of the very social ladders they themselves climbed.

Corbyn is interesting. The establishment seem fairly terrified, hence the pathetic smear campaigns - campaigns he answered not with Spin, but context.

I'm excited for this, and will definitely be voting Labour.

[Psychosplodge]

He's too radical. They're currently interviewing people on the street on local radio - keep in mind this is somewhere you can pin a red rosette on a 2"x4" and it'll get elected, and there are lifelong labour supporters saying they're going to vote for another party, but they don't know who.. One even said he'd consider voting tory for the first time.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think you may be surprised. The Left has had no voice in UK politics for a long old time.....

Young people are fed up with being made to carry the can by older generations - especially the Post War generation who had everything, took everything, gave nothing back and have spent their twilight years doing their best to smash the rungs of the very social ladders they themselves climbed.

Corbyn is interesting. The establishment seem fairly terrified, hence the pathetic smear campaigns - campaigns he answered not with Spin, but context.

I'm excited for this, and will definitely be voting Labour.

I'm tired of being the generation blamed for all of societies' ills. Apparently it's the youth of today's fault for all the environmental, social and economical problems, because we're the ones being told it's our job to clean that crap up.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh indeed. Absolutely it's your fault.

I mean, your parents enjoyed non-insanely priced housing and free university. It's your fault we apparently can no longer afford such nice things.

GET THEE TO A MINIMUM WAGE JOB AND BE THANKFUL.

[Psychosplodge]

Don't be ridiculous, the majority of our parents will have had proper on the job training and not spent 3-4 years hiding from the unemployed figures, to then start in the same position with an expensive piece of paper.

[Cutter]

I'm tired of being the generation blamed for all of societies' ills. Apparently it's the youth of today's fault for all the environmental, social and economical problems, because we're the ones being told it's our job to clean that crap up.

Some day you won't be young.

[YorkNecromancer]

He's too radical. They're currently interviewing people on the street on local radio - keep in mind this is somewhere you can pin a red rosette on a 2"x4" and it'll get elected, and there are lifelong labour supporters saying they're going to vote for another party, but they don't know who.. One even said he'd consider voting tory for the first time.

Meh.

The Tories and Labour laughed at the SNP before the devolution vote, so smug and self-assured were they that people don't want radicals.

Their complacency cost them dear; oh, the No vote won, but look at the SNP now.

Then there was the election, where every intelligent poll said we were headed for a hung parliment, only for the aristos to win a majority.

So the thing is, any time people say 'this definitely won't happen', well. They're talking out of their bottom. Five years is an absurdly long time in politics. Does Corbyn have an uphill struggle? Hell yes. Will the right wing press eviscerate him over the course of the next five years? Every. Single. Day.

So will he win? No idea. None. And anyone who says otherwise is lying. There are simply too many variables, and UK politics is waaaay to volatile. Not to mention, five years is forever.

In Corbyn's defence, he's better than the nothing people who were the other options, and frankly anything's better than Cameron and his Eton toffs, busily selling us all down the river to buy their friends bigger yachts, all the while telling us it's our own fault we're poor, and for our own good that they have all the nice things.

[Mr Mystery]

They'll still have been the victims of unwarranted blame.

Stupidly priced university - without which you're lucky to get a half decent job before you're middle aged.

Idiotic house prices - and no Government help with that until you're in your mid-20's because reasons.

And all decided by the children of the rich who very much enjoyed their free university, thank you very much.

It's a pretty pathetic state of affairs. Soon as the beneficiaries of Britain's social system found it was their turn to help pay for it - suddenly we can't afford it anymore. Sorry about that. Better luck next life. Unless they get their first. It's their ladder, and you're not allowed to use it. How dare you be young.

[Psychosplodge]

Personally he has some policies that appeal to me. Nationalised utilities and possibly rail appeals to me in terms of being theoretically fairer and cheaper if run correctly. But some of his other stances seem so insane I couldn't vote for him because of those.

I would love to remove everyone from parliment that have gone directly into it from university without having worked properly somewhere, because then when they're talking about employment laws they might have an idea of what it actually means.

[Mr Mystery]

Just as well we vote for the Party and not President then eh :p

And agreed on 'get some life experience, and then come back to us' thing.

As someone who fell foul of Labour's betrayal of ending free Uni (1997....I would have gone to Uni around 1998/1999) I've unfortunately been at the thick end 'but not for you' politics, and I'm sick to death of it.

Currently, I'm doing rather well for myself - especially once cranium was removed from bodily orifice. Yet despite earning more than the national average on my own, I still can't afford to buy a property. Apparently, that's all my fault too.

Though I have reason to believe we're staring down the barrel of fairly substantial 'readjustment' of house prices in the near to mid future. Post-War Generation who are so fond of their buy-to-let will be turning up toes and pushing up the daisies fairly soon, meaning inheritance tax - which thanks to their substantial property assets, will be equally substantial. PPI Scandal, something I'm intimately familiar with - yeah. Lots and lots of people cancelling their mortgage repayment protection leaving buttcheeks in the breeze when the next (ultimately completely inevitable) economic collapse comes along - and that will likely mean higher levels of repossession....

Now is not the time to buy! Get saving, and give it 10-15 years, and feel slightly smug as you buy property at a much fairer price.

[Psychosplodge]

I think you take both the leadership, and your constituancy mp in to account. As I've already got a negative opinion of Clive "I'm against tuition fees until the actual vote" Betts, a negative opinion of their leader as well will do them no favours in my eyes. As I live in a massive majority safe seat it doesn't really matter if I vote for someone else/spoil my ballot beyond knowing I've voted.

[Mr Mystery]

Shadow Cabinet announced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34240869).

Many wimmins, and not a great deal of cronyism. Shadow Secretary for Defense? Voted to renew Trident.

Imagine that. A UK party leader who hasn't confused their own ideology with their party's ideology.

I'm enthused by this.

[Psychosplodge]

A UK party leader who hasn't confused their own ideology with their party's ideology.

That is a rather interesting distinction. Whether he could manage to that as PM would be interesting if not for the experiment being with the country and I'm not convinced yet with their economic policies as outlined so far.

[Mr Mystery]

Anything is better than Tory led cuts for all (earnings if you're poor, tax if you're rich).

Corbyn seems to have his head screwed on, hence my distinction.

Labour has changed massively since the Kinnock days. Those feart he's going to drag them back to Student Radical Trotskyist stuff are just making up a fear mongering story. One can move quite far the left of the current Labour position without going anywhere near Communism.

Gimme a fiscally responsible socialist state. Support for those who need it. Social mobility for those who work for it. As I've said many, many times before on this forum, I've got no beef with the wealthy, whether they've earned it or were born into it. I do have beef with those wealthy individuals who think their money means they're more important than everyone else.

[eldargal]

One of the strengths of the Westminster system is that you are supposed to be able to have a prime minister with certain views whose policies will be tempered by ministers with differing views or a better grasp of economics or what have you. I think Corbyn addresses one of the major issues for Labour which is that they became, for all intents and purposes, a rather soulless Tory Lite.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Isn't it nice to be able to discuss such things? I mean, imagine if the only options were Conservative and Labour, that'd suck only having two polarised-yet-basically-identical parties.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/872/cpsprodpb/B2CC/production/_85527754_sun.jpg

I do love The Rupert Murdo-I mean, The Sun's attempt to make him Literally Worse Than Hitler. Like, the little tiny text next to that massive, rage-inducing title basically says, "yeah, he said that three years ago, when asked if world peace would be a nice thing....but what about OUR BOYS, EH?"

I hate that the military has been hijacked as a poster child for the right wing. I think the military itself does, too, because Britain First has had a fair few complaints with their using of military stuff to push their agenda from military personnel.

I want him to get into power almost solely so I can watch the right wing media's twitching, frothing rage...

[Mr Mystery]

With any luck, it'd be enough to send old Dingo Wukka (if not his entire evil brood) straight into the waiting arms of Satan....

Something tells me none of them have been courting Corbyn to try and influence him.....

[Wolfshade]

Corbyn's first PMQs today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06chkk1/daily-politics-16092015

[Psychosplodge]

Don't know who wrote it originally but just seen on twitter

http://i.imgur.com/tGcmXl4.png

[Kirsten]

barely anybody knew who Nick Clegg was, nobody knows who Tim Farron is :p

[Psychosplodge]

I'm assuming he's Cleggy's replacement from context.

[Kirsten]

he is yes

[Wildeybeast]

I'm assuming he's Cleggy's replacement from context.

I thought that was Capitan Peacock from 'Are you being served'?

[Filthy Casual]

For those not paying attention, to update you on the latest in british politics:

The Chancellor has announced he will be cutting the funding that provides school meals to the poor, another blatant and unfair attack on the poor that will have no effect on the rich.

The Department for Work and Pensions was found to be culpable in causing the suicide of a man from whom they unfairly withdrew benefits from

A wealthy, tax dodging donator to the Tories, who didn't get the cushy influential job he thought he was paying for, decided to fit back at the Prime Minister by revealing that he did what we all knew over privileged public school boys did anyway. Namely, took loads of cocaine and put his penis in a place where a penis shouldn't be. (a pigs head) (cooked possibly?)

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

A pig isn't the worst thing a Tory Sociopath has inserted themselves into.

[Wolfshade]

Governmental bodies cannot be found culpable for corporate manslaughter owing to crown immunity...just saying.

[Kirsten]

even the Torygraph thinks Theresa May is talking rubbish

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html

[Psychosplodge]

We're letting people in that are willing to work for less (I know brickies and electricians that have personally suffered for that) and not building houses fast enough. Seems negative to me.

[Path Walker]

In general, there has been no noticeable effect, yes some trades suffered but in general, the immigrants we're getting are going in to sectors that were understaffed anyway, everyone is point out the bollocks May is spouting, for different reasons.

[Psychosplodge]

That kinda is a noticeable effect, more so if it's your trade than if you maybe want something building once in a decade.

[Alaric]

We're letting people in that are willing to work for less (I know brickies and electricians that have personally suffered for that) and not building houses fast enough. Seems negative to me.

We r seeing the reverse over here. more houses than people.

[Kirsten]

watch the Britain First documentary that was on BBC3 tonight, and laugh at their sheer idiocy shown up on camera.

[Mr Mystery]

I kind of want to watch that - if only to be baffled by their increasingly bizarre ramblings.

[Psychosplodge]

I'd lose my temper and throw something at the tv. I can't deal with that sort of stupidity.

[Mr Mystery]

That's why I'm holding off watching it.

Plus, I know everything they say is a lie. Including that their landrovers are 'armoured'. They're just not, are they? It's a pretence at being some sort of paramilitary organisation.

And funny how much they laud the armed forces, when very, very few of their members (if indeed any) have actually served.

[Psychosplodge]

I've never seen that one before, they claim to have armoured landies?

I'm disgusted at their attempts to misappropriate the armed forces and the remembrance poppy.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, they say they're armoured. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britain-first-anti-islam-party-claim-military-tanks-christian-patrol-harmless-1435390)

Funny thing is about their lauding of the armed forces, and their lack of will to actually, y'know, go and serve - lots of ex-service people have spoken out about Britain First, only to be banned from their boards. There's one veteran wanting to debate with BF's Dear Leader, who has been met with an almost eerie silence.....

And yeah - appropriating the Poppy emblem to sell tawdry, racist tat is depressing, especially as the charities they claim to support have proven time and again no such donation has ever been received.....

[Psychosplodge]

Well you can by them from surplus places (http://www.mod-sales.com/direct/vehicles/,82,/Armoured_Land_Rovers.htm), but I've no idea how much armour they leave on when they sell them. I can't imagine it does the fuel economy much good.

Charities have returned donations from them haven't they?

[Mr Mystery]

From what I can gather, Charities would return the donations, because they keep themselves apart from Politics. Yet the armed forces charities (something which the existence of is frankly shameful....you can give your limbs for your country, but don't expect owt in return) haven't had any to return....

[Kirsten]

The official armed forces pages are always contacting Britain First to remove images of the armed forces because they are not allowed to use them. So naturally, veing very supportive of the troops, Britain First of course delete the army requests and leave the photos up. They also regularly use Lee Rigby for their own ends, even though his mother demanded they stop

[Mr Mystery]

Nice bunch, aren't they.

If only their members weren't thick as two short planks, they might notice that it's all just a money making scheme for Dear Leader and his cronies.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Man, don't even get me started on Britain First. It sucks that patriotism has been stolen by such idiotic nutcases and been dragged through the mud. It's one thing to have a little pride in where you're from, but entirely another to hold that over people from other places. It doesn't take a highly educated mind to realise that while Britain does have a lot of things I personally believe are examples to the world, there's a lot of other crap that simply sucks.

[Mr Mystery]

It's also clear that it's a tiny, almost laughably so, minority of Muslims who are in any way 'extremist'. That most of them are young men is no big surprise. Granted their actions are magnitudes larger, but it's the same story every generation has faced - and this time we're facing a generation of young Muslim men who have been treated with suspicion and contempt ever since 12 September 2001....

[Kirsten]

And before unfortunately

[Mr Mystery]

True enough.

The distrust of Western society stems from somewhere, after all.

I make no excuses whatsoever for their actions, but the poor sods have been effectively brainwashed, and the constant finger pointing and scape goating in our media, no to mention their outright racist stance and reporting only helps the evil sods doing it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's easier to be the devil himself if everyone treats you that way already...

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Seriously. This all properly kicked off 14 years ago. That's a helluva long time to be exposed to overt bigotry, with few people challenging it.

Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Scum all have their share of the blame here. Headlines screaming with racism, and nobody did a thing to stop them.

[Alaric]

I would say it kicked off back in the first crusade and has been going anywhere but uphill since then.

[Mr Mystery]

15948

[Kirsten]

Britain First are, naturally, claiming that the documentary is a lefty BBC hatchet job designed to make them look bad. because obviously when you are filmed going in to restaurants and threatening managers, handing out hate filled material, caught lying on camera repeatedly, and trying to intimidate people in the street, it is all a conspiracy to make you look like some sort of racist...

[Haighus]

....you can give your limbs for your country, but don't expect owt in return

To be fair, something the MoD does really well is give wounded servicepeople excellent prosthetic limbs- they get some of the most advanced prostheses available, usually myoelectric models now, which provide amazing functionality compared to what was available two decades ago. Pretty much every function a normal hand can do can be done by an MoD myoelectric one, it just does it slower at the moment, so they are pretty decent. They also have an MoD-run rehabilitation hospital solely for military amputees. I believe the Charities have a greater hand in the social aspect of caring for ex-servicepeople, but the MoD's treatment of amputees far exceeds that of the NHS for the general populace in terms of functional prostheses. Warhammer 40k-level prostheses is not that far away nowadays... (IG class prostheses at least).

[Mr Mystery]

Yet we see too many ex-Service men and women struggle with life on civvies street.

We may be leagues ahead of the US in post-care, but we've got a long way to go.

And this is coming from a left-wing pacifist.

[Haighus]

Yes, I suspect there is too much of a focus on the immediate health care and rehabilitation of the injury, but then lacking in caring for the long term social and psychological health of the ex-servicepeople. Unfortunately is the general trend of healthcare today, especially for psychological health, although things are improving on that front.

[Mr Mystery]

There's usually beggars on my way to work, and a few of them use signs claiming to be ex-servicemen.

Trouble is, I don't know whether to believe them or not - so I give via charities, and never to street collectors.

[Haighus]

I think that is probably a wise choice. Also illustrates what I meant too- you can have the most functional false arm in the world, but if you don't know how to be a civilian properly it isn't going to help that much (but better than having a non-functional arm I guess).

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

A friend of mine is now ex-army. He served in Afghanistan, and suffered a flesh wound (not that he told us at the time!) during his various tours. When he was honourably discharged (cutbacks) he was fortunate enough to have a stable, mature social circle and his family to support him.

I can't imagine what it's like for young men to whom the armed forces were there first taste of camaraderie and stability in life - which is sadly too many young men.

[Haighus]

Yeah likewise, I can't imagine that situation either. I would be interested for Denzark's take on this though, as I believe he was/is heavily involved in the armed forces?

[Kirsten]

in case anyone thinks the Daily Mail is not harmful

this is a na zi cartoon about keeping Jews out of democratic countries

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd380/KirstenIGMB/1_zps2glrn64t.jpg (http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/1_zps2glrn64t.jpg.html)

this is today's Daily Mail

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd380/KirstenIGMB/2_zpsheq7hsi0.jpg (http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/2_zpsheq7hsi0.jpg.html)

[Mr Mystery]

Such a vile newspaper.

How they've not been done for malicious communications? I'd love to say 'I'll never know', but of course the obvious and correct answer is 'friends in high places'

[Mr Mystery]

Oh good.

The British Government has voted to create more extremists by sending six Typhoons to bomb Syria....

[Kirsten]

but clearly blowing up civilians will definitely stop IS...

[Wolfshade]

Oh good.

The British Government has voted to create more extremists by sending six Typhoons to bomb Syria....


but clearly blowing up civilians will definitely stop IS...

I don't know why they bother.

There are three questions that really matter.

1. Will the British intervention make a difference
2. Will the bombing stop ISIS
3. Will the bombing kill ensure no innocent lives are lost

If the answer to any of these is "No" then really there is no point.

So let's look at number 1.

UK are going to contribute a few aeroplanes. What will this achieve, certainly it is an order of magnitude (at least) beneath what the American's are currently doing with their 50 or so planes, and that has been dwarfed by Russia's intervention. So the UK would be providing a token assistance, like Germany's 1 plane.

2.

No. Bombing campaigns do not work against non-state entities, or terrorists. The infrastructure doesn't support it, and it doesn't stop it operating in foreign fields, let's face it the french attack were Belgians so unless we are to bomb belgium....

3.

Collateral damage is inevitable with bombing, yes we can get the bombs to land within a few mm of where they want but there is no guaranteeing that the identified target is an actual target, mistakes have been made.

[Kirsten]

exactly. the Tories are banging on about austerity, trying to impose massive cuts on working families, but are quite happy to spend tens or hundreds of millions on an utterly pointless bombing campaign. the only reasonable course is to investigate the countries rumoured to be dealing with IS, like Saudi Arabia, the country we send vast quantities of arms to, who are essentially the IS role model... it is beyond absurd.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm genuinely surprised at the number of people sticking their head in the sand and hoping it'll go away on this.

We are already bombing dash in Iraq.
We've been asked by our allies to extend it to dash in syria.
It has some sort of UN support. We're a permanent member of the security council we're the ones they expect to do these things.
We're already spending the money and using the assets in Iraq, now we're using probably the same assets on the otherside of a line on a map.
You can't just go out and order a missile and have it arrive over night we've already paid for them.
It's inevitable that some civilians will die, but we're not talking about carpet bombing them, and they're living under dash anyway so they might die because they're the wrong type of muslim, or maybe they're one of those terrifying yazidis that are so scary dash massacre them.
Its not going to make us more of a target, we're already a target, we'll always be a target, because they have a join us or die mentality.
No we probably won't add a massive amount of firepower, but in this situation where theres no good choices I'd say it makes sense to fulfil our obligations to our allies.

[Kirsten]

Nobody is sticking their heads in the sand, we just don't think that mass murder of civilians is the solution. All it will do is help IS

[Psychosplodge]

We're not talking WW2 style carpet bombing here. And they're already dying. It makes no sense to bomb them on one side of the border and not on the other. And we were already bombing them in Iraq.
And no you aren't the one I was meaning there. My FB feed this morning is full of people that are acting as if this is what makes us a target and we were perfectly safe yesterday.

[Kirsten]

We shouldn't be bombing in Iraq either, it is doing nothing

[Psychosplodge]

It's apparently slowing their progress.

There are probably two million(quick estimate based on google search) soldiers in the standing armies in the area. But the governments of these countries would rather see a western intervention than use their own armies. Though it's understandable if its true 10k Iraqis ran off from mosel? raqqa? when only 500 dash invaded it.

[Kirsten]

The French air strikes have already killed more civilians than the numbers killed in the Paris attacks, so where is the moral high ground? Each mission costs a million pounds plus. Saying the people might die under IS anyway is not an excuse. IS do need to be stopped, and violently, but bombing just kills too many innocents, and does nothing to end the ideology

[Psychosplodge]

If thats the case why do it?

[Mr Mystery]

Fingers in pies, as ever.

Kick backs, backhanders, conveniently placed brown envelopes, behind the scenes share dealings.

The usual level of corruption we've sadly come to see as perfectly normal in Western politics.

[Psychosplodge]

2/3rds of the parliament? That's even my cynicism doesn't necessarily stretch that far.

[eldargal]

The bombing so far has worked up to a point because it has disabled IS enough for the people with troops on the ground (Assad regime, Kurds etc) to fight IS on much more even footing by disrupting IS supply lines, command and control, troop movements etc. The problem is there is only so much those groups can do thanks to their numbers, armaments, logistics etc. so increasing the amount of bombing doesn't translate automatically into a weaker IS.

[Mr Mystery]

Interestingly, the first UK target was Oil production.

I guess that's actually a useful target, provided of course the intelligence was good (all too often isn't), and it was definitely in the hands of Daesh.

[Psychosplodge]

Going after the purse strings should help.

MoD have released this (https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/12/03/preventing-civilian-casualties-and-coordinating-strike-action-what-you-need-to-know/), which includes following claim.


In more than a year of strikes against Daesh targets in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties resulting from UK air operations. RAF Tornado and Reaper aircraft have flown a total of 1,632 combat missions and have carried out more than 380 successful strikes in Iraq.

This record is a reflection of the rigorous targeting protocols UK forces observe, founded in the principles of proportionality, military necessity, the capability of our precision weapons and, above all, the skills and experience of our military personnel. We adhere to those same principles when taking action over Syria.

[Psychosplodge]

A bit Hitlers germany?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/4093/production/_87013561_kendall.png

[Mr Mystery]

Likely just another **** talking **** on the Internet.

[Psychosplodge]

Apparently its organised (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447)

[Wolfshade]

Hmm maybe I need to expand my thoughts a little.

Firstly, I am not a pacifist. Not in the true sense at least. Obviously I would love a diplomatic solution to work, but I acknowledge that in order for that to work you have to deal with people who ultimately want to talk, which I am not convinced that ISIS do. There comes a point where the old adage is true kill or be killed.

I have no issue with the accuracy of the missiles (our's at least), I mean we can land things on a comet for goodness sake so hitting a target within inches is not something that I am concerned of. So, if there is collateral damage then it is either some malfunction of the systems or a target has been misidentified. Mistakes, while rare, do happen.

The most important part to hit ISIS is in it's wallet, and those who are dealing with them. Their oil is going somewhere and being converted to cash and guns. Cut of the supply chain and you stop it's potency.

Similarly, hitting strategic targets is good, but there are only limited numbers of these, what you can't hit is the school where the pupils are being radicalised, or the bomb factory in the middle of the market. So while you can hit and control troops and hardened facilities, ultimately, if you are to flush an enemy out of an entrenched urban environment you would need to commit ground forces.

It's not that I think the bombing won't achieve anything, just that the UK contribution is largely pointless. There is enough american hardware to do all the sorties that are required, what is of short supply is suitable targets and decent intel.

I can fully understand the vote, it is important for those in power to be seen doing something and bombing is an easier sell then sending ground troops in (it's also cheaper).

[Haighus]

Hmm, I agree with what you've just said Wolf.

I think the issue with Syria (as compared to Iraq at the moment) is there isn't someone to step in to fill the void left by destroying the conventional forces in the airstrikes. In Iraq, the Iraqi government, and the Kurdish resistance fighters can come back in to clean up what's left, and the Iraqi government requested the airstrikes to buy them time. In Syria, there is just a civil war to take over. I don't by any means support what Assad has done, but frankly supporting the Assad regime to then maintain some stability in the country post-Daesh (as a 'state') as the Russians are doing is probably the best option for ending the war. There isn't really a right answer, but this seems like the least wrong one in the current situation. Unfortunately, that would require the West and Russia to agree on something, and for the West to retract it's position on Assad, at least in the short term.

[Wolfshade]

Hmm, I agree with what you've just said Wolf.

I think the issue with Syria (as compared to Iraq at the moment) is there isn't someone to step in to fill the void left by destroying the conventional forces in the airstrikes. In Iraq, the Iraqi government, and the Kurdish resistance fighters can come back in to clean up what's left, and the Iraqi government requested the airstrikes to buy them time. In Syria, there is just a civil war to take over. I don't by any means support what Assad has done, but frankly supporting the Assad regime to then maintain some stability in the country post-Daesh (as a 'state') as the Russians are doing is probably the best option for ending the war. There isn't really a right answer, but this seems like the least wrong one in the current situation. Unfortunately, that would require the West and Russia to agree on something, and for the West to retract it's position on Assad, at least in the short term.

Yes.

THere are some who will ultamelt point to instability in the region "thanks" to the fall of the ottoman empire

[Psychosplodge]

Theres always the roman alternative "They made a desert and called it peace"?

- - - Updated - - -

But I think the Russians might be working on that one.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Six British jets aren't going to really make a dent, as others have said, and while we can strategically bomb targets, said targets are elusive and know how to hide. They know we avoid killing civilians where possible, so they hide among them, and radicalise the people to their side. Either that, or intimidate them into compliance.

At least we started off with a strategically-smart target, the oil fields. I don't know what's left of the Syrian Rebel movement that hasn't been devoured by DAESH or killed by Assad, but it's either we rely on a real underdog to actually do the bloody work of taking DAESH-held cities house-by-house the old fashioned way, we rely on Assad, a ruthless dictator who will surely crack down on political dissidents while he does it, or we send our own troops in.

[Mr Mystery]

And in a hilarious inability to grasp the fundamentals of British Democracy, UKIP has got it out it's Pram over their not winning the Oldham By-Election (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35004544)

Apparently, Labour only won because they run the local council, and people seem happy with them. Oh, and alleged, unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud.....by the darkies.

Can we now declare UKIP a laughing stock at long last?

[Psychosplodge]

tbf unless you have a medical or geographical reason for a postal vote you should really be presenting yourself at a polling station.

- - - Updated - - -

Also Oldham is like where I live. Stick a red rosette on it and its going to win regardless.

[Mr Mystery]

So the same but with a Blue Rosette for the Home Counties, then? :p

UKIP really need to belt up, or at the very least stop deluding themselves that they're ever going to have a great many MPs.

[Psychosplodge]

So the same but with a Blue Rosette for the Home Counties, then? :p


Pretty much. It's only a bout a third of seats that actually matter isn't it?

[Mr Mystery]

Something like that.

But hey, Churchill's quote about it being the least worst option still holds true.

Even better news? Once the EU Referendum is out the way, UKIP will have no reason to exist, which is nice.

[Psychosplodge]

lmao.
That's why there's no SNP left?
The referendum could see their numbers grow regardless of result.

[Mr Mystery]

SNP have policies people in Scotland want.

UKIP are just racism in a non-cheap suit, and people wanting a referendum on Europe.

[Psychosplodge]

But if the result is close, we might see the same happen.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't think it's going to be close though.

The Out parties are depending entirely on scaremongering and outright lies - and are yet to come up with a credible 'and then we'll' type plan.

They're regularly called out for massaging their figures and presenting them far out of context. For instance, listing the daily cost of being in Europe, without explaining what it is we get back.

The In Campaign however like to point out the benefits, and aren't attempting obfuscation.

Ultimately, as with pretty much any modern referendum or election, it's Big Business that'll really decide it.

[Kirsten]

according to some reports UKIP will go bust and cease to exist before the referendum anyway

[Mr Mystery]

That'd be good for a laugh.

[Kirsten]

a lot of their donors have dropped away after the public arguments between Farage and their one MP, and the out of Europe campaign is not one unified group, there are several of them, so UKIP aren't getting all of that money either. it was said that some of their staff aren't being paid and the group are on the verge of bankruptcy

[Mr Mystery]

I really hope that's true. I really, really do.

[Psychosplodge]

You can't run a party without money...

[Kirsten]

yup

[Mr Mystery]

You can't run a party without money...

But you can without a moral compass or human decency :p

[Kirsten]

several parties demonstrating that at the moment

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I'm looking forward to future By-Elections, as I'd love to see Labour gain seats. Not just because I'm a regular Labour voter, but because I want to see the look on Call Me Dave's face when he realise that despite the efforts of his minions in the press to demonise Jeremy Corbyn, he may have greater support than they'd care to admit.

[Kirsten]

the conservative government is like a collection of saturday morning cartoon villains now. when you reach a point where you are actually laughing at the mere mention of food poverty, something has snapped.