Pictures of migrant children on fb

[FuryFowler]

Has anyone seen these pictures, of poor poor children washed up on the beaches of Libya and Greece, drowned from their failed crossing.

I know the pics are there to shock but it's devastating to see

I signed a petition the other day, which had a pic of a drowned child on the front page. I signed and shared but then felt uncomfortable about sharing such a graphic picture.

It's makes me cry what is happening there, but was I U for sharing?

When the weak needed support and defence those countries that could help sat firmly on their hands and kept the gun cupboard locked for years in the name of political correctness instead of standing up to be counted against terrorist tyranny.

The least the cowards in power can do now is help those who have been terrorised in the wake of their inactivity, both then and now.

the fact that there are people dying trying to escape the horrors of Syria and other countries is unspeakably horrific. However...

That child did not die because David Cameron wouldn't allow him or his family into the UK. To turn a picture of his dead body into some kind of symbol against the government's stance on asylum seekers is crass in the extreme.

We have no idea where that family was heading. His death is not ours to claim responsibility for.

Do we need to think more compassionately about the plight of Syrian and other refugees? of course. But exactly what does that mean? opening up our borders to more refugees is all very well, but fact is that they still have to get here. and to get here they will still be putting their own lives at risk by attempting to cross into Europe in the first place.

This child is possibly a symbol of what people have to endure to escape Syria, not what they have to endure to enter the UK.

It is sad that it takes images of dead children to get people to realise the horror that is happening right now.

I have seen people who usually post pretty right wing anti immigrant stuff sign the petitions today. It gives me hope that attitudes are finally changing.

It is beyond awful to see that lifeless little body plastered all over the media, but maybe, just maybe, it will be the start of some real action.

I have to believe there is hope for the children of Syria.

I find the reposting of these pictures absolutely abhorrent. I can understand the press using them to inform and educate but there is absolutely no reason at all for anyone to be reproducing them on social media. It's so dehumanising, so ethically wrong.

I know people post them with the best of intentions but they are not going to create change by putting these pictures on Facebook. It's totally insensitive to the parents.

A very level headed explaination, wannaBe. It's terrible, but we also cannot attach one awful scenario in Turkey to blood on David Cameron's hands. Politics aside, the man is a father, one who has lost himself, abeit through different circumstances - I really doubt he didn't feel some level of awfulness about it all. We cannot say where exactly they were heading, we shall never know. Something needs to be done about the situation to avoid people becoming so desperate in the first place - that should be the focus, not where we can find room for half another country across most of Europe.

All I can think is... If my child died in a car accident would I want a picture of his body to be reproduced hundreds of times as a symbol to promote rear facing car seats or better driving. No way.
Someone asked me on FB 'well how was I supposed to contact the parents then' which totally misses the point and basically means that this person thought - if I can't contact them then it's perfectly ok for me to publish a zoomed in copy of it.

Words fail.

Sharing these pictures over and over again is actually not a demonstration of how much you fucking 'care'. It's intrusive, voyeuristic grief-wanking. Would you want the last picture of your beloved child thrown all over social media by idiots who know nothing about you, or him, or her? For complete strangers to post mawkish guff about 'lost angels' - or, indeed, vile racist nonsense? Do you need a picture of someone's helpless, drowned toddler, to make you feel compassion (or to make you click on a link, which seems to be about the extent of it for a lot of idiots?) Every one of those poor kids was a real person, loved by parents, hugged in their mothers' arms, kissed and reassured and held tightly when the ships foundered, and when they drift ashore on some alien beach, half-dressed, battered and bruised, sometimes still in their nappies, do you really need to see them? Isn't looking at and passing on their pictures one final intrusion into their dignity, their humanity, their individuality?

It's generally regarded as unacceptable to depict real dead people in news media (with the exception, perhaps, of those who have been 'made presentable' and are photographed in their coffins - a different topic).
This is a good list of things you can do to help. It's probably been posted more than once on this thread but it probably bears posting again. And it's true that we don't all have enough money to be able to donate money, and we may not all have enough money even to be able to donate outgrown kids' clothes, or whatever.

But if you use social media, you can at least try to help by using your words. Not by turning the dead bodies of those children into anonymous weep-fodder.

Good posts by wannabe and gently

wannaBe in particular gave my feelings words.

Genuine question, how do people think taking more refugees in would actually have helped that little boy?

He died (presumably) because his parents believed that if they could get to Europe they would get a better life. We don't know that of course. It's a picture, we can attribute anything we like to it. We can suppose and imagine, but I don't know why they got on the boat, and neither do you.

So they got on a tiny boat, supplied by people who took all their money and didn't care if they lived or died, people who ushered that tiny boy onto the boat and said yes go and build a better life.

Then the little boy drowned.

So how would taking in more migrants help save other little boys like that? Would it stop people from getting on dinghies? Or would it actually give the people smugglers more ammunition to say look, Europe are accepting you? If you can just risk your life to make it, get on this boat, get in this van with 100s of others, then they're taking in refugees?

Its not about resources, welfare, the country being full. It's about stopping people getting on boats where they will probably die. We could look at legal routes of immigration, camps in Turkey to process refugees like Calais, making it so they don't need to risk everything to cross. But not putting that in place BEFORE saying we'll take in more refugees will lead to more dead children, not less.

People see a little boy dead and they want an immediate easy solution. Something must be done! But it's not that easy and it disrespects all the children whose parents are desperate or determined enough to risk their lives to think there is a simple solution on a macro level to this.

At the moment there are thousands of refugees in europewith no shelter and winter coming on.

It won't stop people getting in dingoes but the EU needs to be financing more boats to rescue these people.

Most folk are fleeing just over the Syrian border. Just 6% of the Syrian refugee population come to Europe.

It won't stop while there is conflict in Syria. But we have s moral obligation to offer asylum to the people who get to Europe.

The UK should be offering asylum to the people on its border - Calais.

Another excellent post from Cinderella.

There are massive camps all along the Syrian border. Look

Massive camps that people have to pay to get out of :(

But offering asylum as a prize for those who manage to get to Europe is making it more tempting for more people to risk it all to get to Europe. It endorses it - if you just try make it to the land of milk and honey we will take you in, you just have to WANT it enough to risk it.

More lifeboats in the med to rescue the drowning is a sticking plaster, smugglers were scuttling the boats so the ships had to come and rescue the people on board. Put more boats in, they'll get more people to go on dinghies - it's ok little boy, get on the boat, it looks scary and unsafe but if it starts to sink then the nice lifeguards will save you and you'll be free.

Stop the smugglers, maybe provide a legal alternative route from Turkey for the refugees who are in most desperate need. But think through solutions and try and look at the potential unintended consequences because if it was that easy to solve it all, it would have been done by now. The only people winning at the moment are the smugglers.

The money can't be 'found' by abolishing MPs luxuries.

Even if they were all put on minimum wage tomorrow, the saving would be so miniscule in terms of countrywide spending they might as well not bother.

Where is the extra money really going to come from?

Do you think that not offering asylum would stop people - the 6%- from coming to Europe? Do you really think that?

In this situation the best we can do is offer a safe haven to those who get here. And police the waters. I'm sure there are international operations against the people smugglers but that's tough in a war zone in contrived with different laws.

By offering safe asylum and passage to the euro country of their choice we ensure safety once in European waters and on European soil. No more babies dying in the back of refrigerator lorries.

Perhaps our Saudi pals can help pay for it.

I agree wholeheartedly with Cinderella. Nobody is unmoved by the plight of migrants but there are no easy answers

Perhaps we should sit about nodding sagely saying: 'there are no easy answers.'

That will help. Deep thinkers, all.

Better than a knee jerk reaction which could well make matters worse.

So what are the answers?

I am genuinely not seeing how the tragedy of a toddler drowning trying to flee his country means any country that might not have taken him are at fault.

We all feel utterly wretched at the plight of those in Syria. But as cinderella succinctly explained, here it is the journey that was dangerous - it isn't as if they arrived here and were told to return then drowned, is it?

"This child is possibly a symbol of what people have to endure to escape Syria, not what they have to endure to enter the UK."

With all due respect, this in incorrect. The two little brothers were not fleeing Syria, they were sailing from Bodrum in Turkey.

Getting out of Syria is the "easy" bit as Turkey has had its borders open to refugees for some time now. Over a million have crossed safely already.

It's the struggle they face when trying to leave Turkey to reach an EU country (such as Kos) that involves danger.

Having had a quick look into it, i do absolutely believe that the EU could intervene to help to refugees- especially if assistance and promises of help could be offered to Bulgaria (the first EU country coming via Turkey) if they open their borders to the refugees.

So what action should the gvt take that would prevent further drownings of refugees?

Aylin Kurdi has an uncle in Canada

There was no legal way for his parents to claim asylum in Canada [?or anywhere else] when they left Kobani their home town in Syria.

OP please ask MNHQ to change the title of this post from 'migrant children' to 'refugee children'

It's not a knee jerk reaction- These are our legal obligations!

We should be allowing these refugees to claim asylum here.

It wouldn't have helped the little boy though, Ubik

He drowned before he got anywhere near here.