''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.
But I will accept your apology in any case.
You cherry picked a figure of 216 when previously referring to all refugees from Syria, not just those in one particular category (the original post referred to by A-R-T-H-U-R referred to all Syrian refugees). I don't particularly care if you apologise for being as disingenuous on this as you usually are on other current affairs, but it is very weird thinking you can accept apologies that haven't been issued, especially when you have clearly been wilfully misleading this entire time.
I wouldn't do it I feel no need to offer such a honorable gesture to someone, I ease my conscience by the odd monetary gift to a homeless person, and by supporting the big issue sellers, I have given time up to shelter at Xmas, I think it would be far more a gesture of kindness to offer the space to really needy homeless person
Seeing much of the hate(fear) amongst the compassionate feelings & views here, highlights that it is fortunate we forum followers have one other view in common, otherwise, I for one, would just flush...
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
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
All this crap about offer them a place in your home is ridiculous People have sympathy for sufferers of illness and disability and may chose to support charities that help them but you wouldn't say take em in to your home and look after them
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
Population density of the UK 662 per square mile, Germany 583 per square mile. Not sure what school you went to but that's a hell of a long way from "roughly double" !
It's clear that many Lifers find the idea of immigrants coming to the UK to improve their economic prospects abhorrent.
Thus we must replace Guy Luzon with Iain Dowie at the earliest opportunity.
It's not my economic prospects I worry about. Having to wait a month to see my doctor when my legs falling off is a worry.
Given that a quarter of all NHS doctors are from overseas, the NHS is in far better shape because of immigrants than it would be without them.
Hmm. Don't usually get involved in these threads as they tend to divide opinion into two camps pretty quickly and then it is just a good old CL bunfight. I just like the odd giving of a "like" or "lol" if the comment is true to form for that particular poster!
On the issue of the NHS though, another great divider on here, I would like to add balance to the last comment highlighted. Yes, 25% of NHS doctors are from overseas (your given figures and I will not dispute them) but if you visit any inner city emergency ward I dare say that more than 25% of the "customers" originate from overseas as well and this is where these people will gravite to, our inner cities, overstretched resources and services. And there lies my contribution to this debate, can we actually keep absorbing such cost with dwindling resources? Most of the people against opening doors and increasing any quota system are not racist, as much as the left leaning on here would love to believe, they are maybe realists? I don't know the correct word. Any way carry on, a fascinating thread.
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
Population density of the UK 662 per square mile, Germany 583 per square mile. Not sure what school you went to but that's a hell of a long way from "roughly double" !
Maybe they meant population density of England v Germany...don't know for sure but that would be around double.
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
Population density of the UK 662 per square mile, Germany 583 per square mile. Not sure what school you went to but that's a hell of a long way from "roughly double" !
Maybe they meant population density of England v Germany...don't know for sure but that would be around double.
Ah, well there's our answer. With Sturgeon weeping her way through the Scottish paliament the other day, there is plenty of room for the jocks to take as many as they can handle,they have lots of space... :0)
Wasnt there a comment some time ago about if everyone on the planet was to stand up that they would fit into the Isle Of Wight- or did i misread that? So, what about we take the Aussie method, and 'bung' them all on the IOW - after all, there'd be plenty of room and the IOW isnt worth much anyway- and it would raise the IQ level of the IOW populace?
For those interested in population matters, fascinating information on every country's population density, population by religion, age, gender, future growth etc http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ I never knew more people live on the Isle of Man than in Greenland.
How many homeless people do you currently accommodate all ready, your home must he huge, such a kind and considerate offer surely you offer that too all in need regardless of their immigration status,
Well I'd be homeless if I didn't live here, so one I suppose.
So you don't want to answer if you currently accommodate any uk people in need such as homeless people in your town or a single mum on her uppers or is it only immigrants you want to help.
Another person who can't quite grasp the difference between "immigrant" and "refugee"...
To use a phrase I don't like - my bad.
Refugee.
Question still stands. Is it only refugees you want to put up ?
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
Population density of the UK 662 per square mile, Germany 583 per square mile. Not sure what school you went to but that's a hell of a long way from "roughly double" !
Maybe they meant population density of England v Germany...don't know for sure but that would be around double.
It's clear that many Lifers find the idea of immigrants coming to the UK to improve their economic prospects abhorrent.
Thus we must replace Guy Luzon with Iain Dowie at the earliest opportunity.
It's not my economic prospects I worry about. Having to wait a month to see my doctor when my legs falling off is a worry.
Given that a quarter of all NHS doctors are from overseas, the NHS is in far better shape because of immigrants than it would be without them.
Hmm. Don't usually get involved in these threads as they tend to divide opinion into two camps pretty quickly and then it is just a good old CL bunfight. I just like the odd giving of a "like" or "lol" if the comment is true to form for that particular poster!
On the issue of the NHS though, another great divider on here, I would like to add balance to the last comment highlighted. Yes, 25% of NHS doctors are from overseas (your given figures and I will not dispute them) but if you visit any inner city emergency ward I dare say that more than 25% of the "customers" originate from overseas as well and this is where these people will gravite to, our inner cities, overstretched resources and services. And there lies my contribution to this debate, can we actually keep absorbing such cost with dwindling resources? Most of the people against opening doors and increasing any quota system are not racist, as much as the left leaning on here would love to believe, they are maybe realists? I don't know the correct word. Any way carry on, a fascinating thread.
and don't forget the translators. The last time I was in A&E everything was grinding to a halt as translators couldn't be found.
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
Population density of the UK 662 per square mile, Germany 583 per square mile. Not sure what school you went to but that's a hell of a long way from "roughly double" !
Maybe they meant population density of England v Germany...don't know for sure but that would be around double.
As regards to how wonderful and welcoming the Germans are may I point point out that the population density in the UK is roughly double that of Germany.
Population density of the UK 662 per square mile, Germany 583 per square mile. Not sure what school you went to but that's a hell of a long way from "roughly double" !
Maybe they meant population density of England v Germany...don't know for sure but that would be around double.
out of interest what is it in England?
Population density is a bit of a basic measure. You need to consider a couple of things:
A ) how much impact the existing population is already having on the environment and how this impact will increase as the population increases
B ) how much land is actually available to develop on
There are several estimates on what we need to do to sustain our current population growth but most seem to suggest we will need to start building or planning to build a new city every 50 years. Brownfield sites are at a premium and we need to protect greenbelt sites as these sustain the environment and generally improve wellbeing and longevity, whereas high concentrations of people in small spaces such as high rises, compactly packed houses/flats or estates have measurable effects on happiness, wellbeing and health.
The problem is new influxes of population not arising from birth tend to gravitate towards places that are already overcapacity, causing a strain on both local services as well as the environment.
Giles Fraser is pontificating in the Guardian that if you oppose uncontrolled immigration you're a racist and that we should be developing the greenbelt to let these people in. I wonder if Eco-fascist and fellow Graun columnist Moonbat will object to the horrifying idea that we should further destroy the environment to further increase our population. Funnily enough, the Green Party's manifesto in 2015 had the contrary pledges to open our borders and reduce our population for environmental reasons.
''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".
Chizz - I for one would appreciate it if you could stop negating the un-thought out , facile, sound bite comments from fellow lifers with your factually accurate responses
Leuth said .....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. ... To compare the Guardian to the Mail for journalistic integrity is laughable. "Bankrupt integrity".......http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/awards . I think the awards that The Guardian won exemplifies the absurdity of your claim. I guess you might mean that the only Broadsheet in the country to offer a moderate left of center perspective is bankrupt in terms of integrity because you disagree with its political editorial.
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.
In the meantime, just rub some savlon on it, try not to scratch it too much and be more careful where you put it in future
The inability of the EU to protect its borders and act as a unified entity will have been noted in Russia. When masked men carrying heavy weaponry start surfacing in the Baltics it's going to be because the EU and NATO are perceived as weak and divided. Putin will be loving this crisis.
Beds how many starving Africans have you taken in over the years, or do you send food parcels each month. How many of the worlds suffering should we take in, how do you say no to a starving child taken millions sod the increase in benefits, the strain on the NHS, shortage of housing. the affect on the old age pension. Still not much room in London now so put them all in Bedfordshire
Comments
First
But then
People have sympathy for sufferers of illness and disability and may chose to support charities that help them but you wouldn't say take em in to your home and look after them
On the issue of the NHS though, another great divider on here, I would like to add balance to the last comment highlighted. Yes, 25% of NHS doctors are from overseas (your given figures and I will not dispute them) but if you visit any inner city emergency ward I dare say that more than 25% of the "customers" originate from overseas as well and this is where these people will gravite to, our inner cities, overstretched resources and services. And there lies my contribution to this debate, can we actually keep absorbing such cost with dwindling resources? Most of the people against opening doors and increasing any quota system are not racist, as much as the left leaning on here would love to believe, they are maybe realists? I don't know the correct word. Any way carry on, a fascinating thread.
So, what about we take the Aussie method, and 'bung' them all on the IOW - after all, there'd be plenty of room and the IOW isnt worth much anyway- and it would raise the IQ level of the IOW populace?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/opinion/australias-brutal-treatment-of-migrants.html?_r=0
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
I never knew more people live on the Isle of Man than in Greenland.
And some general spending patterns, this is always entertaining
http://www.worldometers.info
Refugee.
Question still stands. Is it only refugees you want to put up ?
This thread has been a great read so far, sadly it seems trolling time has arrived for Chizz, I imagine the end is near.
A ) how much impact the existing population is already having on the environment and how this impact will increase as the population increases
B ) how much land is actually available to develop on
There are several estimates on what we need to do to sustain our current population growth but most seem to suggest we will need to start building or planning to build a new city every 50 years. Brownfield sites are at a premium and we need to protect greenbelt sites as these sustain the environment and generally improve wellbeing and longevity, whereas high concentrations of people in small spaces such as high rises, compactly packed houses/flats or estates have measurable effects on happiness, wellbeing and health.
The problem is new influxes of population not arising from birth tend to gravitate towards places that are already overcapacity, causing a strain on both local services as well as the environment.
Giles Fraser is pontificating in the Guardian that if you oppose uncontrolled immigration you're a racist and that we should be developing the greenbelt to let these people in. I wonder if Eco-fascist and fellow Graun columnist Moonbat will object to the horrifying idea that we should further destroy the environment to further increase our population. Funnily enough, the Green Party's manifesto in 2015 had the contrary pledges to open our borders and reduce our population for environmental reasons.
...
To compare the Guardian to the Mail for journalistic integrity is laughable. "Bankrupt integrity".......http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/awards . I think the awards that The Guardian won exemplifies the absurdity of your claim. I guess you might mean that the only Broadsheet in the country to offer a moderate left of center perspective is bankrupt in terms of integrity because you disagree with its political editorial.