[quote Doodlebug71]**@TheAntiGardener: I’m afraid I believe he was evacuated with animals because resource could not be diverted elsewhere so may as well be used. Because the alternative (the government can’t stand up to animal lovers and comedians on Twitter) is terrifying.
That first bit is closer to the truth. "So how many people can come on this plane with me?" "None." "Why?" "There's not enough people processed to fill the planes we have."
The UK govt didn't process people. Left them outside and shut the airport access to all those left outside. This is the same govt whose housing minister just said, "we're going to help people get on the (property) ladder either as owners or renters". I shit you not.[/quote]
I broadly agree with what you’ve been posting on these threads, Doodle.
And if it IS the second part of my post that is true version of events, anger should be directed squarely at the government. It would be ridiculous to lay the blame at an individual’s feet instead of the UK government responsible for these evacuations - and who very particularly owe a great debt to the Afghans who worked with the Allies.
That’s the processing/resources angle.
Quite apart from that aspect, I have no time for the view that saving animals in and of itself looks bad. The only reason this has drawn nearly as much attention as it has is because this debate has sprung up around ‘Operation Ark’. If the media and government are so appalled at people’s priorities, they could easily have opted to give both the evacuation and ensuing debate less exposure.