Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be in tears over the news today?

190 replies

KnockMeDown · 28/08/2015 18:16

71 migrants suffocated in a truck. Countless scores drowning in the Med. There doesn't seem to be an answer - they will keep coming, searching for a better life, wanting just the basics for their families.

I've kept it at bay up to now, but that truck... What were they thinking at the end Sad

I don't know what to say, or think, or do, but I am incredibly upset over it.

OP posts:
thehypocritesoaf · 30/08/2015 11:56

It's a massive and devastating humanitarian crisis - and heart breaking.

I don't know the answers tho. No one seems to.

I find it odd that a few pp have decided to blame tony Blair. I suppose they are very pleased we didn't intervene in Syria in the early days because not getting involved led to such a great outcome for the people there (not)

LilyTucker · 30/08/2015 12:02

So posters would chose to stay and fight Asaad,his bullies and Isis. Seriously. Syria is being reduced to rubble.You'd stay knowing Isis could turn up any day to capture and torture you just for fun using spurious reasons such as being gay or breaking their laws as an excuse.They murder children just because they like to.

Words fail me.

It's all very easy in our naice little towns in a democratic country where the worst thing to happen is they run out of milk in the corner shop in a bank holiday.

The persecuted in the Second World War couldn't stay and fight so they tried to flee. Why are this generation of persecuted people not allowed to do the same?

Oh and as to where would we go? Pick a country,there are many taking in far more than us. I read that the Calais crisis accounts for 1%.

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 12:07

If the UK was invaded what country would we be tempted to flee to for a better life?

If you're literally fleeing for your life you'd get on any boat going anywhere. And it would depend where the threat was coming from and where else is involved in the war/violence. France is closest. But if it's the evil French invading then possibly people would start by heading north then get boats to Scottish islands, Iceland, Greenland, then maybe America/Canada from there if Europe is all at risk and there are traffickers or official transport available.

Once you've had time to breath and think about a better life I imagine many, like those in Calais, would prefer nations where they can speak the language, so mostly English speaking ones, or ones where we have family already. America, Canada, Australia and NZ would be popular.

Because of our imperial past and America's capitalist imperialism many people fleeing have English as a 2nd language. When people have actually asked the people at Calais why they want to come to the UK it's usually because they have family here, speak English, or (speaking English) they also believe the Daily Mail guff about how they will be treated like kings when they get here! It's the Daily Mail's fault. I knew it.

Sallyhasleftthebuilding · 30/08/2015 12:09

I havent read the full thread, but I thought the first safe country had a duty to take them? Some of these people travel through lots of perfectly safe countries, France is a safe country. So what are they expecting in the UK that france doesnt give? Why arent the French housing these people instead of camps?

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 12:11

I read that the Calais crisis accounts for 1%

1% of what? Do you mean European intake? As said above most refugees (people fleeing from war/violence/oppression) remain in their own country, the rest mostly go to neighbouring countries. 80% of refugees are hosted in developing countries.

suzannefollowmyvan · 30/08/2015 12:22

What if all the migration just server to spread Isis and tyranny over the rest of the free world
There will be no safe place for anyone to flee to?

suzannefollowmyvan · 30/08/2015 12:22

serves
not sever!

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 12:29

They're fleeing from ISIS!

BartholinsSister · 30/08/2015 12:35

If these people are paying north of £2500 each to their traffickers, why don't they instead fly into Heathrow business class like the rest of us ?

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 12:41

Gosh darn, perhaps you could write to them suggesting it, like St Paul to the Corinthians.

LazyLohan · 30/08/2015 13:02

Waffly, I don't think we have any reliable way of differentiating between who is fleeing ISIS and who is ISIS.

I think it needs to be more targeted so that those at greatest risk like Christians and Yazidi are prioritised.

With the current system if we had tried it with Nazi Germany we would effectively have said anybody German who fancies it could have claimed asylum, not just at risk groups like Jews, gays, etc. We operated a system of internment for security for Germans during WW2 (including my Gran, who was not a Nazi). Obviously we're not doing it now and it wouldn't have been practical. But I suspect if we'd had lots of German's free in the UK at the time the opportunities for internal attack and spying would have made it highly likely we wouldn't have won the war.

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 13:09

I will lay my life on the line that only a teeny tiny % of them are anything other than refugees fleeing war who are deserving of our compassion and assistance.

Other countries seem to manage to take them in, despite this terrifying risk that ISIS infiltrators will destroy us all. Is Angela Merkel just less well informed than you?

treaclesoda · 30/08/2015 13:14

I'm probably being ridiculously naive but if they ARE ISIS, why are they fleeing? I thought they were sweeping across the area and taking control? If they are ISIS but are in a part of Syria not controlled by ISIS would they not just flee to an ISIS controlled area, since they want to live under that regime?

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 13:16

We didn't stop Irish people coming here during 'the troubles'. Most of them just wanted a better life. A tiny number must have been IRA.

BMW6 · 30/08/2015 13:33

No-one on here has answered this - if the inhabitants of a country aren't prepared to stand and fight tryanny who the hell should? Every time the West has intervened it appears to add fuel to the fire.

Of course throughout history the old, women and children have refugeed from conflict. But young strong men???? This seems to be young men fleeing and leaving the most vulnerable behind (yes, I know some are women and children, but the vast majority are not)

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 13:51

I'd vote for sending over Britain First members. They seem to like a fight.

This started when the inhabitants of Syria stood up to they tyranny of Assad.

If I had a way of bringing about World Peace then I'd probably get up off this sofa and do it. Better people than me have tried and failed. No one has all the answers. Doesn't mean we should ship people back to die.

If you think people should fight then why not volunteer? These people are caught between Assad and ISIS. They don't have weapons. How much chance have they got?

EngTech · 30/08/2015 13:51

Have to agree with BMW6

History is just repeating itself - The only difference these days is that we have 24/7 media / communications so it is beamed to you direct

History teaches you that the old and young are the first casualties.

Until the problem is cured at source, they will keep coming as human nature will seek a better life and Europe, from their perspective, the streets are paved with gold and milk & honey are freely available

Who is making the most out of this? People traffickers who don't care about their "cargo"

NoStannisNo · 30/08/2015 13:57

from their perspective, the streets are paved with gold and milk & honey are freely available

I don't think its gold, milk and honey they are after - I think its the chance to live their evergday lives and take care of their kids without fear of murder, rape and torture.

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 14:01

Not people traffickers. I expect most people involved in people trafficking live shitty lives too.

The arms trade does quite well out of war. They have a lovely expo held in London each year with all their lovely weapons where they can all network and do deals over a nice cabernet.

War gets in the news but wars don't spontaneously combust. They come out of situations where govts are aggressors to other countries, where people within countries feel so oppressed they rise up etc. There is always context. Rich countries contribute to some extent to these developing situations and we don't hear much about it. Then there is war and suddenly it's all over the news (once it effects us in some minor way) and everyone wrings there hands and wonders what is to be done. And how much it is costing us to help them out.

EngTech · 30/08/2015 14:02

Agreed as from their perspective, Europe offers that opportunity

No matter how this pans out, it will boil down to money and politicians keeping a wary eye of the voters in their own country as come the next election, Jo Public has a funny way of showing if they are happy with what they decided

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 14:03

I don't think its gold, milk and honey they are after - I think its the chance to live their evergday lives and take care of their kids without fear of murder, rape and torture.

Quite.

And as I said before if it is because they think the UK will be that much more fabulous than other countries then it's because they've believed the guff in the press.

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 14:08

The cure for the root problems that lead to these situations is equality within and between countries and accountable democracy. The only people inequality and lack of democracy favour are those with the greatest wealth and greatest power both within countries and in the international system.

NoStannisNo · 30/08/2015 14:10

It just that talk of lands of milk and honey usually comes from a 'they all come ere cos they fink the streets are paved wiv gold innit, and all they wanna do is take our wimmin and jobs and use their muslamic rayguns on our meat' sort of context.

wafflyversatile · 30/08/2015 14:13

just noticed a there/their error. Oh, the shame.

shishagrrrl · 30/08/2015 14:21

Germany have agreed to take 600,000 refugees, we've agreed to take 0.

That could very well be a red herring.

Research shows that for a large percentage of migrants, their ultimate goal is to try and make it to the UK. We are the end of the line destination for some strange reason..
A lot of countries en route are merely used as stepping stones.

It's easy to say you are willing to 'accept large numbers' when you know there's a strong chance that a large proportion will eventually leave! (effectively passing the problem on somewhere else)

Swipe left for the next trending thread