With regard to population density, I'm always find it odd when flying over the country that anyone could describe it as crowded. It may be more crowded than say Canada but considerable parts are effectively uninhabitable.
The UK population density is approx. 680 per square mile compared to for example 1,055 in the Netherlands, 1,303 in South Korea and 953 in Belgium, all developed countries which manage to function perfectly well. Similarly the UK is less densely populated than New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland or Rhode Island in the USA.
1,054 if you take England only 14,200 in London
1,210 New Jersey? 12,700 in Amsterdam 16,500 Brussel (pop is only 1.1m)
And London has only just returned to it's peak population numbers of 1939, so we have been in this population situation before, with presumably a much less diverse citizenship then.
The good old days when those million pound townhouses in Brockley housed 2 families a floor in poor conditions.
I have not mentioned good old days have I? The population reduction since the thirties has been because of the rise of suburbia, and the increase of affordable transport. I am not that much of an expert on these things, but I imagine areas such as Downham, Dagenham, certainly Thamesmead, and Medway places like Cuxton have grown as the population of London moved out. The space around and about was exploited for these purposes. Indeed the Ferrier Estate (and now the new development there) was build on an open area formally known as Ninefields and was an airport during the war. I am not sure physical space is the issue so much as infrastructure like schools and hospitals and other services. I don't know if it is any kind of positive suggestion, but the area along the Thames corridor, certainly south of the river near the Dartford crossing is pretty vast, and not exactly chocolate box pretty. The area used to be the home of the cement industry (I think, maybe it still is), and now there are pretty big empty spaces that could be developed. Driving to Bluewater, there seems to be canyon like spaces adjacent that could probably contain a Downham, a Thamesmead, a Dagenham, and a Cuxton combined (I may have overestimated). I am unconvinced that our small country is not able to take people because of issues of physical space, it is more about other kinds of issues.
I would prefer those green spaces that you mention say just as they are. Do we really want to build and build. It's good we can get on the m20 and a2 and 5 mins later we have England's green and pleasant land.
Physical space is an issue. Kent is becoming more and more built up, we need our green spaces for physical and mental well-being. Every time a new housing estate is built it creates more pressure on surrounding roads. It only takes an accident on the A2 , M2 & M20 for all other roads to rapidly become gridlocked and small peaceful villages become rat-runs.
What point are you making? You'd prefer them to be starving, injured and naked?
the point .. as you seem too dim/dumb/head up your own arse to comprehend? .. the majority of the young men in question do not appear to be in desperate need of food, shelter or help .. they appear to be heading for prosperous countries in order to better their financial prospects and NOT because they are desperate refugees, .. I'm sure that you'd be very happy to have one of these nice young men living in your spare room or crashing on your sofa until he can find employment/ qualify for state benefits and find a place of his own to live
The minority of people in the UK are right wing and happen to be the least intelligent.
The fact is immigration has never hurt our economy or us as individuals and never will.
Well, I have some left wing views. I also have some right wing views, mostly related to immigration and I find that some on the left are truly stupid, on this topic - as stupid as any BNP knuckledragger that they claim intellectual superiority to. Why? the failure to implement logic and the tendency to go with emotional arguments over pragmatic ones, but also to selectively quote evidence without appreciating how much it detracts from the force of their arguments. I too, was taught all of the leftist tropes at university, and would merrily trot them out unquestioningly, until I learned to think for myself. Just as many commonly held beliefs you will read in the Daily Mail are bullshit, so are many that you will encounter in The Guardian. They are two cheeks of the same arse, both with their own agendas.
However, what I find far more sinister is the mindset that you have displayed above. An absolutist knowledge that you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and must be evil, or thick. This is why behind every non-moderate left winger is a fascist who does not agree with free speech, and will simply not tolerate an opinion that detracts from their own. If you want evidence of this, simply look at the reaction to the election result on social media by some members of the left. The irony, is that this only serves to alienate support from ordinary people. The same ordinary people who had the temerity to express concern at the cultural and societal suicide which is occurring due to the most rapid demographic in these islands for probably a millennia, but who were just labeled as racists and told to shut up. Let me also remind you, that according to opinion polls, these people now form the majority of the population....it's just that they don't go around shouting loudly and haranguing people with opinions different to their own.
Your second statement is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. Immigration of skilled, intelligent folk who will embrace a modern secular country and its values are an undoubted benefit and this should be actively encouraged. But this is not the only type of immigrant that has gained access to this country (compare studies on EU vs non-EU immigration, for example). As you no doubt know, there is a world of difference between the statistical data related to economic contributions from different ethnic demographics and some newcomers are most definitely not a benefit, either economically or socially. As someone who has only this morning listened to a fellow (muslim) colleague saying how he is getting increasingly sick of the racism of some of his religious compatriots against the native population - I can very much guarantee you that to many people, myself included, this multicultural experiment has proceeded way further than it ever should have. I see the depressing results of this on a daily basis (and some truly horrible things have happened that have no place in our society, but that have often been excused by 'white guilt' based cultural relativism), and it has been swept under the carpet to the extent that denial seems to one of the only responses that the pro immigration crowd have. We now live in a divided country, where the social contract is effectively broken due to a lack of common cultural ground - no wonder 'social cohesion' is a concept bandied about by those who are now starting to wake up to the mess that they have made of this country through uncontrolled immigration. Study the demographics of this country and you will see the future promises a radically different society....not a change I would embrace as a democratic secularist. If you're happy for your children's children to live in a Muslim country, then fair enough - but most of us are not (they tend to be backward, intolerant, repressive and dangerous societies which are anathema to free thought and expression); yet this change has been foisted on us without us ever being consulted. Any transition to such a society will not be peaceful because it involves two diametrically opposite ideological positions.
There are intelligent lefties and righties and thick lefties and righties. Neither group has a monopoly on intelligence or stupidity.
Now FFS, grow up and accept that people might have different opinions to your own.
P.S as for a solution to the current refugee crisis? I don't have one and neither do you. But the well has been poisoned for many of the public by years of being lied to about immigration (including the conflation of economic migrants and legitimate asylum seekers), hence why sympathy for accepting yet more people with a culture different, even antipathetic, to our own is going to prove to be a hard sell.
You're probably getting sick of people saying this but that's an excellent and very thought provoking post. I'm going to keep a copy and ensure it goes in the Best of Charlton Life when that is eventually published.
What point are you making? You'd prefer them to be starving, injured and naked?
the point .. as you seem too dim/dumb/head up your own arse to comprehend? .. the majority of the young men in question do not appear to be in desperate need of food, shelter or help .. they appear to be heading for prosperous countries in order to better their financial prospects and NOT because they are desperate refugees, .. I'm sure that you'd be very happy to have one of these nice young men living in your spare room or crashing on your sofa until he can find employment/ qualify for state benefits and find a place of his own to live
You know what, yes I would. I would certainly be happier to share my home - and, for that matter, my country - with someone who has fled persecution, fear, violence, terrorism and threats of death; and who has demonstrated the determination to overcome next-to-impossible odds to come to my country; than, for example, someone who lacks compassion, is only out for himself, is self-centred, selfish and fearful of foreigners. Refugees? Yes. Xenophobes? No thanks.
"They appear to be heading for prosperous countries in order to better their financial prospects". Really? You can tell that from pictures? Wow!
Come on let's stop saying that people will take in house and care for an asylum seeker or immigrant, no you would not if you would there's hundreds if not thousands knocking around for you to go and offer your support,
It's an easy thing to say and totally unrealistic as a real example
If people are honestly saying that this person who you know nothing about, you'd welcome into your sanctuary your insane and your family need to get you help before you do something crazy
It's not about coming across as a more humane and caring person, it's just the new cock measuring tool that people are jumping on
Needed to see the doctor today and called up to be told the next available appointment is in 5 days! #justsaying
I tried to get an appointment at my GPs and was told it wouldn't be for six days. My point? I live in a small, rural town in North Yorkshire, a town that only has a smattering of immigrants, mainly Poles and Lithuanians but definitely no more than possibly three percent of the towns population. Now either they've all got sick at once or there is a different reason as to why it's so hard to get to see a doctor. I know who I'm blaming.
Yeah but it's easier to blame those horrible immigrants . If it wasn't for people coming to the UK over the decades our NHS would hardly have any any doctors or nurses.
But we wouldn't have needed so many because the population would be lower.
SKY SPORTS MEWS Deadline day - asylum special-30/09/15
We'll have reporters at all the asylum camps and you'll be the first to know of any movements. Join Jim White and Sophie Sexysidekick for the final hour to see where the last minute (housing)deals happen!!!
Anyway i think we should let more in providing our politicians are prepared to build social housing for them in the rural villages of Kent , Sussex etc and preferably a block of flats opposite Camerons family home filled with Syrians.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
It is an eloquent post and you make some good points, but you're also shooting the kentred2 fish, and his barrel is particularly cramped.
Agreed about the bankrupt integrity of the Guardian - while it does not fearmonger in quite the same way as the Mail, it is an organisation with an agenda that panders to bourgie handwringing faddism.
Disagree that right-wingers don't harangue others for possessing different opinions. You'll find that both sides have always and shall always do this. It is the nature of team support. By couching your argument like this you run the risk of displaying bias, which is a very dangerous thing for any purportedly neutral argument to display. And furthermore, behind every non-moderate left-winger is a fascist? I think that is calumny. I can name plenty of people whose personal beliefs skew quite far to the left who will not force this view down others' throats. They simply live their lives in accordance to their beliefs, vote left and stick up for their own views when challenged. Are you saying that the only acceptable position is moderate? What even is moderate? If moderate means simply listening to others and taking their opinions into account, then I agree with you, but I must be sure that you mean this, and I'm not. I would appreciate a clarification.
You say 'the temerity to express concern' - expressing concern is part of the process of the same free speech which you so vigorously defend. I think everyone has a right to express concern over any widely-held belief. I'm very concerned that Islam is being demonised to an excessive degree. Remember, it is a young religion. It will have to reform from within, and I firmly believe that it will do so. It has to. What will accelerate reform is greater integration, not less. In my opinion; you may disagree.
The polls that show how Islam being the UK's predominating demographic is a widely-held belief...well, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would 'express concern' about, because it's inaccurate crap brought about by media fearmongering and outright racism. This belief must be challenged with clear facts. Rather than labelling the proponents of the belief as subhuman idiots, they must be shown that they are severely misguided. There is a deficit in the flow of accurate information; my blame lies, as ever, with the nation's media (as well as elements within BOTH non-Islamic and Islamic communities that regard the notion of integration, sight unseen, with horror).
Now, it's clear by now that I am not against 'the multicultural experiment' (whatever this means - it strikes me as a phrase that can mean whatever the sayer wants it to); I'm aware that there are institutionalised elements within certain Islamic communities that contravene UK law, and I think we can trust the fuzz to sort that out. Terrorism, paedophilia, hate-preaching...all of these things are evil and wrong no matter who is responsible. The long arm of the law shall exercise justice. Referring to 'depressing results' of 'the multicultural experiment' risks tarring every Muslim with the same brush. Every demographic has its criminals.
I agree that having *no immigration controls at all* would be folly of the highest order, but I am generally in favour of free movement, and I very firmly believe that developed nations have a duty to help less fortunate nations achieve the same sort of living standards and opportunities that attract so many people to them, whether by fair trade, judicious investment, aid in times of crisis, armed intervention in extremis or restrictions on labour exploitation. I also think that mercy in the face of suffering is an excellent example to set.
My biggest argument with your post is your final call-to-arms against Islam, though. You seriously think the UK will become majority-Muslim, and not just majority-Muslim but majority-radicalised-Muslim? You appeal to 'your children's children' - what about right now? Do we live in a country that is being Islamified? Are the nice men and latterly women whom I play cricket with every summer Saturday 'backward, intolerant, repressive and dangerous'? I'll answer that one for you: no, they're not. They're well-adjusted and friendly. They're a credit to the UK. And they're coming for your children's children ffs come on, man - others may see this as post of the decade or whatever but I see it as torpedoing your own argument. Has it not occurred to you that Islam itself might, to some extent, be secularising? Especially in a country with laws as liberal as ours? You say 'without us having been consulted' - well, duh. Why is it our decision who breeds? Who passes immigration checks? Who do you mean by 'we'?
I had to go to the hospital last night because I've been having issues with my breathing following a cold (am athsmatic so they sent me straight there)
Had to wait about an hour and a half in total, in a pretty packed waiting area.
And to top it off, apart from one Muslim couple with their unwell baby, all the rest of those bloody immigrants were wearing body paint that made them look like white locals. And speaking in local accents too.
They were taking the piss. Don't want any more of them coming over here and adding to that.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
The 216 figure is completely false, as anyone who bothers to even educate themselves on the issue knows. It's actually more in the region of over 5000.
I had to go to the hospital last night because I've been having issues with my breathing following a cold (am athsmatic so they sent me straight there)
Had to wait about an hour and a half in total, in a pretty packed waiting area.
And to top it off, apart from one Muslim couple with their unwell baby, all the rest of those bloody immigrants were wearing body paint that made them look like white locals. And speaking in local accents too.
They were taking the piss. Don't want any more of them coming over here and adding to that.
We should make a few more NHS cuts though.
Sorry mate but if you live in London or any other big city I simply don't believe you.
I had to go to the hospital last night because I've been having issues with my breathing following a cold (am athsmatic so they sent me straight there)
Had to wait about an hour and a half in total, in a pretty packed waiting area.
And to top it off, apart from one Muslim couple with their unwell baby, all the rest of those bloody immigrants were wearing body paint that made them look like white locals. And speaking in local accents too.
They were taking the piss. Don't want any more of them coming over here and adding to that.
We should make a few more NHS cuts though.
Sorry mate but if you live in London or any other big city I simply don't believe you.
Princess Royal in Bromley. I'll take a photo next time.
One of my friends has been bombarding social media with petitions regarding helping the migrants, even though these petitions are largely meaningless. I also know that they purposefully shop at more expensive supermarkets (such as Waitrose, M&S and Co-op) when they could shop at the Lidl five minute walk down the road from them instead of wasting their money on the three rip-off supermarkets above and donating the savings to help refugees. I know for a fact they do not donate anything at all as they repeated that classic line 'charity is just posh tax avoidance'.
I think the fact that this has a great social media presence is a double-edged sword - it is great that this issue is getting the coverage it deserves, unfortunately I feel we have a generation of morons who think e-petitions, secret cinema tickets, cake sales or student union protests actually help these people. I have yet to meet a single activist who is willing to do something practical, yet everyone on my social media claims to be an activist.
I had to go to the hospital last night because I've been having issues with my breathing following a cold (am athsmatic so they sent me straight there)
Had to wait about an hour and a half in total, in a pretty packed waiting area.
And to top it off, apart from one Muslim couple with their unwell baby, all the rest of those bloody immigrants were wearing body paint that made them look like white locals. And speaking in local accents too.
They were taking the piss. Don't want any more of them coming over here and adding to that.
We should make a few more NHS cuts though.
Well I guarentee that weren't Darenth Valley. I went there last month and it was like a UN convention sponsored by Sports Direct.
It is an eloquent post and you make some good points, but you're also shooting the kentred2 fish, and his barrel is particularly cramped.
Agreed about the bankrupt integrity of the Guardian - while it does not fearmonger in quite the same way as the Mail, it is an organisation with an agenda that panders to bourgie handwringing faddism.
Disagree that right-wingers don't harangue others for possessing different opinions. You'll find that both sides have always and shall always do this. It is the nature of team support. By couching your argument like this you run the risk of displaying bias, which is a very dangerous thing for any purportedly neutral argument to display. And furthermore, behind every non-moderate left-winger is a fascist? I think that is calumny. I can name plenty of people whose personal beliefs skew quite far to the left who will not force this view down others' throats. They simply live their lives in accordance to their beliefs, vote left and stick up for their own views when challenged. Are you saying that the only acceptable position is moderate? What even is moderate? If moderate means simply listening to others and taking their opinions into account, then I agree with you, but I must be sure that you mean this, and I'm not. I would appreciate a clarification.
You say 'the temerity to express concern' - expressing concern is part of the process of the same free speech which you so vigorously defend. I think everyone has a right to express concern over any widely-held belief. I'm very concerned that Islam is being demonised to an excessive degree. Remember, it is a young religion. It will have to reform from within, and I firmly believe that it will do so. It has to. What will accelerate reform is greater integration, not less. In my opinion; you may disagree.
The polls that show how Islam being the UK's predominating demographic is a widely-held belief...well, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would 'express concern' about, because it's inaccurate crap brought about by media fearmongering and outright racism. This belief must be challenged with clear facts. Rather than labelling the proponents of the belief as subhuman idiots, they must be shown that they are severely misguided. There is a deficit in the flow of accurate information; my blame lies, as ever, with the nation's media (as well as elements within BOTH non-Islamic and Islamic communities that regard the notion of integration, sight unseen, with horror).
Now, it's clear by now that I am not against 'the multicultural experiment' (whatever this means - it strikes me as a phrase that can mean whatever the sayer wants it to); I'm aware that there are institutionalised elements within certain Islamic communities that contravene UK law, and I think we can trust the fuzz to sort that out. Terrorism, paedophilia, hate-preaching...all of these things are evil and wrong no matter who is responsible. The long arm of the law shall exercise justice. Referring to 'depressing results' of 'the multicultural experiment' risks tarring every Muslim with the same brush. Every demographic has its criminals.
I agree that having *no immigration controls at all* would be folly of the highest order, but I am generally in favour of free movement, and I very firmly believe that developed nations have a duty to help less fortunate nations achieve the same sort of living standards and opportunities that attract so many people to them, whether by fair trade, judicious investment, aid in times of crisis, armed intervention in extremis or restrictions on labour exploitation. I also think that mercy in the face of suffering is an excellent example to set.
My biggest argument with your post is your final call-to-arms against Islam, though. You seriously think the UK will become majority-Muslim, and not just majority-Muslim but majority-radicalised-Muslim? You appeal to 'your children's children' - what about right now? Do we live in a country that is being Islamified? Are the nice men and latterly women whom I play cricket with every summer Saturday 'backward, intolerant, repressive and dangerous'? I'll answer that one for you: no, they're not. They're well-adjusted and friendly. They're a credit to the UK. And they're coming for your children's children ffs come on, man - others may see this as post of the decade or whatever but I see it as torpedoing your own argument. Has it not occurred to you that Islam itself might, to some extent, be secularising? Especially in a country with laws as liberal as ours? You say 'without us having been consulted' - well, duh. Why is it our decision who breeds? Who passes immigration checks? Who do you mean by 'we'?
I don't think your post will be as well received as the other one, which is also a very good post.
Both posts are the result of thought and care, and although I tend to agree with Leuth, it is because I hope his more optimistic take is the one that prevails.
We are where we are, it seems clear that we are involved in a rather historic moment that seems the result of the creation of the global village that could hardly be imagined when I was younger.
When I was young t wasn't the way in which people from far off places were portrayed to us that made the globe seem so vast, it was vast in visceral reality. There was hardly a notion at home of the world out there, despite Britain having had an empire. Quiche Lorraine and Red Wine and Black Forest Gateaux were the very epitome of otherness, to most of us that was as exotic as you could get!
In he blink of an eye we can peer into the world of anybody anywhere, and is it any wonder that so many think the whole world is within reach, and refuge and escape from fear and prosperity can be found somewhere? And that distances across the globe really aren't that far, and those distances can be crossed?
In the light of what seems to be happening, notwithstanding all the forces shaping current events, there is some kind of Genie that has come out of some kind of Bottle on this planet, and traditional political solution may not be possible for very much longer.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
I expect more than 216 have made it here illegally as well.
I also expect those figures may change substantially within the next 12 months.
We should be taking more refugees.
I'm heartened by Cameron's speech today and the fact he's made known that we will be taking in more refugees - but only those from the UN set up refugee camps. Hopefully it will prevent many more trying to take the dangerous and illegal route into Europe and therefore prevent the kind of deaths we've seen in the past week or so.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
The 216 figure is completely false, as anyone who bothers to even educate themselves on the issue knows. It's actually more in the region of over 5000.
You're wrong.
The 216 figure refers to the "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme", as it says in the post. In addition, 4,866 Syrians have been granted asylum status in the UK since early 2011.
And, in the spirit of helping you to "educate yourself", the phrase to even educate themselves contains a split infinitive.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
Good but a highly selective figure. The 216 are from one specific relocation scheme only. There are many other routes and this has resulted in 5,000 plus (ignoring the illegal entries for which there are no figures, obviously.) There are waiting lists where over 1,500 are waiting to be administered. All refugees have not decided to enter UK - obviously Germany, Sweden, even Spain along with all the other European countries have taken in Syrian migrants, so your figures trying to assume they are all trying to get to the UK facing impossible odds are deeply flawed. But obviously very attractive to selective sensationalist newspapers and The Independent.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
The 216 figure is completely false, as anyone who bothers to even educate themselves on the issue knows. It's actually more in the region of over 5000.
You're wrong.
The 216 figure refers to the "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme", as it says in the post. In addition, 4,866 Syrians have been granted asylum status in the UK since early 2011.
And, in the spirit of helping you to "educate yourself", the phrase to even educate themselves contains a split infinitive.
So rather than being normally wrong, you were being purposefully wrong to fit your agenda. At least we know where you stand on this. And the fact that you care about 17th century grammar issues more than modern day affairs.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
Good but a highly selective figure. The 216 are from one specific relocation scheme only. There are many other routes and this has resulted in 5,000 plus (ignoring the illegal entries for which there are no figures, obviously.) There are waiting lists where over 1,500 are waiting to be administered. All refugees have not decided to enter UK - obviously Germany, Sweden, even Spain along with all the other European countries have taken in Syrian migrants, so your figures trying to assume they are all trying to get to the UK impossible odds are deeply flawed. But obviously very attractive to selective sensationalist newspapers and The Independent.
Have a look at my original post. I was asked about whether I would be happy to put up someone in my home. I said I would be, partly because of the next-to-impossible odds of getting here. The UK, where I live. So I have ignored the ones who have travelled to Iceland, Finland, Portugal, Estonia and everywhere else. Obviously.
''Next to impossible odds'' Really? So how come so many make it then?
The population of Syria was 23 million. Since the war started, 220,000 have been killed and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. 4 million have registered or are awaiting registration with the UNHCR.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
The 216 figure is completely false, as anyone who bothers to even educate themselves on the issue knows. It's actually more in the region of over 5000.
You're wrong.
The 216 figure refers to the "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme", as it says in the post. In addition, 4,866 Syrians have been granted asylum status in the UK since early 2011.
And, in the spirit of helping you to "educate yourself", the phrase to even educate themselves contains a split infinitive.
So rather than being normally wrong, you were being purposefully wrong to fit your agenda. At least we know where you stand on this. And the fact that you care about 17th century grammar issues more than modern day affairs.
No, I was right. I correctly and accurately referenced the 216 figure as being part of the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.
Chizz have you given a home to a homeless person who's life has been as challenged and tough, you don't need to offer it to an asylum seeker, why don't you get onto shelter and offer a home
Chizz have you given a home to a homeless person who's life has been as challenged and tough, you don't need to offer it to an asylum seeker, why don't you get onto shelter and offer a home
I wouldn't know how to go about doing that. What was your experience?
Comments
"They appear to be heading for prosperous countries in order to better their financial prospects". Really? You can tell that from pictures? Wow!
It's an easy thing to say and totally unrealistic as a real example
If people are honestly saying that this person who you know nothing about, you'd welcome into your sanctuary your insane and your family need to get you help before you do something crazy
It's not about coming across as a more humane and caring person, it's just the new cock measuring tool that people are jumping on
Really?
So how come so many make it then?
Deadline day - asylum special-30/09/15
We'll have reporters at all the asylum camps and you'll be the first to know of any movements.
Join Jim White and Sophie Sexysidekick for the final hour to see where the last minute (housing)deals happen!!!
Thus we must replace Guy Luzon with Iain Dowie at the earliest opportunity.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are also attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece. Some make it alive; some - as we have seen - do not.
So far, the United Kingdom (population 64.1 million) has received 216 Syrian refugees via the UK Government's "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme".
So, the war in a country with a population of 23 million has resulted in 216 refugees being given special status in the UK. I would call that pretty high odds against "making it".
Agreed about the bankrupt integrity of the Guardian - while it does not fearmonger in quite the same way as the Mail, it is an organisation with an agenda that panders to bourgie handwringing faddism.
Disagree that right-wingers don't harangue others for possessing different opinions. You'll find that both sides have always and shall always do this. It is the nature of team support. By couching your argument like this you run the risk of displaying bias, which is a very dangerous thing for any purportedly neutral argument to display. And furthermore, behind every non-moderate left-winger is a fascist? I think that is calumny. I can name plenty of people whose personal beliefs skew quite far to the left who will not force this view down others' throats. They simply live their lives in accordance to their beliefs, vote left and stick up for their own views when challenged. Are you saying that the only acceptable position is moderate? What even is moderate? If moderate means simply listening to others and taking their opinions into account, then I agree with you, but I must be sure that you mean this, and I'm not. I would appreciate a clarification.
You say 'the temerity to express concern' - expressing concern is part of the process of the same free speech which you so vigorously defend. I think everyone has a right to express concern over any widely-held belief. I'm very concerned that Islam is being demonised to an excessive degree. Remember, it is a young religion. It will have to reform from within, and I firmly believe that it will do so. It has to. What will accelerate reform is greater integration, not less. In my opinion; you may disagree.
The polls that show how Islam being the UK's predominating demographic is a widely-held belief...well, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would 'express concern' about, because it's inaccurate crap brought about by media fearmongering and outright racism. This belief must be challenged with clear facts. Rather than labelling the proponents of the belief as subhuman idiots, they must be shown that they are severely misguided. There is a deficit in the flow of accurate information; my blame lies, as ever, with the nation's media (as well as elements within BOTH non-Islamic and Islamic communities that regard the notion of integration, sight unseen, with horror).
Now, it's clear by now that I am not against 'the multicultural experiment' (whatever this means - it strikes me as a phrase that can mean whatever the sayer wants it to); I'm aware that there are institutionalised elements within certain Islamic communities that contravene UK law, and I think we can trust the fuzz to sort that out. Terrorism, paedophilia, hate-preaching...all of these things are evil and wrong no matter who is responsible. The long arm of the law shall exercise justice. Referring to 'depressing results' of 'the multicultural experiment' risks tarring every Muslim with the same brush. Every demographic has its criminals.
I agree that having *no immigration controls at all* would be folly of the highest order, but I am generally in favour of free movement, and I very firmly believe that developed nations have a duty to help less fortunate nations achieve the same sort of living standards and opportunities that attract so many people to them, whether by fair trade, judicious investment, aid in times of crisis, armed intervention in extremis or restrictions on labour exploitation. I also think that mercy in the face of suffering is an excellent example to set.
My biggest argument with your post is your final call-to-arms against Islam, though. You seriously think the UK will become majority-Muslim, and not just majority-Muslim but majority-radicalised-Muslim? You appeal to 'your children's children' - what about right now? Do we live in a country that is being Islamified? Are the nice men and latterly women whom I play cricket with every summer Saturday 'backward, intolerant, repressive and dangerous'? I'll answer that one for you: no, they're not. They're well-adjusted and friendly. They're a credit to the UK. And they're coming for your children's children ffs come on, man - others may see this as post of the decade or whatever but I see it as torpedoing your own argument. Has it not occurred to you that Islam itself might, to some extent, be secularising? Especially in a country with laws as liberal as ours? You say 'without us having been consulted' - well, duh. Why is it our decision who breeds? Who passes immigration checks? Who do you mean by 'we'?
Had to wait about an hour and a half in total, in a pretty packed waiting area.
And to top it off, apart from one Muslim couple with their unwell baby, all the rest of those bloody immigrants were wearing body paint that made them look like white locals. And speaking in local accents too.
They were taking the piss. Don't want any more of them coming over here and adding to that.
We should make a few more NHS cuts though.
I think the fact that this has a great social media presence is a double-edged sword - it is great that this issue is getting the coverage it deserves, unfortunately I feel we have a generation of morons who think e-petitions, secret cinema tickets, cake sales or student union protests actually help these people. I have yet to meet a single activist who is willing to do something practical, yet everyone on my social media claims to be an activist.
Both posts are the result of thought and care, and although I tend to agree with Leuth, it is because I hope his more optimistic take is the one that prevails.
We are where we are, it seems clear that we are involved in a rather historic moment that seems the result of the creation of the global village that could hardly be imagined when I was younger.
When I was young t wasn't the way in which people from far off places were portrayed to us that made the globe seem so vast, it was vast in visceral reality. There was hardly a notion at home of the world out there, despite Britain having had an empire. Quiche Lorraine and Red Wine and Black Forest Gateaux were the very epitome of otherness, to most of us that was as exotic as you could get!
In he blink of an eye we can peer into the world of anybody anywhere, and is it any wonder that so many think the whole world is within reach, and refuge and escape from fear and prosperity can be found somewhere? And that distances across the globe really aren't that far, and those distances can be crossed?
In the light of what seems to be happening, notwithstanding all the forces shaping current events, there is some kind of Genie that has come out of some kind of Bottle on this planet, and traditional political solution may not be possible for very much longer.
I also expect those figures may change substantially within the next 12 months.
We should be taking more refugees.
I'm heartened by Cameron's speech today and the fact he's made known that we will be taking in more refugees - but only those from the UN set up refugee camps. Hopefully it will prevent many more trying to take the dangerous and illegal route into Europe and therefore prevent the kind of deaths we've seen in the past week or so.
The 216 figure refers to the "Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme", as it says in the post. In addition, 4,866 Syrians have been granted asylum status in the UK since early 2011.
And, in the spirit of helping you to "educate yourself", the phrase to even educate themselves contains a split infinitive.
There are waiting lists where over 1,500 are waiting to be administered.
All refugees have not decided to enter UK - obviously Germany, Sweden, even Spain along with all the other European countries have taken in Syrian migrants, so your figures trying to assume they are all trying to get to the UK facing impossible odds are deeply flawed.
But obviously very attractive to selective sensationalist newspapers and The Independent.
But I will accept your apology in any case.