FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Immigration Hypocrisy 2
Immigration Hypocrisy 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know this is a site for people to meet up and have sex right? You need to get a fucking hobby boy" hahaha haha...did you finish reading all of it before saying that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know this is a site for people to meet up and have sex right? You need to get a fucking hobby boyhahaha haha...did you finish reading all of it before saying that" And it is obvious what his hobby is apart from swinging!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know this is a site for people to meet up and have sex right? You need to get a fucking hobby boy" ...it's utterly appalling - a post about politics in the Politics forum...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The previous thread has thrown up some really interesting examples of cognitive dissonance. Trying to rationalise two conflicting ideas and beliefs. Ukraine has people in danger and there are many refugees. They travel to a safe country. Syria has has people in danger and there are many refugees. They travel to a safe country. Ukrainians refugees seeking asylum as refugees can apply for a range of routes into the UK via a number of newly created schemes. Exclusively for them that no other refugee from anywhere else in the world can access. Family migration visa Ukrainian family scheme Humanitarian Sponsorship Pathway Ukraine Scheme Ukraine Extension scheme Bringing a pet to the UK Ukrainian Displaced Persons Travel Scheme Ukrainian temporary visas in the UK They have access to accommodation, a right to work and full benefits. They can also then claim asylum once here. All of this is fine. However, people in equal need from other parts of the world have no way to apply for asylum in a safe third country. In fact, spending any time in a safe third country is given as a reason not to allow them to travel to the UK. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a very important document but not when interpreted, unambiguously, by the UN body created to govern it's application and report to it (UNHCR). The Dublin accord where EU countries agreed to process (not keep) asylum seekers in the first country of arrival is also very important, even though the UK is no longer a party to it. There is also an order of preference in which people should be helped. Not everyone in the same need should be helped at all whilst others should get particularly good treatment. One group of people in exactly the same circumstances is treated completely differently to another group. Despite the actual legal position, one group of people are "illegal immigrants" despite the overwhelming majority being granted asylum. Their path to receiving this status is obstructed as much as possible. The other group are automatically assumed to be genuine and have a process set-up to specifically make this as painless as possible. Non of this is seen as hypocritical or contradictory in any way. In addition this dual system is consistent and fair. Now, whatever view about immigration people have is up to them. To my mind much of what was expressed was very ugly, however much it was dressed up with faux concern for people's well-being. What I really find intriguing is the knots people will tie themselves in claiming that it is not hypocritical to condemn and demonise one group of people and making their lives as hard as possible whilst feting and celebrating another group of people in exactly the same circumstances and making their lives as good as possible. Why go to the trouble of trying to justify it? Why not just say that we will be unfair to one group of people and treat them differently simply because of where they come from and our prejudices/beliefs are about them? All of those with a belief that this system is fine give an impression of being "straight talking" bit are all unable to say out loud what they appear to think and mean. I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though "I live in hope you answer mine aswell bloody hell id be happy if you ever answered any questions all you do is ask them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I live in hope you answer mine aswell bloody hell id be happy if you ever answered any questions all you do is ask them " Actually, I answered you twice, but apparently not to your satisfaction. You never answered the first thread nor seem able to give a direct response to this one, despite quoting it all. Hopefully you can, at least stay civil this time even of you aren't actually going to contribute meaningfully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Come on easy there are enough posts in the previous thread telling u why the rules were changed, there from europe and they look similar to most other europeans so people will empathise with them more also its mainly women and kids seeking to come here not blokes in there 20s and 30s,myself i wouldnt of changed the rules at all" Actually, even the first thread wasn't about why. I laid that out in the second post summary in this thread anyway. It was, and still is, about the hypocrisy of treating one group of people differently to another whilst swearing blind that it is completely consistent and not in any way hypocritical. I would ask the question as to who is in more direct danger of arret and torture or execution under an oppressive regime? Even just being gay. Young men of fighting age, or women and children? Being a young man doesn't mean that you don't need to find asylum. I agree with applying the same rules, whatever they may be. Others don't. Like our Prime Minister. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uk/USA led Iraq war created 2 million refugees Uk gave them fuck all. " That's completely consistent with what we are doing for Ukrainians. Oh, wait. No it isn't. However, we didn't directly get involved in Ukraine until later, so we have less responsibility and should clearly provide more help... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I live in hope you answer mine aswell bloody hell id be happy if you ever answered any questions all you do is ask them Actually, I answered you twice, but apparently not to your satisfaction. You never answered the first thread nor seem able to give a direct response to this one, despite quoting it all. Hopefully you can, at least stay civil this time even of you aren't actually going to contribute meaningfully." no you didn’t answer you refused because your also a hypocrite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I live in hope you answer mine aswell bloody hell id be happy if you ever answered any questions all you do is ask them Actually, I answered you twice, but apparently not to your satisfaction. You never answered the first thread nor seem able to give a direct response to this one, despite quoting it all. Hopefully you can, at least stay civil this time even of you aren't actually going to contribute meaningfully.no you didn’t answer you refused because your also a hypocrite " You seem confused as to the meaning of the word, as we're a few others on that thread
Rather than waiting for the answer that you want, read what I wrote.
Regardless, you have now taken space on two threads not engaging with the question and just insulting me.
That tells me something about you. What does it tell you about yourself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many explanations were given in the previous thread. As always, you have decided to not look at them and repeat the same questions again. Keep going "The more I look at easy's posts they look more like a piece of deep mind AI.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though "Just noticed this funny part. People did answer all your questions. Unfortunately you do not seem to be open minded enough to discuss it rationally. I see that if anyone disagrees with you, you consider that an abuse 
Way to go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many explanations were given in the previous thread. As always, you have decided to not look at them and repeat the same questions again. Keep going
The more I look at easy's posts they look more like a piece of deep mind AI. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My understanding of the Ukraine’s that have come into the UK is they have not come under full refugee status but instead 6 months leave to remain after that I am guessing they can apply for refugees status ..." The people arriving from Ukraine are not refugees in the legal sense, and therefore are ineligible for asylum. They are coming here under a special visa scheme, which the government could extend, or revoke, at any time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My understanding of the Ukraine’s that have come into the UK is they have not come under full refugee status but instead 6 months leave to remain after that I am guessing they can apply for refugees status ... The people arriving from Ukraine are not refugees in the legal sense, and therefore are ineligible for asylum. They are coming here under a special visa scheme, which the government could extend, or revoke, at any time." . Yes that is how I understand it.Under Universal Credit which they are allowed to claim they still have to provide 3 forms of identification and look for work which from a personal perspective I think it is the right thing to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there no way of sponsoring ppl other than Ukrainians? " Decided to see if I can answer my own question https://www.gov.uk/government/news/community-sponsorship-scheme-launched-for-refugees-in-the-uk Not looked at the feels it differences.... But I'd welcome someone with more knowledge to explain what the differences are in approaches. And a in the old thread, imo it's because Ukraine continues to be newsworthy so HMG needs to be seen to be doing something. Want there an Afghan scheme announced when that was on the papers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" I do not see many people complaining about the governments decision so we can assume that it is the correct one and in line with the wishes of the majority of the population of the UK. Ukraine have thanked us time and time again for our help. The help is temporary, Ukrainians fit in with our cultural and religious beliefs . They will return home once the ward is over . They are entering the country legally and with the governments approval. It is irrelevant whether the decision is fair or what the law says in this case . We are helping and that is what matters . You simply cannot help everyone. Our resources are already very linited and we are now taking action to prevent people smuggling and illegal immigration. The only problem we might have is that human rights lawyers who are simply out to line their own pockets with legal fees are challenging it. Those who wish to help everyone can always make a donation to a charity of their choice to the country concerned. Our record with Ukraine is one to be proud of , not queried . Nothing is fair in life so we can forget about trying to treat everyone equally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though
Just noticed this funny part. People did answer all your questions. Unfortunately you do not seem to be open minded enough to discuss it rationally. I see that if anyone disagrees with you, you consider that an abuse
Way to go "It is an odd approach, he’s like a dog with a bone. I haven’t seen any abuse so I assume he was expecting lots of support but the claim of ‘hypocrisy’ is just wrong. A personal interest possibly? I know that this is the political section but it does seem an odd debate for a swingers site. Lighten up fella, remember the great British sense of humour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. " Before the war were the weapons and military training for free? Or did ‘we’ do it for money? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. " iirc out refugees per capita has always been low versus our peers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. " Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar." Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many explanations were given in the previous thread. As always, you have decided to not look at them and repeat the same questions again. Keep going "Actually, what was the point. All sorts of self- contradictory answers were given. That is what I am inviting you to look at and what I have summarised in the second post here. It is interesting how many people do their "thinking" once with whatever information aligns with their views. People even wrote a definition of how the system being unfair and hypocritical before concluding that it absolutely was not. You don't have to comment again, but have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many explanations were given in the previous thread. As always, you have decided to not look at them and repeat the same questions again. Keep going
Actually, what was the point. All sorts of self- contradictory answers were given.
That is what I am inviting you to look at and what I have summarised in the second post here.
It is interesting how many people do their "thinking" once with whatever information aligns with their views.
People even wrote a definition of how the system being unfair and hypocritical before concluding that it absolutely was not.
You don't have to comment again, but have."You complain about other people thinking in terms of what align with their views while you are doing the same thing. Helping one group of people but not other is not hypocrisy. It's as simple as that. People have explained why that's the case as much as possible. Here you are spamming the forum repeating the same questions you were asking in the previous thread. It looks like you just don't want to hear an answer to your question because it goes against your own view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My understanding of the Ukraine’s that have come into the UK is they have not come under full refugee status but instead 6 months leave to remain after that I am guessing they can apply for refugees status depending on what the situation in Ukraine will be by then. I also know that to apply for Universal Credit they still need to provide 3 forms of identification and are still expected to look and apply for jobs the same way other claimants on Universal Credit do.What perhaps can be viewed negative is if I wanted I could sponsor a Ukraine family and receive £350 a month but I couldn’t sponsor a UK family or homeless person." There has been an entirely new process set up exclusively for Ukrainian refugees. They can even apply for asylum some time after being here. Not inherently a bad thing, but completely different to what others face and with substantially more government help provided to negotiate the process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My understanding of the Ukraine’s that have come into the UK is they have not come under full refugee status but instead 6 months leave to remain after that I am guessing they can apply for refugees status depending on what the situation in Ukraine will be by then. I also know that to apply for Universal Credit they still need to provide 3 forms of identification and are still expected to look and apply for jobs the same way other claimants on Universal Credit do.What perhaps can be viewed negative is if I wanted I could sponsor a Ukraine family and receive £350 a month but I couldn’t sponsor a UK family or homeless person. There has been an entirely new process set up exclusively for Ukrainian refugees. They can even apply for asylum some time after being here. Not inherently a bad thing, but completely different to what others face and with substantially more government help provided to negotiate the process." . It does seemed to be a more streamlined process for the Ukraine people as I know through my job that they are getting there biometric residents permit and National Insurance Numbers as quickly as 8 weeks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My understanding of the Ukraine’s that have come into the UK is they have not come under full refugee status but instead 6 months leave to remain after that I am guessing they can apply for refugees status ... The people arriving from Ukraine are not refugees in the legal sense, and therefore are ineligible for asylum. They are coming here under a special visa scheme, which the government could extend, or revoke, at any time." Actually, Ukrainians can apply for asylum. Nobody is "ineligible" to apply for asylum. People can apply for asylum if they arrive with a tourist visa. It is not clear that they would retain their other benefits or move to the chaotic and austere asylum system that people from other countries have to go through. That is certainly a distinctive. You are always very definitive in your posts, but the world isn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar." The EU has been hypocritical in its treatment of refugees from different countries. Particularly Poland and Hungary. Germany significantly less so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been an entirely new process set up exclusively for Ukrainian refugees. They can even apply for asylum some time after being here." They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees. They can apply for residence, which is done under different rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There has been an entirely new process set up exclusively for Ukrainian refugees. They can even apply for asylum some time after being here. Not inherently a bad thing, but completely different to what others face and with substantially more government help provided to negotiate the process.. It does seemed to be a more streamlined process for the Ukraine people as I know through my job that they are getting there biometric residents permit and National Insurance Numbers as quickly as 8 weeks " Few points to add What was UK intake of UA citizens before the invasion - I’d guess near zero How many of the 60,000 UA arrivals will make UK their permanent home. I’d argue most will want to return home and rebuild their lives Uk intake is 0.09% that of Poland. The 27 Russian war ships in the mined Black Sea are holding the third world to food ransom, this is not just about Ukraine now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually, Ukrainians can apply for asylum. Nobody is "ineligible" to apply for asylum." Well obviously anyone can make an application, it just won't be considered. A state is only required to grant asylum to genuine refugees. The state can choose to accept asylum applications from non-refugees, but it seems that our government is not keen on doing that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it hypocritical or inconsistent? Only if HMG has said all refugees should have identical access would it be hypothetical. Again, I'm not clear what the differences are between the schemes on the table. " Inconsistent is the right word. Hypocrisy is defined as claiming to have high moral standards while acting otherwise. A country helping one group of people but not others is anything but hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though
Just noticed this funny part. People did answer all your questions. Unfortunately you do not seem to be open minded enough to discuss it rationally. I see that if anyone disagrees with you, you consider that an abuse
Way to go
It is an odd approach, he’s like a dog with a bone. I haven’t seen any abuse so I assume he was expecting lots of support but the claim of ‘hypocrisy’ is just wrong. A personal interest possibly? I know that this is the political section but it does seem an odd debate for a swingers site. Lighten up fella, remember the great British sense of humour."As you spent most of the last thread telling me what my thinking and motivation is, telling me that I have not been insulted or abused is not a surprising next step. You can gaslight all you like
What "personal interest" are you implying beyond wanting to see a fairer world? You asked several times in the last thread if it was about skin colour. Is that what you are implying again? I never have and it is of no consequence unless that is part of the "cultural similarity". Please add some detail to the innuendo.
I never expect much "support". I'm interested to see the justification as it contradicts the reasons given for keeping people from other countries out.
That, actually, is hypocrisy.
Your position is clear however contorted your argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been an entirely new process set up exclusively for Ukrainian refugees. They can even apply for asylum some time after being here. They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees. They can apply for residence, which is done under different rules." If you like. Not true though. Anyone can apply for asylum under any circumstances as long as it is done as soon as it becomes clear that it is unsafe to return home. Of course, the UK is still trying to claim that passing through a safe third country negates that, but even the UK courts do not think that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though
Just noticed this funny part. People did answer all your questions. Unfortunately you do not seem to be open minded enough to discuss it rationally. I see that if anyone disagrees with you, you consider that an abuse
Way to go
It is an odd approach, he’s like a dog with a bone. I haven’t seen any abuse so I assume he was expecting lots of support but the claim of ‘hypocrisy’ is just wrong. A personal interest possibly? I know that this is the political section but it does seem an odd debate for a swingers site. Lighten up fella, remember the great British sense of humour.
As you spent most of the last thread telling me what my thinking and motivation is, telling me that I have not been insulted or abused is not a surprising next step.
You can gaslight all you like
What "personal interest" are you implying beyond wanting to see a fairer world? You asked several times in the last thread if it was about skin colour. Is that what you are implying again? I never have and it is of no consequence unless that is part of the "cultural similarity". Please add some detail to the innuendo.
I never expect much "support". I'm interested to see the justification as it contradicts the reasons given for keeping people from other countries out.
That, actually, is hypocrisy.
Your position is clear however contorted your argument."You either simply misread things or you deliberately look for an opportunity to twist comments to suit your original incorrect post. Are you a politician? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if it more the fact it’s on the UKs doorstep and it’s the ease in which they can offer help to stop our Europeans partners being swamped. I know that sounds hypocritical but in terms of immediacy and practicality it was easy to help. Even then we fucked it up and made visas hard. Perhaps the partner countries around the other conflict areas should do much more to help in a similair way? " yes I’d like to know what them countries are doing to help there neighbours aswell ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees." "If you like. Not true though. Anyone can apply for asylum under any circumstances " Again, yes anyone can apply at any time, but they won't be considered if they are not a refugee. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the governing regulation, and in article 1 it defines what a refugee is. To simplify it a bit it's: A person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unwilling to return to that country. There's nothing in the convention that states that a person fleeing from war is a refugee. The fact that their home is 'unsafe' does not make them a refugee. So, Ukranians, while worthy of humanitarian aid (and receiving it from the UNHCR), are not legally refugees, and no state is required to grant them asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though
Just noticed this funny part. People did answer all your questions. Unfortunately you do not seem to be open minded enough to discuss it rationally. I see that if anyone disagrees with you, you consider that an abuse
Way to go
It is an odd approach, he’s like a dog with a bone. I haven’t seen any abuse so I assume he was expecting lots of support but the claim of ‘hypocrisy’ is just wrong. A personal interest possibly? I know that this is the political section but it does seem an odd debate for a swingers site. Lighten up fella, remember the great British sense of humour.
As you spent most of the last thread telling me what my thinking and motivation is, telling me that I have not been insulted or abused is not a surprising next step.
You can gaslight all you like
What "personal interest" are you implying beyond wanting to see a fairer world? You asked several times in the last thread if it was about skin colour. Is that what you are implying again? I never have and it is of no consequence unless that is part of the "cultural similarity". Please add some detail to the innuendo.
I never expect much "support". I'm interested to see the justification as it contradicts the reasons given for keeping people from other countries out.
That, actually, is hypocrisy.
Your position is clear however contorted your argument."Fella your a salmom swiming up the river against the tide. I guess you know whats what by now ffrom this ping pong tennis match. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many explanations were given in the previous thread. As always, you have decided to not look at them and repeat the same questions again. Keep going
Actually, what was the point. All sorts of self- contradictory answers were given.
That is what I am inviting you to look at and what I have summarised in the second post here.
It is interesting how many people do their "thinking" once with whatever information aligns with their views.
People even wrote a definition of how the system being unfair and hypocritical before concluding that it absolutely was not.
You don't have to comment again, but have.
You complain about other people thinking in terms of what align with their views while you are doing the same thing. Helping one group of people but not other is not hypocrisy. It's as simple as that. People have explained why that's the case as much as possible. Here you are spamming the forum repeating the same questions you were asking in the previous thread. It looks like you just don't want to hear an answer to your question because it goes against your own view."I'm not complaining. I've stated that before. I am now interested in how people are coming to this conclusion. The second post in this thread is all about that. It is, indeed, not hypocritical to prioritise one group over another. I may disagree with the parameters that some use, but with limited resources that is a reasonable principle. What is hypocritical is giving a set of reasons for not doing something which are presented as clear and unambiguous and unarguable but then ignoring them in the treatment of another group of people in exactly the same circumstances. Naturally I am debating the difference to my view. That is the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if it more the fact it’s on the UKs doorstep and it’s the ease in which they can offer help to stop our Europeans partners being swamped. I know that sounds hypocritical but in terms of immediacy and practicality it was easy to help. Even then we fucked it up and made visas hard. Perhaps the partner countries around the other conflict areas should do much more to help in a similair way? yes I’d like to know what them countries are doing to help there neighbours aswell ?" Easy enough to look up. Countries around Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have taken literally millions of refugees. What point are you making with respect to us having created different rules to Ukrainians? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is hypocritical is giving a set of reasons for not doing something which are presented as clear and unambiguous and unarguable but then ignoring them in the treatment of another group of people in exactly the same circumstances." Which reasons are you referring to here ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it hypocritical or inconsistent? Only if HMG has said all refugees should have identical access would it be hypothetical. Again, I'm not clear what the differences are between the schemes on the table. " Both. Inconsistent in applying different rules. Hypocritical in the reasoning for treating one group in a certain way being ignored for another. For instance, does being in a safe third country mean that you do need help or that you do not? It is hypocritical to say that this is a reason to deny one set of people access but is not relevant when looking at another group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees. If you like. Not true though. Anyone can apply for asylum under any circumstances Again, yes anyone can apply at any time, but they won't be considered if they are not a refugee. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the governing regulation, and in article 1 it defines what a refugee is. To simplify it a bit it's: A person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unwilling to return to that country. There's nothing in the convention that states that a person fleeing from war is a refugee. The fact that their home is 'unsafe' does not make them a refugee. So, Ukranians, while worthy of humanitarian aid (and receiving it from the UNHCR), are not legally refugees, and no state is required to grant them asylum." Have a look on the UK Government website as to the words used. If you wish to try "win" detailed legal arguments with very little knowledge then this isn't the place for it. Feel free to continue, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion from my perspective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it hypocritical or inconsistent? Only if HMG has said all refugees should have identical access would it be hypothetical. Again, I'm not clear what the differences are between the schemes on the table. Inconsistent is the right word. Hypocrisy is defined as claiming to have high moral standards while acting otherwise. A country helping one group of people but not others is anything but hypocrisy. " Quite. So claiming to have high moral standards and applying them to one group of people is hypocritical when you do everything in your power to deny them to a different group. Clear enough? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if it more the fact it’s on the UKs doorstep and it’s the ease in which they can offer help to stop our Europeans partners being swamped. I know that sounds hypocritical but in terms of immediacy and practicality it was easy to help. Even then we fucked it up and made visas hard. Perhaps the partner countries around the other conflict areas should do much more to help in a similair way? yes I’d like to know what them countries are doing to help there neighbours aswell ? Easy enough to look up. Countries around Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have taken literally millions of refugees. What point are you making with respect to us having created different rules to Ukrainians?" that’s good news but can’t be doing enough to help them if they are paying a fortune and risking there lives to come here it just doesn’t make sence to me does it to you ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees. If you like. Not true though. Anyone can apply for asylum under any circumstances Again, yes anyone can apply at any time, but they won't be considered if they are not a refugee. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the governing regulation, and in article 1 it defines what a refugee is. To simplify it a bit it's: A person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unwilling to return to that country. There's nothing in the convention that states that a person fleeing from war is a refugee. The fact that their home is 'unsafe' does not make them a refugee. So, Ukranians, while worthy of humanitarian aid (and receiving it from the UNHCR), are not legally refugees, and no state is required to grant them asylum. Have a look on the UK Government website as to the words used. If you wish to try "win" detailed legal arguments with very little knowledge then this isn't the place for it. Feel free to continue, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion from my perspective." they generally don't use refugee tho from what I can see ... Are we looking at different pages? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homes-for-ukraine-scheme-frequently-asked-questions https://www.gov.uk/register-interest-homes-ukraine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have a look on the UK Government website as to the words used." You could always post the words here so that we can all see. Or you could tell us how to find the words that you think are important. I quoted my sources for the things I said so that anyone could go and check if I was lying or not. If you're unwilling to post the words that support your argument here, then people might start to form an opinion of you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In an effort to move this debate along, what’s the solution to this heinous injustice? " have specific places near asylum hot spots where you can apply for asylum. Ideally a joined up approach with other countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In an effort to move this debate along, what’s the solution to this heinous injustice? " If we are talking about refugees from war torn countries, then stop supplying them and their neighbours with arms The incomplete list of arms peddlers; USA, UK Canada France Russia China Germany | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sure there will be no answer, just more abuse. I live in hope though
Just noticed this funny part. People did answer all your questions. Unfortunately you do not seem to be open minded enough to discuss it rationally. I see that if anyone disagrees with you, you consider that an abuse
Way to go
It is an odd approach, he’s like a dog with a bone. I haven’t seen any abuse so I assume he was expecting lots of support but the claim of ‘hypocrisy’ is just wrong. A personal interest possibly? I know that this is the political section but it does seem an odd debate for a swingers site. Lighten up fella, remember the great British sense of humour.
As you spent most of the last thread telling me what my thinking and motivation is, telling me that I have not been insulted or abused is not a surprising next step.
You can gaslight all you like
What "personal interest" are you implying beyond wanting to see a fairer world? You asked several times in the last thread if it was about skin colour. Is that what you are implying again? I never have and it is of no consequence unless that is part of the "cultural similarity". Please add some detail to the innuendo.
I never expect much "support". I'm interested to see the justification as it contradicts the reasons given for keeping people from other countries out.
That, actually, is hypocrisy.
Your position is clear however contorted your argument.
Fella your a salmom swiming up the river against the tide. I guess you know whats what by now ffrom this ping pong tennis match. "To be facetious, salmon do successfully swim up river to continue the survival of their species
Actually, the ping pong is interesting in that part of that seems to involve not accepting new information when provided.
Anchoring a view based on the first conclusion drawn based on whatever information was available (or acceptable) then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if it more the fact it’s on the UKs doorstep and it’s the ease in which they can offer help to stop our Europeans partners being swamped. I know that sounds hypocritical but in terms of immediacy and practicality it was easy to help. Even then we fucked it up and made visas hard. Perhaps the partner countries around the other conflict areas should do much more to help in a similair way? yes I’d like to know what them countries are doing to help there neighbours aswell ? Easy enough to look up. Countries around Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have taken literally millions of refugees. What point are you making with respect to us having created different rules to Ukrainians? that’s good news but can’t be doing enough to help them if they are paying a fortune and risking there lives to come here it just doesn’t make sence to me does it to you ?" Why should Ukrainians wish to come here? Do the speak the language? Have family or an existing community to join that would welcome them? It wouldn't cost a fortune if they had the same routes available to Ukrainians, would it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In an effort to move this debate along, what’s the solution to this heinous injustice? " Why the dramatic language? I understand that you do not consider it a problem. Is it sarcasm? A solution would be using scarce resource for those most in need. Orphaned children. Those requiring hard to obtain medical help. Them you may also wish to look at who has actually been mistreated for their political views or sexuality or whatever other reason. All regardless of geographical location. In fact, the irony is that foreign aid can do more good for more people closer to their home countries than asylum or "special" visas for refugees. The money would go further, but we have chosen to cut that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should Ukrainians wish to come here? Do the speak the language? Have family or an existing community to join that would welcome them? It wouldn't cost a fortune if they had the same routes available to Ukrainians, would it?" This tread gets uglier every time you post Hopefully it gets shut down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if it more the fact it’s on the UKs doorstep and it’s the ease in which they can offer help to stop our Europeans partners being swamped. I know that sounds hypocritical but in terms of immediacy and practicality it was easy to help. Even then we fucked it up and made visas hard. Perhaps the partner countries around the other conflict areas should do much more to help in a similair way? yes I’d like to know what them countries are doing to help there neighbours aswell ? Easy enough to look up. Countries around Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have taken literally millions of refugees. What point are you making with respect to us having created different rules to Ukrainians? that’s good news but can’t be doing enough to help them if they are paying a fortune and risking there lives to come here it just doesn’t make sence to me does it to you ? Why should Ukrainians wish to come here? Do the speak the language? Have family or an existing community to join that would welcome them? It wouldn't cost a fortune if they had the same routes available to Ukrainians, would it?" ukrainians aren’t risking there lives across waters in dingis tho so why aren’t countries in the Middle East offering more help to the people in that region so they don’t have to risk there lives wouldn’t that make more sense? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. " So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees. If you like. Not true though. Anyone can apply for asylum under any circumstances Again, yes anyone can apply at any time, but they won't be considered if they are not a refugee. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the governing regulation, and in article 1 it defines what a refugee is. To simplify it a bit it's: A person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unwilling to return to that country. There's nothing in the convention that states that a person fleeing from war is a refugee. The fact that their home is 'unsafe' does not make them a refugee. So, Ukranians, while worthy of humanitarian aid (and receiving it from the UNHCR), are not legally refugees, and no state is required to grant them asylum. Have a look on the UK Government website as to the words used. If you wish to try "win" detailed legal arguments with very little knowledge then this isn't the place for it. Feel free to continue, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion from my perspective.they generally don't use refugee tho from what I can see ... Are we looking at different pages? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homes-for-ukraine-scheme-frequently-asked-questions https://www.gov.uk/register-interest-homes-ukraine" Are we all saying that this process has not been put in place to help Ukrainian refugees? It's just to help out any old Ukrainian who happens to want to pop over here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should Ukrainians wish to come here? Do the speak the language? Have family or an existing community to join that would welcome them? It wouldn't cost a fortune if they had the same routes available to Ukrainians, would it? This tread gets uglier every time you post Hopefully it gets shut down. " I am not, actually, saying that Ukrainians should not be helped by the UK. Quite the opposite. The option should be available in the same way for anybody. Are you saying that only Ukrainians should be helped and not people from other countries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either" The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should Ukrainians wish to come here? Do the speak the language? Have family or an existing community to join that would welcome them? It wouldn't cost a fortune if they had the same routes available to Ukrainians, would it? This tread gets uglier every time you post Hopefully it gets shut down. I am not, actually, saying that Ukrainians should not be helped by the UK. Quite the opposite. The option should be available in the same way for anybody. Are you saying that only Ukrainians should be helped and not people from other countries?" But it realistically cannot be made available for everyone because of limited resources. Seriously how hard is it to understand a simple concept?
Again, if you prefer to help your own friends, it doesn't mean you are a hypocrite because you didn't help others.
And please.. Go ahead and start chanting your prayers again like you didn't understand any of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can't apply for asylum, because they aren't legally refugees. If you like. Not true though. Anyone can apply for asylum under any circumstances Again, yes anyone can apply at any time, but they won't be considered if they are not a refugee. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the governing regulation, and in article 1 it defines what a refugee is. To simplify it a bit it's: A person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unwilling to return to that country. There's nothing in the convention that states that a person fleeing from war is a refugee. The fact that their home is 'unsafe' does not make them a refugee. So, Ukranians, while worthy of humanitarian aid (and receiving it from the UNHCR), are not legally refugees, and no state is required to grant them asylum. Have a look on the UK Government website as to the words used. If you wish to try "win" detailed legal arguments with very little knowledge then this isn't the place for it. Feel free to continue, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion from my perspective.they generally don't use refugee tho from what I can see ... Are we looking at different pages? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homes-for-ukraine-scheme-frequently-asked-questions https://www.gov.uk/register-interest-homes-ukraine Are we all saying that this process has not been put in place to help Ukrainian refugees? It's just to help out any old Ukrainian who happens to want to pop over here?" from what I can see it's any Ukrainian. What is the difference between a ukranaian and a ukranaian refugee ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme." would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the difference between a ukranaian and a ukranaian refugee ?" From a government point of view, there aren't any Ukranian refugees. A refugee is someone fleeing from persecution due to a protected characteristic, not someone fleeing from war. Official sites will not use the word 'refugee' to describe what's happening in Ukraine (though the UNHCR seems to be almost deliberately misleading). In general conversation most people understand 'refugee' to mean anyone fleeing from bad stuff, and that's how most people in this thread are using it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should Ukrainians wish to come here? Do the speak the language? Have family or an existing community to join that would welcome them? It wouldn't cost a fortune if they had the same routes available to Ukrainians, would it? This tread gets uglier every time you post Hopefully it gets shut down. I am not, actually, saying that Ukrainians should not be helped by the UK. Quite the opposite. The option should be available in the same way for anybody. Are you saying that only Ukrainians should be helped and not people from other countries? But it realistically cannot be made available for everyone because of limited resources. Seriously how hard is it to understand a simple concept?
Again, if you prefer to help your own friends, it doesn't mean you are a hypocrite because you didn't help others.
And please.. Go ahead and start chanting your prayers again like you didn't understand any of this."Realistically, I have not said that asylum has to be made available for "everybody". As you stated before about hypocrisy being about claiming to have a higher moral position than we do. Do we want to help the most in need or not? The truly vulnerable in war and persecution? If we do then we accept those from everywhere in the world to the extent that our resources will cope. We don't help one group in some distress and demonise another group in real peril. It is a simple concept. Not hard at all. I would thank you for not patronising me in future too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the difference between a ukranaian and a ukranaian refugee ? From a government point of view, there aren't any Ukranian refugees. A refugee is someone fleeing from persecution due to a protected characteristic, not someone fleeing from war. Official sites will not use the word 'refugee' to describe what's happening in Ukraine (though the UNHCR seems to be almost deliberately misleading). In general conversation most people understand 'refugee' to mean anyone fleeing from bad stuff, and that's how most people in this thread are using it." Really? You think that the interpretation of refugee excludes someone fleeing war? Really, leave legal interpretation to other people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ?" Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Realistically, I have not said that asylum has to be made available for "everybody". As you stated before about hypocrisy being about claiming to have a higher moral position than we do. Do we want to help the most in need or not? The truly vulnerable in war and persecution? If we do then we accept those from everywhere in the world to the extent that our resources will cope. We Don't help one group in some distress and demonise another group in real peril. It is a simple concept. Not hard at all. I would thank you for not patronising me in future too." You say that you don't want asylum to be available to everybody. Then you go on to say that the country needs to help people who suffer from war from everywhere, which is impossible. No single country has resources like that. If you have 100£ that you are happy to donate, will you split it evenly to millions of people who need help? It's an easy concept. But hard to understand for people who don't want to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created." Answer this. If you donate money to a Syrian charity but not to others, does it mean you think its ok that other country people suffer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created." are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?I do not see many people complaining about the governments decision so we can assume that it is the correct one and in line with the wishes of the majority of the population of the UK. Ukraine have thanked us time and time again for our help. The help is temporary, Ukrainians fit in with our cultural and religious beliefs . They will return home once the ward is over . They are entering the country legally and with the governments approval. It is irrelevant whether the decision is fair or what the law says in this case . We are helping and that is what matters . You simply cannot help everyone. Our resources are already very linited and we are now taking action to prevent people smuggling and illegal immigration. The only problem we might have is that human rights lawyers who are simply out to line their own pockets with legal fees are challenging it. Those who wish to help everyone can always make a donation to a charity of their choice to the country concerned. Our record with Ukraine is one to be proud of , not queried . Nothing is fair in life so we can forget about trying to treat everyone equally. " Just for a change, your random selection of a daily Mail soundbites has turned up something interesting. "Ukrainians fit in with our cultural and religious beliefs. They will return home once the ward is over" The second part is amusing. You have zero information on this. A Syrian or Afghan is no more or less likely to want to return home when it is safe to do so than a Ukrainian. Ukrainians fitting in with our cultural and religious beliefs is also an interesting generalisation. So who is a better fit for the UK? An Orthodox Christian Ukrainian who thinks that homosexuality is an abomination and believes that women should not work a better cultural fit than a Syrian Muslim who wants their daughter to be a doctor and all people have their place in the world? Are British born Muslims a poor cultural fit for our country or British born white supremacists? Why is such sweeping generalisation acceptable to you or anybody? I am perfectly aware of limited resources, so why would you grant a Ukrainian with no particular financial distress or physical danger more access than an Afghan in imminent peril? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ?" What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created. Answer this. If you donate money to a Syrian charity but not to others, does it mean you think its ok that other country people suffer? " You have made a choice. Acceptable as an individual. You have not justified not helping one group but gone against that argument in helping someone else. A government and a legal system are not an individual. Direct answer given. Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us." money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Realistically, I have not said that asylum has to be made available for "everybody". As you stated before about hypocrisy being about claiming to have a higher moral position than we do. Do we want to help the most in need or not? The truly vulnerable in war and persecution? If we do then we accept those from everywhere in the world to the extent that our resources will cope. We Don't help one group in some distress and demonise another group in real peril. It is a simple concept. Not hard at all. I would thank you for not patronising me in future too. You say that you don't want asylum to be available to everybody. Then you go on to say that the country needs to help people who suffer from war from everywhere, which is impossible. No single country has resources like that. If you have 100£ that you are happy to donate, will you split it evenly to millions of people who need help? It's an easy concept. But hard to understand for people who don't want to understand." I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. Unambiguously, several times. You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. An easy concept, but hard to understand for people who don't want to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? You think that the interpretation of refugee excludes someone fleeing war?" In the legal framework, yes I do. Again, just read article 1 of The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In the whole text of the 1951 convention the word 'war' only appears twice. Once to exclude people that have committed war crimes, and once to allow a receiving country to take security measures if that country is at war. Don't forget to apply the changes in The 1967 Protocol. Before that, the definition of refugee only applied to people who became refugees before 1951, and there were lots of references to the Second World War. Unless, of course, you know of another legal instrument that supersedes the original one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. " You can't, unless you have that much money. Again, limited resources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need." How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme." It was only available to Syrians so excludes others. Should it not have taken place as the country did not do the same for everyone in a similar position around the world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these " Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme. It was only available to Syrians so excludes others. Should it not have taken place as the country did not do the same for everyone in a similar position around the world" They weren't, at the time, stating things like passing through a third safe country made you intelligible to claim asylum. The difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. This was inconsistency. However, I do not disagree. Still better to have applied the rules more equitably. The reality probably is that a consistent policy would still have meant that Syrians would have formed a large majority of those admitted at that point in time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? You think that the interpretation of refugee excludes someone fleeing war? In the legal framework, yes I do. Again, just read article 1 of The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In the whole text of the 1951 convention the word 'war' only appears twice. Once to exclude people that have committed war crimes, and once to allow a receiving country to take security measures if that country is at war. Don't forget to apply the changes in The 1967 Protocol. Before that, the definition of refugee only applied to people who became refugees before 1951, and there were lots of references to the Second World War. Unless, of course, you know of another legal instrument that supersedes the original one." Again,you aren't a lawyer and have zero experience of any of this. You're on your own on this narrow point of detail as I'm really not interested in this rabbit hole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. You can't, unless you have that much money. Again, limited resources. " Perhaps you don't understand. There is a certain amount of money. There are a certain number of people in the greatest need who are in danger. You use that money to help those who are on most needs Not all. Those in most need from wherever they are with the resource you have available. Is that a bad thing to do? What's your preference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need?" How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these " Do some research. Let me know what these countries are able to do. Are Ukrainians more in need if they are also in a safe country? Is being in a safe country a reason not to admit a refugee into the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. You can't, unless you have that much money. Again, limited resources. Perhaps you don't understand. There is a certain amount of money. There are a certain number of people in the greatest need who are in danger. You use that money to help those who are on most needs Not all. Those in most need from wherever they are with the resource you have available. Is that a bad thing to do? What's your preference?" If you have 1000£ to help and there are 5000 people most in need, you can't help all the 5000 people, can you? You need to pick and choose. UK chose to help Ukraine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're on your own on this narrow point of detail as I'm really not interested in this rabbit hole." I'd you are a lawyer, perhaps you can explain to me how I have misinterpreted the law. If you're not a lawyer, what makes you think that you have a better interpretation than mine? Seems to me that you're just trying to end this discussion because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need." "How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need?" "How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments?" It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. You can't, unless you have that much money. Again, limited resources. Perhaps you don't understand. There is a certain amount of money. There are a certain number of people in the greatest need who are in danger. You use that money to help those who are on most needs Not all. Those in most need from wherever they are with the resource you have available. Is that a bad thing to do? What's your preference? If you have 1000£ to help and there are 5000 people most in need, you can't help all the 5000 people, can you? You need to pick and choose. UK chose to help Ukraine." Then you help the 2000 that you can help. If you have a fixed amount of money how do you help "Ukraine" with it? It is necessary to prioritise which Ukrainians you help if you have limited funds. Why does a fit, healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland need more help than an orphaned Yemeni child starving in a war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?" sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if we can explore if there are any differences between those from Syria and those from ukraine.... (Not that one) For example, I imagine that Ukrainians will be seeking to go back home once the war is over. And that the war will be over in "clean" way I'm not sure if expect Syria to be "solved" and so I'd not be planing for syrians to return. So I'd be planning for any temporary stay to become permanent for syrians. " Some Ukrainians will return. Some will have nowhere to return to. Some will happily stay in a country not blown back into the last century and contribute to its rebuilding by earning here. It's such a strange assumption to make, but stated with certainty, that Ukrainians will return home. We may see them starr to get deported eventually. The reaction to that will be interesting if we come to that point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're on your own on this narrow point of detail as I'm really not interested in this rabbit hole. I'd you are a lawyer, perhaps you can explain to me how I have misinterpreted the law. If you're not a lawyer, what makes you think that you have a better interpretation than mine? Seems to me that you're just trying to end this discussion because you don't want to admit that you're wrong." I'm not a lawyer so won't pretend to make definitive statements on details of the law You carry on if you like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure " China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. " aint that the truth but for some it will never be enough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance?" Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. " Yes, China and Russia could. Get them to. Alternatively do what you can. Irrelevant to the topic. You judge a fit and healthy middle aged Ukrainian lady in Poland more worthy of out help than an Afghan orphan girl. It's a perfectly legitimate choice. Understood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government?" why not rent building wtf why don’t them countries give them up to the poor buggers why should the U.K. pay them rent ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. Yes, China and Russia could. Get them to. Alternatively do what you can. Irrelevant to the topic. You judge a fit and healthy middle aged Ukrainian lady in Poland more worthy of out help than an Afghan orphan girl. It's a perfectly legitimate choice. Understood." are all the afgans that want to come here orphan girls and only healthy middle aged Ukrainians lady’s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. Yes, China and Russia could. Get them to. Alternatively do what you can. Irrelevant to the topic. You judge a fit and healthy middle aged Ukrainian lady in Poland more worthy of out help than an Afghan orphan girl. It's a perfectly legitimate choice. Understood." “Understood”? Just who the hell do you think you are? So arrogant and patronising. I will keep out of this debate from now as you are either just having some fun, or using the refugee issue to make yourself look smart. Unforgivable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. You can't, unless you have that much money. Again, limited resources. Perhaps you don't understand. There is a certain amount of money. There are a certain number of people in the greatest need who are in danger. You use that money to help those who are on most needs Not all. Those in most need from wherever they are with the resource you have available. Is that a bad thing to do? What's your preference? If you have 1000£ to help and there are 5000 people most in need, you can't help all the 5000 people, can you? You need to pick and choose. UK chose to help Ukraine. Then you help the 2000 that you can help. If you have a fixed amount of money how do you help "Ukraine" with it? It is necessary to prioritise which Ukrainians you help if you have limited funds. Why does a fit, healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland need more help than an orphaned Yemeni child starving in a war?" You are getting close. Now, you need to choose 2000 out of the hypothetical 5000 they need to help. You are saying that the country should prefer helping anyone with kids rather than preferring anyone from Ukraine. But most of the country prefers to help Ukraine first before helping anyone else because they are culturally closer. You have an opinion that anyone with kid should be helped first. That is shaped by your moral beliefs. But there is no universally correct moral behaviour in this matter. In spite of your own beliefs, if a friend asks you for money to help, you will prefer to give money to your friend rather than a poor homeless person. Hypocrisy is when someone claims to have higher moral beliefs but acts against the beliefs they say they believe. A country helping one group of people over another is not hypocrisy. They are much more attached and friendly with this country. There is no claim of moral belief being made here. Just like you and I would help our friends over other people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure " Then let's get a sovereign state to do what they are told to. You voted for Brexit to prevent that from happening in your view, didn't you? Perhaps we could ask them to spend the money they use to buy our weapons on aid instead? In that Saudi Arabia is not doing its part do we just not help until they do? Are you happy, for example, an Afghan orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? I've asked something similar a few times now. You tend to skip it whilst demanding that I answer yet another of your questions. Still, always happy to help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know this is a site for people to meet up and have sex right? You need to get a fucking hobby boy" Too many forum posts in here forget this simple fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government?why not rent building wtf why don’t them countries give them up to the poor buggers why should the U.K. pay them rent ?" Useful comment in the context of how we might assess who is most in need. You know, answering the question that you asked. Otherwise, let them rot in a country that does not have the resources to help them that we do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. Yes, China and Russia could. Get them to. Alternatively do what you can. Irrelevant to the topic. You judge a fit and healthy middle aged Ukrainian lady in Poland more worthy of out help than an Afghan orphan girl. It's a perfectly legitimate choice. Understood.are all the afgans that want to come here orphan girls and only healthy middle aged Ukrainians lady’s " No. The point is that we appear to be making that choice with our priorities. You're happy with that. I'm not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme.would you be happy if it was limited to 20000 ukrains then ? Why the pedantry? Are you happy, for example, a Syrian orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Rather than finding some detail to score points on, look at the actual circumstances being created.are you happy that Middle East countries arnt doing enough for there neighbours who they could easily help if they wanted ? What would you like these middle income nations to do beyond what they do now hosting millions of refugees? How can they "easily help"? Lay it out for us.money housing schooling healthcare or do they not have these Find out. The countries in these areas are significantly less wealthy, but they appear to be trying there hardest. Is that enough for you?sorry it’s not enough Dubai Saudi quata don’t have enough money are you sure China & Russia could play a vital role in helping the refugee crisis. Russia has a declining population and of course a huge land mass. China has wiped out manufacturing in most of Africa & Middle East. Are they doing their bit I wonder? The UK has a long & proud history of helping. Yes, China and Russia could. Get them to. Alternatively do what you can. Irrelevant to the topic. You judge a fit and healthy middle aged Ukrainian lady in Poland more worthy of out help than an Afghan orphan girl. It's a perfectly legitimate choice. Understood. “Understood”? Just who the hell do you think you are? So arrogant and patronising. I will keep out of this debate from now as you are either just having some fun, or using the refugee issue to make yourself look smart. Unforgivable." If you cannot resolve the argument that you are making when it is laid out in it's starkest terms without anger, then you consider why you hold your position. Your fragile ego doesn't concern me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government?why not rent building wtf why don’t them countries give them up to the poor buggers why should the U.K. pay them rent ? Useful comment in the context of how we might assess who is most in need. You know, answering the question that you asked. Otherwise, let them rot in a country that does not have the resources to help them that we do." but don’t there neighbouring countries have the resources aswell is your beef with Ukrainians something to do with there colour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You can help the most in need from many places. Your money could go even further if you spent it closer to those areas of conflict. You can't, unless you have that much money. Again, limited resources. Perhaps you don't understand. There is a certain amount of money. There are a certain number of people in the greatest need who are in danger. You use that money to help those who are on most needs Not all. Those in most need from wherever they are with the resource you have available. Is that a bad thing to do? What's your preference? If you have 1000£ to help and there are 5000 people most in need, you can't help all the 5000 people, can you? You need to pick and choose. UK chose to help Ukraine. Then you help the 2000 that you can help. If you have a fixed amount of money how do you help "Ukraine" with it? It is necessary to prioritise which Ukrainians you help if you have limited funds. Why does a fit, healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland need more help than an orphaned Yemeni child starving in a war? You are getting close. Now, you need to choose 2000 out of the hypothetical 5000 they need to help. You are saying that the country should prefer helping anyone with kids rather than preferring anyone from Ukraine. But most of the country prefers to help Ukraine first before helping anyone else because they are culturally closer. You have an opinion that anyone with kid should be helped first. That is shaped by your moral beliefs. But there is no universally correct moral behaviour in this matter. In spite of your own beliefs, if a friend asks you for money to help, you will prefer to give money to your friend rather than a poor homeless person. Hypocrisy is when someone claims to have higher moral beliefs but acts against the beliefs they say they believe. A country helping one group of people over another is not hypocrisy. They are much more attached and friendly with this country. There is no claim of moral belief being made here. Just like you and I would help our friends over other people. " You have no clue what the country wants. Neither do I. They have not been consulted. Let's just ask you as that is all you actually know. Would you rather help an ill orphaned Afghan girl in a refugee camp or a healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland? What are the "cultural" factors that influence you? Is a British Muslim more or less of a cultural fit to the UK than a Christian Ukrainian? What about a white supremacist American compared to a Syrian social worker? How was Ukraine "attached" to the UK before now? What did most people even know or care about it? This thread was not even about how to prioritise. It is about why you would change the rules and your argument to help some people and not others. To be crystal clear, despite what the UNHCR say, the UK government position that if someone is in a safe third country they do not need any help from the UK. They do not need to come here. This is applied to everyone except Ukrainians. If they are in a safe third country they do need help from the UK. They should be able to come here. Deciding on helping somebody is a moral stance and giving your reason for it lays that out. You don't think that this is hypocrisy? Fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government?why not rent building wtf why don’t them countries give them up to the poor buggers why should the U.K. pay them rent ? Useful comment in the context of how we might assess who is most in need. You know, answering the question that you asked. Otherwise, let them rot in a country that does not have the resources to help them that we do.but don’t there neighbouring countries have the resources aswell is your beef with Ukrainians something to do with there colour?" You tell me what resources Jordan and Lebanon or Pakistan have compared to the UK. Still not able to answer the hard questions though. Are you happy, for example, an Afghan orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Are you accusing me of racism? Please say so clearly if you think so instead of using innuendo and implication like the other poster who has gone off in a huff. I am very much in favour of helping white Ukrainians as much as people with all sorts of other skin colours and religions from all over the world. I would like the same rules applied to all of them. You, apparently, do not, and want to favour one group over another. That's fine, just say that's what you want rather than trying to justify it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that really the government's position ? After all they take on refugees under the resettlement scheme. " Asylum eligibility: "When your claim might not be considered Your claim might not be considered if you: are from an EU country travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’ have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum Generally, a safe third country is one that: you’re not a citizen of you would not be harmed in would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed" I understand very well that the Ukrainian scheme has been called something else, but its intent is the same. Other resettlement schemes were far more limited in scope and yes, you could argue that they were equally unfair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that really the government's position ? After all they take on refugees under the resettlement scheme. Asylum eligibility: "When your claim might not be considered Your claim might not be considered if you: are from an EU country travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’ have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum Generally, a safe third country is one that: you’re not a citizen of you would not be harmed in would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed" I understand very well that the Ukrainian scheme has been called something else, but its intent is the same. Other resettlement schemes were far more limited in scope and yes, you could argue that they were equally unfair." okay, so might not be. Tbh, as pretty much every asylum seeker comes from thru a safe third country it's a dumb statement. Clearly it's not sufficient to turn someone down. In the same way as being from an EU country isnt enough. I don't think we have a fair approach even before this. Ukarain scheme is done for political reasons, combined with (imo) a belief ths will be temporarary. (which is different imo to Syria) I think your example is therefore "should we give permanent residence to a poor Syrian or temporarary residence to a middle class ukranaian" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say?" So along with all the immigration and legal staff, we should also have genealogical researchers and DNA specialists to determine if a child is a genuine orphan, not a child that has living parents that will want to come and re-unite with them once they have British citizenship? We should also have forensic medical staff and accountants to determine if a missing limb has been removed by war, not in an agricultural accident with insurance compensation already paid. We should also have medical professionals and researchers to determine if a person has a disease, and then ensure that they haven't already received treatment for it. And we should do this for every large town near every border with every country that has some form of conflict. Wouldn't all this be rather expensive? Wouldn't it be better to use all that money to send general humanitarian aid, like we already do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government?why not rent building wtf why don’t them countries give them up to the poor buggers why should the U.K. pay them rent ? Useful comment in the context of how we might assess who is most in need. You know, answering the question that you asked. Otherwise, let them rot in a country that does not have the resources to help them that we do.but don’t there neighbouring countries have the resources aswell is your beef with Ukrainians something to do with there colour? You tell me what resources Jordan and Lebanon or Pakistan have compared to the UK. Still not able to answer the hard questions though. Are you happy, for example, an Afghan orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Are you accusing me of racism? Please say so clearly if you think so instead of using innuendo and implication like the other poster who has gone off in a huff. I am very much in favour of helping white Ukrainians as much as people with all sorts of other skin colours and religions from all over the world. I would like the same rules applied to all of them. You, apparently, do not, and want to favour one group over another. That's fine, just say that's what you want rather than trying to justify it." are they the countries I mentioned no mate and it’s you who as a problem with Ukrainians coming to the U.K. so tell us why is that would the countries you mention welcome refugees from Israel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that really the government's position ? After all they take on refugees under the resettlement scheme. Asylum eligibility: "When your claim might not be considered Your claim might not be considered if you: are from an EU country travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’ have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum Generally, a safe third country is one that: you’re not a citizen of you would not be harmed in would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed" I understand very well that the Ukrainian scheme has been called something else, but its intent is the same. Other resettlement schemes were far more limited in scope and yes, you could argue that they were equally unfair.okay, so might not be. Tbh, as pretty much every asylum seeker comes from thru a safe third country it's a dumb statement. Clearly it's not sufficient to turn someone down. In the same way as being from an EU country isnt enough. I don't think we have a fair approach even before this. Ukarain scheme is done for political reasons, combined with (imo) a belief ths will be temporarary. (which is different imo to Syria) I think your example is therefore "should we give permanent residence to a poor Syrian or temporarary residence to a middle class ukranaian" " The first part of this is very much my point. However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. Also, most of the people on this thread have not been assuming making their arguments based on the Ukrainian scheme being (possibly) temporary. Although, as I said, the reaction if we eventually start deporting people will be interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? So along with all the immigration and legal staff, we should also have genealogical researchers and DNA specialists to determine if a child is a genuine orphan, not a child that has living parents that will want to come and re-unite with them once they have British citizenship? We should also have forensic medical staff and accountants to determine if a missing limb has been removed by war, not in an agricultural accident with insurance compensation already paid. We should also have medical professionals and researchers to determine if a person has a disease, and then ensure that they haven't already received treatment for it. And we should do this for every large town near every border with every country that has some form of conflict. Wouldn't all this be rather expensive? Wouldn't it be better to use all that money to send general humanitarian aid, like we already do?" No. Not really to your first paragraph. If we were maintaining our levels of humanitarian aid I would agree, but we aren't. Also none of this is actually pertinent to the thread. Why do you prefer to aid a healthy adult in a safe country than a vulnerable child? If we are going to help why would you not help those who would benefit the most? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP claims he has hurt my ego and I’ve gone off in a huff. Social media is great in someways and not in others. Anonymous typing is no contest to a healthy debate face to face. Sanctimonious pricks with an inflated sense of their own intelligence soon get found out. As do those that make a ridiculous claim and then don’t like it when others put an alternate point. The above is just a general comment. Returning to the OP, it seems that the brutal war in Ukraine is just an inconvenience to him and his crusade to get the UK to take in anyone from the Middle East that wants to come here. No matter the cost, no matter that we are an overcrowded island, no matter the fact that our health service and other agencies are struggling to cope, no matter that last year the UK issued more visas than ever before, no matter that there is a huge industry in place to bend or ignore the rules, no matter that record numbers continue to cross the channel, no matter that the word ‘refuge’ has been twisted. If you reach a safe country to seek refuge, perhaps you are no longer a ‘refugee’? I get it that it’s human nature to want a better life and to provide for your family & loved ones. The UK is a great place to live but surely we all accept the need for there to be some control as to who comes here? " You promised you were leaving the thread because I had outraged and upset you so much. You're back though.Oh well
Why you continue to fee able speak on behalf of my thoughts and motivations remains a mystery.
I have stated on multiple occasions and continue to state that it is a very good thing to help Ukrainians applying the same criteria as we would to others in need so that our limited resources can be used to help those who need it most, both in the UK and to the extent that we can abroad.
I have not said that there shouldn't be any control of immigration. You made an assumption. One amongst many.
By your definition Ukrainians in Poland are not refugees and don't need our help.
You seem to prefer arbitrary allocation and decision making based in unspecified "cultural" factors . I would not exclude someone due to their ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. That would rather miss the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum." I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP claims he has hurt my ego and I’ve gone off in a huff. Social media is great in someways and not in others. Anonymous typing is no contest to a healthy debate face to face. Sanctimonious pricks with an inflated sense of their own intelligence soon get found out. As do those that make a ridiculous claim and then don’t like it when others put an alternate point. The above is just a general comment. Returning to the OP, it seems that the brutal war in Ukraine is just an inconvenience to him and his crusade to get the UK to take in anyone from the Middle East that wants to come here. No matter the cost, no matter that we are an overcrowded island, no matter the fact that our health service and other agencies are struggling to cope, no matter that last year the UK issued more visas than ever before, no matter that there is a huge industry in place to bend or ignore the rules, no matter that record numbers continue to cross the channel, no matter that the word ‘refuge’ has been twisted. If you reach a safe country to seek refuge, perhaps you are no longer a ‘refugee’? I get it that it’s human nature to want a better life and to provide for your family & loved ones. The UK is a great place to live but surely we all accept the need for there to be some control as to who comes here? You promised you were leaving the thread because I had outraged and upset you so much. You're back though.Oh well
Why you continue to fee able speak on behalf of my thoughts and motivations remains a mystery.
I have stated on multiple occasions and continue to state that it is a very good thing to help Ukrainians applying the same criteria as we would to others in need so that our limited resources can be used to help those who need it most, both in the UK and to the extent that we can abroad.
I have not said that there shouldn't be any control of immigration. You made an assumption. One amongst many.
By your definition Ukrainians in Poland are not refugees and don't need our help.
You seem to prefer arbitrary allocation and decision making based in unspecified "cultural" factors . I would not exclude someone due to their ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. That would rather miss the point."An incorrect assumption on your part. I left the thread as it had become tedious. You decided to take a couple of petty pot shots at me though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you prefer to aid a healthy adult in a safe country than a vulnerable child?" Why do you think that's my position? I have said nothing on this, or the other, thread that either supports or condemns the Ukraine scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say that the UK has to help everyone from everywhere, did I? I said that it should try to help those most on need. How would you suggest that the UK government determines which people are most in need? How does the UK Government decide on any benefits payments? It rents out large buildings in all the major towns throughout the country, invites applicants in for an interview, gives them several complex forms to fill in, gathers those forms and processes the data, and send inspectors round to random applicants to check that they are telling the truth. Is that how you would recommend the government determine which people in the world deserve to receive our humanitarian assistance? Sure. Why not rent out buildings, or tents, in countries close to conflict areas and process refugees with a definitive decision made in a lower cost and wage location? Identifying an orphan or a missing limb or an illness that requires regular treatment is, actually, quite straightforward wouldn't you say? If you are refused then there is no point in you spending money and risking your life to travel to the UK. Those who need help the most are transported safely to the UK into a system planned to accept them. How much do border controls and deals with France and legal appeals and removals cost the UK Government?why not rent building wtf why don’t them countries give them up to the poor buggers why should the U.K. pay them rent ? Useful comment in the context of how we might assess who is most in need. You know, answering the question that you asked. Otherwise, let them rot in a country that does not have the resources to help them that we do.but don’t there neighbouring countries have the resources aswell is your beef with Ukrainians something to do with there colour? You tell me what resources Jordan and Lebanon or Pakistan have compared to the UK. Still not able to answer the hard questions though. Are you happy, for example, an Afghan orphan, to be left to fend for themselves and simultaneously accept a wealthy Ukrainian family into the UK? Are you accusing me of racism? Please say so clearly if you think so instead of using innuendo and implication like the other poster who has gone off in a huff. I am very much in favour of helping white Ukrainians as much as people with all sorts of other skin colours and religions from all over the world. I would like the same rules applied to all of them. You, apparently, do not, and want to favour one group over another. That's fine, just say that's what you want rather than trying to justify it.are they the countries I mentioned no mate and it’s you who as a problem with Ukrainians coming to the U.K. so tell us why is that would the countries you mention welcome refugees from Israel?" What are you talking about now and what has this for to do with the UK applying different rules to different people in the same need? I have no problem with Ukrainian refugees. We should help them in an equal way to people from other countries. If you do not agree then just say so rather than trying to attack me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you prefer to aid a healthy adult in a safe country than a vulnerable child?" Why would you prefer to aid a healthy adult in Syria, more than a vulnerable Ukranian child living in a war zone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You have no clue what the country wants. Neither do I. They have not been consulted. " The ruling party decided to help Ukraine on the belief that this what the people wanted. Not everything has to go through a referendum. If the country doesn't like this, there will be widespread agitation. " Would you rather help an ill orphaned Afghan girl in a refugee camp or a healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland? " Between the two, I will help the orphan because I don't have any sort of friendship or affiliation with any of them. If the question is will I help an Afghan orphan girl or a middle aged Indian woman struggling to make ends meet, I will help the Indian woman. If the choice is between that poor Indian woman and my own family or friend who leads a life better than that woman but suddenly needs money, I would help family/friend. I am not ashamed of it. I am proud that I am helping. Who the help goes to is for me to decide. " Is a British Muslim more or less of a cultural fit to the UK than a Christian Ukrainian? " Why are you comparing a British Muslim here instead of comparing with a refugee Muslim? Anyway, this country is still a majority Christian country. You can talk about divisions within Christianity. But that exists in basically all religions. For another thing, they don't go in front of schools protesting against LGBT education and screaming swear words at teachers. They won't protest and ask for arresting teachers for painting drawings. " What about a white supremacist American compared to a Syrian social worker? " You are clutching the straws here.
Do people coming in here tell the immigration office that they are white supremacists? We are talking about a group of people. Not individuals.
" This thread was not even about how to prioritise. It is about why you would change the rules and your argument to help some people and not others. " This paragraph sir, explains how you go around in circles all the time. I took you step by step and told you how we have limited resources, we cannot help everyone. We need to choose. Remember that 1000£ vs 5000 people argument? I wouldn't be surprised if you create an immigration hypocrisy 3 thread and go back to asking the same question so that we can go around in circles because you are too emotionally attached to your views and you don't want to hear a rational argument that goes against them. " To be crystal clear, despite what the UNHCR say, the UK government position that if someone is in a safe third country they do not need any help from the UK. They do not need to come here. This is applied to everyone except Ukrainians. If they are in a safe third country they do need help from the UK. They should be able to come here. Deciding on helping somebody is a moral stance and giving your reason for it lays that out. You don't think that this is hypocrisy? Fine. " It's not hypocrisy. In case of other countries, UK feels there is no need. In case of Ukraine, they are going over and above what they normally do because Ukraine belongs to Europe, they are seen as a friendly nation and when a European country's democracy in danger, it affects the rest too. Just like how I prioritised my friends/family and that Indian woman over the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that?" This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you prefer to aid a healthy adult in a safe country than a vulnerable child? Why would you prefer to aid a healthy adult in Syria, more than a vulnerable Ukranian child living in a war zone?" I wouldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP claims he has hurt my ego and I’ve gone off in a huff. Social media is great in someways and not in others. Anonymous typing is no contest to a healthy debate face to face. Sanctimonious pricks with an inflated sense of their own intelligence soon get found out. As do those that make a ridiculous claim and then don’t like it when others put an alternate point. The above is just a general comment. Returning to the OP, it seems that the brutal war in Ukraine is just an inconvenience to him and his crusade to get the UK to take in anyone from the Middle East that wants to come here. No matter the cost, no matter that we are an overcrowded island, no matter the fact that our health service and other agencies are struggling to cope, no matter that last year the UK issued more visas than ever before, no matter that there is a huge industry in place to bend or ignore the rules, no matter that record numbers continue to cross the channel, no matter that the word ‘refuge’ has been twisted. If you reach a safe country to seek refuge, perhaps you are no longer a ‘refugee’? I get it that it’s human nature to want a better life and to provide for your family & loved ones. The UK is a great place to live but surely we all accept the need for there to be some control as to who comes here? You promised you were leaving the thread because I had outraged and upset you so much. You're back though.Oh well
Why you continue to fee able speak on behalf of my thoughts and motivations remains a mystery.
I have stated on multiple occasions and continue to state that it is a very good thing to help Ukrainians applying the same criteria as we would to others in need so that our limited resources can be used to help those who need it most, both in the UK and to the extent that we can abroad.
I have not said that there shouldn't be any control of immigration. You made an assumption. One amongst many.
By your definition Ukrainians in Poland are not refugees and don't need our help.
You seem to prefer arbitrary allocation and decision making based in unspecified "cultural" factors . I would not exclude someone due to their ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. That would rather miss the point.
An incorrect assumption on your part. I left the thread as it had become tedious. You decided to take a couple of petty pot shots at me though. "Excellent. If you are willing to actually state what you think rather than discuss obscure legal details for which you have no answer, then great. Go ahead and actually state your position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum." "I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that?" "This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for." Ah! This will be one of those special tones that only you can hear. I see. "Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need." Time to break out all the cheese puns everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you prefer to aid a healthy adult in a safe country than a vulnerable child?" "Why would you prefer to aid a healthy adult in Syria, more than a vulnerable Ukranian child living in a war zone?" "I wouldn't." Well that's good to hear. Perhaps you'll stop using that leading question now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not?" it's up to three years stay. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064145/Homes_for_Ukraine_A5_leaflet.pdf Do you think it is more, less, or equally likely that a Syrian being given temporary leave in the UK would return, versus a Croatian. Or maybe another way is ... Do you think it is more, less, or equally likey Croatia will revert to being safe for these folks ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You have no clue what the country wants. Neither do I. They have not been consulted. The ruling party decided to help Ukraine on the belief that this what the people wanted. Not everything has to go through a referendum. If the country doesn't like this, there will be widespread agitation. Would you rather help an ill orphaned Afghan girl in a refugee camp or a healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland? Between the two, I will help the orphan because I don't have any sort of friendship or affiliation with any of them. If the question is will I help an Afghan orphan girl or a middle aged Indian woman struggling to make ends meet, I will help the Indian woman. If the choice is between that poor Indian woman and my own family or friend who leads a life better than that woman but suddenly needs money, I would help family/friend. I am not ashamed of it. I am proud that I am helping. Who the help goes to is for me to decide. Is a British Muslim more or less of a cultural fit to the UK than a Christian Ukrainian? Why are you comparing a British Muslim here instead of comparing with a refugee Muslim? Anyway, this country is still a majority Christian country. You can talk about divisions within Christianity. But that exists in basically all religions. For another thing, they don't go in front of schools protesting against LGBT education and screaming swear words at teachers. They won't protest and ask for arresting teachers for painting drawings. What about a white supremacist American compared to a Syrian social worker? You are clutching the straws here.
Do people coming in here tell the immigration office that they are white supremacists? We are talking about a group of people. Not individuals.
This thread was not even about how to prioritise. It is about why you would change the rules and your argument to help some people and not others.
This paragraph sir, explains how you go around in circles all the time. I took you step by step and told you how we have limited resources, we cannot help everyone. We need to choose. Remember that 1000£ vs 5000 people argument? I wouldn't be surprised if you create an immigration hypocrisy 3 thread and go back to asking the same question so that we can go around in circles because you are too emotionally attached to your views and you don't want to hear a rational argument that goes against them.
To be crystal clear, despite what the UNHCR say, the UK government position that if someone is in a safe third country they do not need any help from the UK. They do not need to come here.
This is applied to everyone except Ukrainians. If they are in a safe third country they do need help from the UK. They should be able to come here.
Deciding on helping somebody is a moral stance and giving your reason for it lays that out.
You don't think that this is hypocrisy? Fine.
It's not hypocrisy. In case of other countries, UK feels there is no need. In case of Ukraine, they are going over and above what they normally do because Ukraine belongs to Europe, they are seen as a friendly nation and when a European country's democracy in danger, it affects the rest too. Just like how I prioritised my friends/family and that Indian woman over the rest."You are interesting. As you continually accuse me of doing exactly what you are demonstrating. You write with such certainty and superiority, yet don't recognise that your position has flaws at least as large as those that you perceive in mine. The ruling party decided that it would be politically popular to help Ukrainians come to the UK. This is a good thing and very few people would disagree. There is zero indication that the British population that they would prioritise Ukrainians over other people in equal or greater need. Unless, of course, you have some knowledge of this that you can share. You have made you personal preferences clear now. I find them a little shocking. Interesting that the Ukrainian whom you have cultural affiliation with still comes bottom of the list. I would hope that a governmental and legal process would be more objective. You may disagree. I am comparing a British Muslim with a Christian Ukrainian because you have claimed greater cultural affiliation for Christian Ukrainians with Britain. Does it not therefore imply that British Muslims are not as tied to the UK? They are less British in some way. Christians in many countries, including this one, really do protest against LGBTQ rights and teaching and abortion and all manner of things. You ignored my previous, lengthy, explanation of how I would prioritise things and actually returned to repeating yourself. Nothing to be done there. People often mistake rational as correct and emotional as bad. They are equally valid ways to look at things. Although, amusingly, isn't it more rational to base aid purely on need rather than helping your friend or a stranger with the same background as you? Contradiction? For your last part see above. You do also continue to insist that using one argument to deny people something and ignoring it when privileging another is not hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance defined | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not?it's up to three years stay. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064145/Homes_for_Ukraine_A5_leaflet.pdf Do you think it is more, less, or equally likely that a Syrian being given temporary leave in the UK would return, versus a Croatian. Or maybe another way is ... Do you think it is more, less, or equally likey Croatia will revert to being safe for these folks ?" That doesn't really answer the question. A discussion over how long anyone is hypothetically "likely" to stay also doesn't add to the core point of privileging one group over another. If you found a job and had a life on the UK would you return to a shattered country without water or roads? I, personally, do not know. I may do. I may choose to send money. Again interesting to see if Ukrainians start getting deported in three years if they don't want to return... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do you prefer to aid a healthy adult in a safe country than a vulnerable child? Why would you prefer to aid a healthy adult in Syria, more than a vulnerable Ukranian child living in a war zone? I wouldn't. Well that's good to hear. Perhaps you'll stop using that leading question now." I haven't "lead" any questions. You have chosen to interpret a neutral position on how people should be treated. Perhaps you could respond directly to the actual thread and some of the questions arising from an it too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not?it's up to three years stay. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064145/Homes_for_Ukraine_A5_leaflet.pdf Do you think it is more, less, or equally likely that a Syrian being given temporary leave in the UK would return, versus a Croatian. Or maybe another way is ... Do you think it is more, less, or equally likey Croatia will revert to being safe for these folks ? That doesn't really answer the question. A discussion over how long anyone is hypothetically "likely" to stay also doesn't add to the core point of privileging one group over another. If you found a job and had a life on the UK would you return to a shattered country without water or roads? I, personally, do not know. I may do. I may choose to send money. Again interesting to see if Ukrainians start getting deported in three years if they don't want to return..." do you want to see them get deported if they don’t want to return just so it’s fair ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The ruling party decided that it would be politically popular to help Ukrainians come to the UK. This is a good thing and very few people would disagree. There is zero indication that the British population that they would prioritise Ukrainians over other people in equal or greater need. Unless, of course, you have some knowledge of this that you can share. " The ruling party came to power with promises around controlling refugee intake. People voted for them. With Ukraine, you don't see people agitating against it or voicing concerns. I have seen people hosting Ukraine flags in their houses wherever I go. I haven't seen anyone hoisting flags of middle Eastern countries. " You have made you personal preferences clear now. I find them a little shocking. Interesting that the Ukrainian whom you have cultural affiliation with still comes bottom of the list. I would hope that a governmental and legal process would be more objective. You may disagree. " Shocking? That's how majority of population behave. I donate regularly to an orphanage in India. A kid in an Indian orphanage is relatively at a better position compared to an orphan in a war torn country. Should I stop donating to the Indian orphanage and send the money to some other war torn country? I have lived in Britain only for three years. I am not British. I don't know why I would feel an attachment toward Ukrainians. " I am comparing a British Muslim with a Christian Ukrainian because you have claimed greater cultural affiliation for Christian Ukrainians with Britain. " We are discussing about why UK chose Ukrainian Christians over Middle Eastern Muslims. We need to compare cultural affiliations between those two groups. Not a group already living in the UK. " Christians in many countries, including this one, really do protest against LGBTQ rights and teaching and abortion and all manner of things. " Yet. There are 15 countries with death penalty for homosexuals. None of them Christian. " You ignored my previous, lengthy, explanation of how I would prioritise things and actually returned to repeating yourself. Nothing to be done there. " Doesn't answer my question. You agreed that we need to prioritise, explained how you prefer to prioritise. And then you asked me why do we need to prioritise again. " People often mistake rational as correct and emotional as bad. They are equally valid ways to look at things. Although, amusingly, isn't it more rational to base aid purely on need rather than helping your friend or a stranger with the same background as you? Contradiction? " There are certain matters of moral conviction where there is no single right answer. Who to help is one of it? But a debate about whether something is hypocrisy or not is not a moral question. We know the definition of hypocrisy. We just need to apply the definition and see if it fits. It can be debated rationally. " For your last part see above. You do also continue to insist that using one argument to deny people something and ignoring it when privileging another is not hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance defined " Cognitive dissonance if you try to understand what I mentioned. A question like is this hypocrisy can be discussed rationally because hypocrisy has a clear-cut objective definition. But if you ask is that person a bad person, it's a moral question because definition of good/bad is subjective and is based on moral beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not?it's up to three years stay. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064145/Homes_for_Ukraine_A5_leaflet.pdf Do you think it is more, less, or equally likely that a Syrian being given temporary leave in the UK would return, versus a Croatian. Or maybe another way is ... Do you think it is more, less, or equally likey Croatia will revert to being safe for these folks ? That doesn't really answer the question. A discussion over how long anyone is hypothetically "likely" to stay also doesn't add to the core point of privileging one group over another. If you found a job and had a life on the UK would you return to a shattered country without water or roads? I, personally, do not know. I may do. I may choose to send money. Again interesting to see if Ukrainians start getting deported in three years if they don't want to return..." I disagree. When setting up schemes I think you need to consider the circumstances. Maybe the Ukrainians won't want to stay, which is why I reworded the situation. After three years I think there is a good chance ukranaians won't have grounds for asylum. In three years I think Syrians arriving today will have grounds for asylum. And that is why I can see an argument for having different schemes. Of course, people are all equal... But the circumstances are different. Whether the UK actually follow through in there right to deport ... Who knows. But they'd have the right, and I can imagine the Ukrainian won't have the case to claim asylum. That would be my reasons for having different schemes anyway. I do think it's also political so you won't get arguments there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't "lead" any questions. You have chosen to interpret a neutral position on how people should be treated." The first time (in this thread) that you asked it you said "Why does a fit, healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland need more help than an orphaned Yemeni child starving in a war?". You could have compared two orphans in different countries, but you didn't. The second time (in this thread) you said "Would you rather help an ill orphaned Afghan girl in a refugee camp or a healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland?". If you really don't think hat those 2 questions are leading, then there's something wrong with your powers of acuity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not?it's up to three years stay. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064145/Homes_for_Ukraine_A5_leaflet.pdf Do you think it is more, less, or equally likely that a Syrian being given temporary leave in the UK would return, versus a Croatian. Or maybe another way is ... Do you think it is more, less, or equally likey Croatia will revert to being safe for these folks ? That doesn't really answer the question. A discussion over how long anyone is hypothetically "likely" to stay also doesn't add to the core point of privileging one group over another. If you found a job and had a life on the UK would you return to a shattered country without water or roads? I, personally, do not know. I may do. I may choose to send money. Again interesting to see if Ukrainians start getting deported in three years if they don't want to return... do you want to see them get deported if they don’t want to return just so it’s fair ?" No. Raise all boats. Are you trying to imply that I have something against Ukrainians without being able to write what you mean? The consequences of a short term policy designed for publicity and spin is a long term negative outcome when Ukrainians who want to stay are asked to leave. Unless, of course, the asylum or residency rules are relaxed and allow them to stay anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The ruling party decided that it would be politically popular to help Ukrainians come to the UK. This is a good thing and very few people would disagree. There is zero indication that the British population that they would prioritise Ukrainians over other people in equal or greater need. Unless, of course, you have some knowledge of this that you can share. The ruling party came to power with promises around controlling refugee intake. People voted for them. With Ukraine, you don't see people agitating against it or voicing concerns. I have seen people hosting Ukraine flags in their houses wherever I go. I haven't seen anyone hoisting flags of middle Eastern countries. You have made you personal preferences clear now. I find them a little shocking. Interesting that the Ukrainian whom you have cultural affiliation with still comes bottom of the list. I would hope that a governmental and legal process would be more objective. You may disagree. Shocking? That's how majority of population behave. I donate regularly to an orphanage in India. A kid in an Indian orphanage is relatively at a better position compared to an orphan in a war torn country. Should I stop donating to the Indian orphanage and send the money to some other war torn country? I have lived in Britain only for three years. I am not British. I don't know why I would feel an attachment toward Ukrainians. I am comparing a British Muslim with a Christian Ukrainian because you have claimed greater cultural affiliation for Christian Ukrainians with Britain. We are discussing about why UK chose Ukrainian Christians over Middle Eastern Muslims. We need to compare cultural affiliations between those two groups. Not a group already living in the UK. Christians in many countries, including this one, really do protest against LGBTQ rights and teaching and abortion and all manner of things. Yet. There are 15 countries with death penalty for homosexuals. None of them Christian. You ignored my previous, lengthy, explanation of how I would prioritise things and actually returned to repeating yourself. Nothing to be done there. Doesn't answer my question. You agreed that we need to prioritise, explained how you prefer to prioritise. And then you asked me why do we need to prioritise again. People often mistake rational as correct and emotional as bad. They are equally valid ways to look at things. Although, amusingly, isn't it more rational to base aid purely on need rather than helping your friend or a stranger with the same background as you? Contradiction? There are certain matters of moral conviction where there is no single right answer. Who to help is one of it? But a debate about whether something is hypocrisy or not is not a moral question. We know the definition of hypocrisy. We just need to apply the definition and see if it fits. It can be debated rationally. For your last part see above. You do also continue to insist that using one argument to deny people something and ignoring it when privileging another is not hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance defined Cognitive dissonance if you try to understand what I mentioned. A question like is this hypocrisy can be discussed rationally because hypocrisy has a clear-cut objective definition. But if you ask is that person a bad person, it's a moral question because definition of good/bad is subjective and is based on moral beliefs. " Nobody has implied that Ukrainians should not be helped. I have written on multiple occasions that they should be helped, haven't I? Your understanding of cultural ties between the UK and Ukraine and the importance of Christianity as a defining factor are limited it seems. Why so confident in your understanding of this after only three years here? I lived in another country for five years and never claimed to be able to speak for them. I wouldn't claim to speak for "the people" here either. Why would you? If you are discussing cultural affiliation, then their are many Muslims and those from many different nations here. Are they less British in some way? If not, then that is no reason to exclude Middle East Muslims, is there? I have explained many, many times how I feel priorities should be set. Not sure what you're missing. Still not especially pertinent to change the rules to suit your preference. You are quite right. Not much of a debate. You think that Government applying different rules to people is fair. I don't. I think that saying that refugees being in a safe third country should be a specific reason prevent one group of people from coming but not another. I think that's hypocritical. You do not. I have not discussed good or bad. This is application of rules. Fairly or unfairly. Objectively or arbitrarily. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However, the impression been given by the Government is that this is equivalent to settlement or asylum. I haven't seen or heard any member of the government saying that the Ukraine scheme is equivalent to asylum. Can you give us a link to a government page where they say, or imply, that? This is about tone. Not about making a specific statement that you will be held accountable for. That's what spin is about. Have any members of the Government said that they will provide aid to Ukrainians for a limited amount of time before it is withdrawn and they will have to return home? Regardless, it is still a special scheme that affords one group grater opportunity over another group in equal need. True or not?it's up to three years stay. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064145/Homes_for_Ukraine_A5_leaflet.pdf Do you think it is more, less, or equally likely that a Syrian being given temporary leave in the UK would return, versus a Croatian. Or maybe another way is ... Do you think it is more, less, or equally likey Croatia will revert to being safe for these folks ? That doesn't really answer the question. A discussion over how long anyone is hypothetically "likely" to stay also doesn't add to the core point of privileging one group over another. If you found a job and had a life on the UK would you return to a shattered country without water or roads? I, personally, do not know. I may do. I may choose to send money. Again interesting to see if Ukrainians start getting deported in three years if they don't want to return... I disagree. When setting up schemes I think you need to consider the circumstances. Maybe the Ukrainians won't want to stay, which is why I reworded the situation. After three years I think there is a good chance ukranaians won't have grounds for asylum. In three years I think Syrians arriving today will have grounds for asylum. And that is why I can see an argument for having different schemes. Of course, people are all equal... But the circumstances are different. Whether the UK actually follow through in there right to deport ... Who knows. But they'd have the right, and I can imagine the Ukrainian won't have the case to claim asylum. That would be my reasons for having different schemes anyway. I do think it's also political so you won't get arguments there. " I don't disagree with you to some extent. A couple of points though. One of the key arguments to not allow people to apply for asylum here is that if they are in a safe country they don't need help. Effectively it's someone else's problem. However, apparently Ukrainians in a safe country do need help. Using an argument to exclude one group but ignoring it for another group. The Government is doing everything in their power to prevent Syrians or anyone else from being able to apply for asylum but creating new rules and ignoring other ones to allow Ukrainians to be helped. Again, it's the hypocrisy of this, denial of it being so and the defence of it that I am interested in here rather than the mechanics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't "lead" any questions. You have chosen to interpret a neutral position on how people should be treated. The first time (in this thread) that you asked it you said "Why does a fit, healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland need more help than an orphaned Yemeni child starving in a war?". You could have compared two orphans in different countries, but you didn't. The second time (in this thread) you said "Would you rather help an ill orphaned Afghan girl in a refugee camp or a healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland?". If you really don't think hat those 2 questions are leading, then there's something wrong with your powers of acuity." Actually, multiple times in one form or another, but not directly to you. You have chosen to discuss obscure legal points and other matters not connected to the case in point. The policy under discussion makes it easier for a healthy middle aged Ukrainian woman in Poland to come here and receive aid than an orphaned Yemeni child. You didn't realise that? No. I don't think that there is a problem with the comparison. That imbalance is exactly the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody has implied that Ukrainians should not be helped. I have written on multiple occasions that they should be helped, haven't I? " ???? I never said anything like that " Your understanding of cultural ties between the UK and Ukraine and the importance of Christianity as a defining factor are limited it seems. Why so confident in your understanding of this after only three years here? I lived in another country for five years and never claimed to be able to speak for them. I wouldn't claim to speak for "the people" here either. Why would you? " So when do I get the license to say why people in a country behave certain way? We all debate about empires in the 15th century. Should I be doing time travel to talk about them? I follow the news. I regularly visit other countries and actually talk to the people in person. Which countries prefer to support which other countries has a common trend throughout the world. India supports other Hindu and Buddhist refugees. Hindus and Buddhists have a lot in common. But tries its best to block Rohingya Muslims. Pakistan on the other hand takes lots of Muslim refugees but hardly takes Buddhist refugees. Compare number of Syrian refugees that Turkey took against the number of African refugees they took. This is just basic human nature being exhibited at a larger level. You can take a moral stand that it's bad. Many others would take a moral stance that it's totally fine. But hypocrisy? Not at all. " If you are discussing cultural affiliation, then their are many Muslims and those from many different nations here. Are they less British in some way? If not, then that is no reason to exclude Middle East Muslims, is there? " Do you think the cultural assimilation here for new Muslims is similar compared to Ukrainians? LGBT issues, terror attacks, having to provide security to teachers for drawing a damn picture, having to protect stand-up comedians for making jokes about an imaginary character. Relatively speaking, cultural assimilation is easier when it comes to Ukrainians. Above all, people are more welcoming to Ukrainians. " I have explained many, many times how I feel priorities should be set. Not sure what you're missing. Still not especially pertinent to change the rules to suit your preference. " The government changed the law to do something that it thought most people would want to. There hasn't been any backlash from people. If people did not like it, they will vote them out. Democracy 101. " I think that saying that refugees being in a safe third country should be a specific reason prevent one group of people from coming but not another. I think that's hypocritical. You do not. I have not discussed good or bad. This is application of rules. Fairly or unfairly. Objectively or arbitrarily." I don't see this as falling under the definition of hypocrisy. They set baseline rules for refugees. With Ukraine, they went over and above what they normally do to protect them for the reasons I already mentioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're nearly at the limit for this thread - time to award the points. I'll start the ball rolling by giving 5 points to Lostindreams for his excellent use of quotations. Anyone else?"
Thank you! The debate is as confusing as it can get with quotes. Without them, I would suffer from a mental breakdown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. We are providing temporary help to Ukrainians who will return home when the war is over . They are a good cultural fit to our society and we are also a Christian country . If I make a donation to a charitable cause I just do it . I am hardly going to concern myself with the problems faced by other charities , that would be a pointless exercise. I have yet to see anyone complaining about our help to Ukrainians " You may well feel that there is no reason to justify your decisions or actions. You are not a government. Arbitrary decision making on matters of life and death and the use of public money. I understand from many other of your posts that taking responsibility for your actions or thinking through the consequences pay no part in your thinking. I hold my Government to higher standards than you. We should provide temporary help for Syrians and Yemenis and Afghans too then. Just get on and do it, right? Again, are British Muslims British enough? What about African or Korean British? You think that Ukrainians are culturally closer? How sad to see the world in such terms. What has Christianity have to do with anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. We are providing temporary help to Ukrainians who will return home when the war is over . They are a good cultural fit to our society and we are also a Christian country . If I make a donation to a charitable cause I just do it . I am hardly going to concern myself with the problems faced by other charities , that would be a pointless exercise. I have yet to see anyone complaining about our help to Ukrainians You may well feel that there is no reason to justify your decisions or actions. You are not a government. Arbitrary decision making on matters of life and death and the use of public money. I understand from many other of your posts that taking responsibility for your actions or thinking through the consequences pay no part in your thinking. I hold my Government to higher standards than you. We should provide temporary help for Syrians and Yemenis and Afghans too then. Just get on and do it, right? Again, are British Muslims British enough? What about African or Korean British? You think that Ukrainians are culturally closer? How sad to see the world in such terms. What has Christianity have to do with anything?" You have shown your true colours here fella. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. " That's 100% true. Bill Gates foundation gets regularly questioned about why they are spending money on this and not that. It doesn't make sense to rationalise everything. People doing only their own business is normal way of life. Helping someone is going above and beyond what people normally do. Asking questions like "Why only this much help? Why helping this cause but not other cause?" is an useless and frankly speaking, a disgusting exercise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. That's 100% true. Bill Gates foundation gets regularly questioned about why they are spending money on this and not that. It doesn't make sense to rationalise everything. People doing only their own business is normal way of life. Helping someone is going above and beyond what people normally do. Asking questions like "Why only this much help? Why helping this cause but not other cause?" is an useless and frankly speaking, a disgusting exercise. " . Well said. You have put a lot of effort into this debate and raised a number of very interesting points . Like the other poster ,I will award you top marks . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody has implied that Ukrainians should not be helped. I have written on multiple occasions that they should be helped, haven't I? ???? I never said anything like that Your understanding of cultural ties between the UK and Ukraine and the importance of Christianity as a defining factor are limited it seems. Why so confident in your understanding of this after only three years here? I lived in another country for five years and never claimed to be able to speak for them. I wouldn't claim to speak for "the people" here either. Why would you? So when do I get the license to say why people in a country behave certain way? We all debate about empires in the 15th century. Should I be doing time travel to talk about them? I follow the news. I regularly visit other countries and actually talk to the people in person. Which countries prefer to support which other countries has a common trend throughout the world. India supports other Hindu and Buddhist refugees. Hindus and Buddhists have a lot in common. But tries its best to block Rohingya Muslims. Pakistan on the other hand takes lots of Muslim refugees but hardly takes Buddhist refugees. Compare number of Syrian refugees that Turkey took against the number of African refugees they took. This is just basic human nature being exhibited at a larger level. You can take a moral stand that it's bad. Many others would take a moral stance that it's totally fine. But hypocrisy? Not at all. If you are discussing cultural affiliation, then their are many Muslims and those from many different nations here. Are they less British in some way? If not, then that is no reason to exclude Middle East Muslims, is there? Do you think the cultural assimilation here for new Muslims is similar compared to Ukrainians? LGBT issues, terror attacks, having to provide security to teachers for drawing a damn picture, having to protect stand-up comedians for making jokes about an imaginary character. Relatively speaking, cultural assimilation is easier when it comes to Ukrainians. Above all, people are more welcoming to Ukrainians. I have explained many, many times how I feel priorities should be set. Not sure what you're missing. Still not especially pertinent to change the rules to suit your preference. The government changed the law to do something that it thought most people would want to. There hasn't been any backlash from people. If people did not like it, they will vote them out. Democracy 101. I think that saying that refugees being in a safe third country should be a specific reason prevent one group of people from coming but not another. I think that's hypocritical. You do not. I have not discussed good or bad. This is application of rules. Fairly or unfairly. Objectively or arbitrarily. I don't see this as falling under the definition of hypocrisy. They set baseline rules for refugees. With Ukraine, they went over and above what they normally do to protect them for the reasons I already mentioned. " Wanting to help Ukrainians does not imply that people want to help those from other countries any less. Presuming this and some cultural affinity is nothing more than that. Presumption. You are clearly content with prejudice and it's consequences to remain as it is and for governments to perpetuate that arbitrarily. You, and others can accept that as normal, but if you were here 40 years ago you would have been called names in the street and found it very hard to find accommodation due to being thought unclean. This attitude changed due to a concerted effort to legislate for equality against the will of much of the population. I know from previous threads that you have a low opinion of Muslims in general term. You have made no secret of that. That is for you to reconcile, or not. Laws and rules should be objective and done for the right reasons. I have more confidence in the population of this country supporting helping the most vulnerable from anywhere as I think more of them than you seem to in your three years here apparently "talking to people". A skill unique to you and not me or anyone else. Again there is no reason for any 'backlash'. There has been no implication that Ukrainians should not be helped bit that doesn't mean that people want to help others any less. I cannot say it on any other way. You cannot vote anyone out for several years yet and you vote on a number of policies. Some more important than others. Democracy 101. I am well aware that almost nothing falls under the definition of hypocrisy so it's futile discussing any further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. That's 100% true. Bill Gates foundation gets regularly questioned about why they are spending money on this and not that. It doesn't make sense to rationalise everything. People doing only their own business is normal way of life. Helping someone is going above and beyond what people normally do. Asking questions like "Why only this much help? Why helping this cause but not other cause?" is an useless and frankly speaking, a disgusting exercise. " The Gates Foundation answers. They think about what they are doing and allocate their resources with consideration. Not arbitrarily. That is not a "disgusting" exercise. It is an important and necessary one. The only real question here is why help one group over another. The only answer from you is that prejudice is normal and should be accepted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. We are providing temporary help to Ukrainians who will return home when the war is over . They are a good cultural fit to our society and we are also a Christian country . If I make a donation to a charitable cause I just do it . I am hardly going to concern myself with the problems faced by other charities , that would be a pointless exercise. I have yet to see anyone complaining about our help to Ukrainians You may well feel that there is no reason to justify your decisions or actions. You are not a government. Arbitrary decision making on matters of life and death and the use of public money. I understand from many other of your posts that taking responsibility for your actions or thinking through the consequences pay no part in your thinking. I hold my Government to higher standards than you. We should provide temporary help for Syrians and Yemenis and Afghans too then. Just get on and do it, right? Again, are British Muslims British enough? What about African or Korean British? You think that Ukrainians are culturally closer? How sad to see the world in such terms. What has Christianity have to do with anything? You have shown your true colours here fella." What are you talking about? Just say what you actually mean rather than making snide comments. I had more respect for you when you said things that I disagreed with but actually wrote what you meant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. We are providing temporary help to Ukrainians who will return home when the war is over . They are a good cultural fit to our society and we are also a Christian country . If I make a donation to a charitable cause I just do it . I am hardly going to concern myself with the problems faced by other charities , that would be a pointless exercise. I have yet to see anyone complaining about our help to Ukrainians You may well feel that there is no reason to justify your decisions or actions. You are not a government. Arbitrary decision making on matters of life and death and the use of public money. I understand from many other of your posts that taking responsibility for your actions or thinking through the consequences pay no part in your thinking. I hold my Government to higher standards than you. We should provide temporary help for Syrians and Yemenis and Afghans too then. Just get on and do it, right? Again, are British Muslims British enough? What about African or Korean British? You think that Ukrainians are culturally closer? How sad to see the world in such terms. What has Christianity have to do with anything? You have shown your true colours here fella. What are you talking about? Just say what you actually mean rather than making snide comments. I had more respect for you when you said things that I disagreed with but actually wrote what you meant." Snide? Can I remind you of your digs at me earlier. Are you watching the Jubilee concert? Not bad for a hypocritical nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. We are providing temporary help to Ukrainians who will return home when the war is over . They are a good cultural fit to our society and we are also a Christian country . If I make a donation to a charitable cause I just do it . I am hardly going to concern myself with the problems faced by other charities , that would be a pointless exercise. I have yet to see anyone complaining about our help to Ukrainians You may well feel that there is no reason to justify your decisions or actions. You are not a government. Arbitrary decision making on matters of life and death and the use of public money. I understand from many other of your posts that taking responsibility for your actions or thinking through the consequences pay no part in your thinking. I hold my Government to higher standards than you. We should provide temporary help for Syrians and Yemenis and Afghans too then. Just get on and do it, right? Again, are British Muslims British enough? What about African or Korean British? You think that Ukrainians are culturally closer? How sad to see the world in such terms. What has Christianity have to do with anything? You have shown your true colours here fella. What are you talking about? Just say what you actually mean rather than making snide comments. I had more respect for you when you said things that I disagreed with but actually wrote what you meant. Snide? Can I remind you of your digs at me earlier. Are you watching the Jubilee concert? Not bad for a hypocritical nation. " The nation is not hypocritical. The policy is. It's perfectly possible to separate the two. How does the staging of a celebration for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee relate to immigration policy? Possibly through the very diverse range of acts that imply that we would happily accept those in need from many countries through a fair system? I didn't "dig" at you. I told you directly what I thought. Do please tell me that I mean as you seem to know my thoughts and motivations so well rather than innuendo and implication. Put your big boy pants on and tell me what you mean by "showing my true colours"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wanting to help Ukrainians does not imply that people want to help those from other countries any less. Presuming this and some cultural affinity is nothing more than that. Presumption. " But people did vote for a party that promised reduced refugees intake. So it's not a presumption. " You are clearly content with prejudice and it's consequences to remain as it is and for governments to perpetuate that arbitrarily. You, and others can accept that as normal, but if you were here 40 years ago you would have been called names in the street and found it very hard to find accommodation due to being thought unclean. This attitude changed due to a concerted effort to legislate for equality against the will of much of the population. " Nothing ever happens in a democracy against the opinion of the majority. If it happens, the party will be kicked out for cleaners in the next election. Agree that racism was a thing in the past. So was casteism in India. But education made people see the mistakes in it and move past it. And racism, casteism is performing an action that hurts someone. Helping Ukraine is a positive action. There is no negative consequence because of that action. " I know from previous threads that you have a low opinion of Muslims in general term. You have made no secret of that. That is for you to reconcile, or not. " Here comes Islamophobia allegations. I am a classic liberal, not a modern progressive liberal. I have Muslim friends in India and also here with whom I openly discuss my views. Luckily, I come from a state where Muslims are forward thinking. Even they agree that the religion needs serious reforms in rest of the world. When someone goes against liberal principles like freedom of speech, I call it out even if they belong to minority group. " Laws and rules should be objective and done for the right reasons. I have more confidence in the population of this country supporting helping the most vulnerable from anywhere as I think more of them than you seem to in your three years here apparently "talking to people". A skill unique to you and not me or anyone else. " Every country changes laws and rules for emergency situations to target specific people. Ukraine situation was an emergency. I understood people's support for Ukraine by talking with them and finding what makes them so much attached to the matter. I understood that people don't feel the same way with other refugees by looking at their voting in the last election. Not really a unique skill. Common sense should suffice. " You cannot vote anyone out for several years yet and you vote on a number of policies. Some more important than others. " Yeah there are also other ways about showing disagreement in a democracy. Like protesting, online petitions. Haven't seen any with the government taking in Ukraine people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. That's 100% true. Bill Gates foundation gets regularly questioned about why they are spending money on this and not that. It doesn't make sense to rationalise everything. People doing only their own business is normal way of life. Helping someone is going above and beyond what people normally do. Asking questions like "Why only this much help? Why helping this cause but not other cause?" is an useless and frankly speaking, a disgusting exercise. The Gates Foundation answers. They think about what they are doing and allocate their resources with consideration. Not arbitrarily. That is not a "disgusting" exercise. It is an important and necessary one. The only real question here is why help one group over another. The only answer from you is that prejudice is normal and should be accepted." About 1/10th of the Gates foundation donation every year is spent within the United States itself. Don't you think it's disproportionately high, especially given that it's a developed country already. Maybe Gates too prioritises his own country first? If you feel one issue is more important than others, you can go and donate your own money. Maybe we should all ask you to stop spending on fab membership and donate it to charity because obviously an orphan not having food is definitely a bigger problem than us not having sex? We won't because its your money and we have no authority over how you spend it. Similarly Gates can spend his money as he wants. Scrutinising his spending is disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. That's 100% true. Bill Gates foundation gets regularly questioned about why they are spending money on this and not that. It doesn't make sense to rationalise everything. People doing only their own business is normal way of life. Helping someone is going above and beyond what people normally do. Asking questions like "Why only this much help? Why helping this cause but not other cause?" is an useless and frankly speaking, a disgusting exercise. The Gates Foundation answers. They think about what they are doing and allocate their resources with consideration. Not arbitrarily. That is not a "disgusting" exercise. It is an important and necessary one. The only real question here is why help one group over another. The only answer from you is that prejudice is normal and should be accepted. About 1/10th of the Gates foundation donation every year is spent within the United States itself. Don't you think it's disproportionately high, especially given that it's a developed country already. Maybe Gates too prioritises his own country first? If you feel one issue is more important than others, you can go and donate your own money. Maybe we should all ask you to stop spending on fab membership and donate it to charity because obviously an orphan not having food is definitely a bigger problem than us not having sex? We won't because its your money and we have no authority over how you spend it. Similarly Gates can spend his money as he wants. Scrutinising his spending is disgusting. " Link for 2019 expenses of Gates Foundation: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/financials/annual-reports/annual-report-2019 They have something called the United States program which accounted for 524,000 out of 5.1M $ spent. In 2018, it was 490,000 out of total 5M $ spent How dare that hypocrite spent that much money in his own country that is already developed when Yemeni children are suffering more? SHOCKING!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wanting to help Ukrainians does not imply that people want to help those from other countries any less. Presuming this and some cultural affinity is nothing more than that. Presumption. But people did vote for a party that promised reduced refugees intake. So it's not a presumption. You are clearly content with prejudice and it's consequences to remain as it is and for governments to perpetuate that arbitrarily. You, and others can accept that as normal, but if you were here 40 years ago you would have been called names in the street and found it very hard to find accommodation due to being thought unclean. This attitude changed due to a concerted effort to legislate for equality against the will of much of the population. Nothing ever happens in a democracy against the opinion of the majority. If it happens, the party will be kicked out for cleaners in the next election. Agree that racism was a thing in the past. So was casteism in India. But education made people see the mistakes in it and move past it. And racism, casteism is performing an action that hurts someone. Helping Ukraine is a positive action. There is no negative consequence because of that action. I know from previous threads that you have a low opinion of Muslims in general term. You have made no secret of that. That is for you to reconcile, or not. Here comes Islamophobia allegations. I am a classic liberal, not a modern progressive liberal. I have Muslim friends in India and also here with whom I openly discuss my views. Luckily, I come from a state where Muslims are forward thinking. Even they agree that the religion needs serious reforms in rest of the world. When someone goes against liberal principles like freedom of speech, I call it out even if they belong to minority group. Laws and rules should be objective and done for the right reasons. I have more confidence in the population of this country supporting helping the most vulnerable from anywhere as I think more of them than you seem to in your three years here apparently "talking to people". A skill unique to you and not me or anyone else. Every country changes laws and rules for emergency situations to target specific people. Ukraine situation was an emergency. I understood people's support for Ukraine by talking with them and finding what makes them so much attached to the matter. I understood that people don't feel the same way with other refugees by looking at their voting in the last election. Not really a unique skill. Common sense should suffice. You cannot vote anyone out for several years yet and you vote on a number of policies. Some more important than others. Yeah there are also other ways about showing disagreement in a democracy. Like protesting, online petitions. Haven't seen any with the government taking in Ukraine people. " You think that people voted for them on that alone? Could that not just as easily voted for them despite that policy? Again you are drawing a conclusion with no information to support it. You have demonstrated your thoughts on Muslims with your generalisations. You wrote the stuff. I did not. Why write it at all? What's the relevance. Most Muslims are perfectly nice aren't they? Why not write about Christians who are anti-gay or anti-abortion. There are a all number who actively protest and abuse people. I don't think that they are any more representative of their religion than Muslim or Hindi zealots. You also made it clear that prejudice is normal and therefore should be accepted. Again, that's for you. I am also perfectly capable of talking to people I am also able to use my common sense and, oh my goodness, I am able to draw a different conclusion to you with the same information. That being that I don't have sufficient information to make a definitive conclusion. Unlike your certainty. How many times do I need to write that I am not protesting Ukrainians being helped. Impossible to write it any other way. Supporting Ukrainians does not mean placing them above others. They are not connected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You think that people voted for them on that alone? Could that not just as easily voted for them despite that policy? Again you are drawing a conclusion with no information to support it. You have demonstrated your thoughts on Muslims with your generalisations. You wrote the stuff. I did not. Why write it at all? What's the relevance. Most Muslims are perfectly nice aren't they? Why not write about Christians who are anti-gay or anti-abortion. There are a all number who actively protest and abuse people. I don't think that they are any more representative of their religion than Muslim or Hindi zealots. You also made it clear that prejudice is normal and therefore should be accepted. Again, that's for you. I am also perfectly capable of talking to people I am also able to use my common sense and, oh my goodness, I am able to draw a different conclusion to you with the same information. That being that I don't have sufficient information to make a definitive conclusion. Unlike your certainty. How many times do I need to write that I am not protesting Ukrainians being helped. Impossible to write it any other way. Supporting Ukrainians does not mean placing them above others. They are not connected. " Generalisation implies I consider all Muslims to be the same. But in a sufficiently large number of people, there is an unfortunately non-negligibe number of people with age old beliefs and violent ways of expressing them that it's hard to deny it needs serious reformations from within. It's atrocious that people need protection in 21st century for drawings and jokes. If liberals in the past had treated Christianity in the same way that modern liberals treat Islam, we wouldn't be having theory of evolution in school curriculum. I have repeated the reasons why providing extra support to Ukraine is not hypocritical. Every country has other countries that they consider more linked with culturally and historically that are usually given special treatments from visas to financial aid. There is nothing wrong with it. Looking forward to the Part 3 thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe we should just accept that you choose whom you want to help and there is no need to justify or rationalise it. Those actually helping probably just get on and do it , they do not spend endless time rationalising their decision. That's 100% true. Bill Gates foundation gets regularly questioned about why they are spending money on this and not that. It doesn't make sense to rationalise everything. People doing only their own business is normal way of life. Helping someone is going above and beyond what people normally do. Asking questions like "Why only this much help? Why helping this cause but not other cause?" is an useless and frankly speaking, a disgusting exercise. The Gates Foundation answers. They think about what they are doing and allocate their resources with consideration. Not arbitrarily. That is not a "disgusting" exercise. It is an important and necessary one. The only real question here is why help one group over another. The only answer from you is that prejudice is normal and should be accepted. About 1/10th of the Gates foundation donation every year is spent within the United States itself. Don't you think it's disproportionately high, especially given that it's a developed country already. Maybe Gates too prioritises his own country first? If you feel one issue is more important than others, you can go and donate your own money. Maybe we should all ask you to stop spending on fab membership and donate it to charity because obviously an orphan not having food is definitely a bigger problem than us not having sex? We won't because its your money and we have no authority over how you spend it. Similarly Gates can spend his money as he wants. Scrutinising his spending is disgusting. Link for 2019 expenses of Gates Foundation: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/financials/annual-reports/annual-report-2019 They have something called the United States program which accounted for 524,000 out of 5.1M $ spent. In 2018, it was 490,000 out of total 5M $ spent How dare that hypocrite spent that much money in his own country that is already developed when Yemeni children are suffering more? SHOCKING!!!" This is a genuine nonsense. These are the aims of the US Program: "We work to ensure everyone in the United States can learn, grow, and get ahead, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or family income." Seems like a good thing to me. If I were you, I would now ask you why you wouldn't want this to happen? Do you want people not to learn, grow and get ahead because of their race, gender, ethnicity or family income? Alternatively, I could say that it's perfectly reasonable but that has nothing to do with the application of UK Government refugee policy as he is spending his own organisation's money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ukraine refugees to European countries Poland 957, per 10,000 Capita Germany 87, “” Uk 9, “”. ( lowest of any European country) Uk clearly a disgrace on refugees, but for balance we have done a lot militarily, training UA troops for past eight years, supplying weapons and specialist training, intelligence etc. Hats off to places like Poland and Germany who have taken in large numbers very quickly. They are much closer and maybe a more obvious destination for those fleeing the war. Have they processed the people from Ukraine in the same way as other parts of the world? Are are they also hypocritical? From what I read the EU have granted those fleeing Ukraine temporary protection and the right to live and work in the EU. This is not open to those fleeing other parts of the world. Is the EU also hypocritical or just trying to do the best in an emergency. Looks like the UK and EU schemes are very similar. Open door from Poland, no requirements, no paperwork no passport. Don’t know about Germany, UK scheme appears deliberately obstructive. As you quite rightly point out these schemes are quite different for people fleeing other war torn counties In isolation UK supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in full knowledge they will be used for atrocities on civilian targets, but refugees from Yemen coming across the channel are not welcome here, and are being sent to Rwanda. So is the EU and UK hypocritical and deserve the criticism or just trying to help. I believe a few years ago the UK had a scheme just for refugees from Syria excluding all others to the same scheme. Maybe that should not have taken place either The Syrian scheme was limited to 20,000 people and limited to vulnerable people. That does, actually align with what I wrote earlier about prioritising the most vulnerable. That is not the case with the Ukrainian scheme. It was only available to Syrians so excludes others. Should it not have taken place as the country did not do the same for everyone in a similar position around the world They weren't, at the time, stating things like passing through a third safe country made you intelligible to claim asylum. The difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. This was inconsistency. However, I do not disagree. Still better to have applied the rules more equitably. The reality probably is that a consistent policy would still have meant that Syrians would have formed a large majority of those admitted at that point in time." So a purely Syrian scheme you welcome despite the fact it excludes others. At most you say it is inconsistent. A Ukrainian system you criticized as hypocritical despite that word not fitting the facts. Others have come to a different conclusion to yourself with the same information. Their opinion is just a valid as yours. Bringing religious differences into the debate is abhorrent in my opinion. When countries do something positive like helping Ukraine's people in their time of need that should be applauded and not used as a vehicle to criticise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
