To think if you've escaped a war zone, have shelter and food a wristband is no hardship

[Lj17lj]

I might get slammed but I really don't see the issue. I've went on very expensive holidays and festivals and have to wear a wrist band for weeks on end, its fine. When I go to the steam room in local gym I have to wear a band.

I really can't see the issue. It's not the same as forcing a tattoo on someone.

It raises an interesting question about the rights of locals in their area though. If people who live next to the asylum refuges dislike it, don't want them in the area, and feel unsafe - are we putting the refugees above british citizens? and are we right to do so?

I am not saying that fearing or disliking refugees being in your area is right. In my personal opinion of course it isn't. But then again, it's easy for me to say that from my position in multi-cultural Central London where it's not impacting on my home and daily life.

If locals feel unsafe near refugee centres, why is that?
Is it just a perception brought about by the media, generic fear of those who are different, or have those refugees at the centre actually done anything wrong?
I'd also be much more worried about groups of men outside pubs, tbh. And some drunk women. And men leaving football games.

Reading up on the red doors issue, it isn't like someone said earlier that refugees have complained about having all their doors the same colour. It's about having a certain colour (red!) that marks out houses as of a certain company that houses refugees. Therefore marking them as possible targets.

I guess I was asking, does it matter why the locals are unhappy? If you buy a home and suddenly the area changes character so that you are unhappy with it, house prices are affected etc, is it right that you should be told that it's just because you are xenophobic and need to change your attitude by people who don't know you and who don't live there?

Just trying to look at the other side of the coin really. On this issue I have one view, but if we were talking about changing the character of my neighbourhood for something that I didn't like (eg in my case it would be a third runway at heathrow), I would not like to be told it's for the greater good of the country, suck it up, by people who don't have to listen to the aeroplanes all day long.

Of course it matters, if their concerns are genuine and not along the lines "because ISIS" and the government need to be mindful of that but why would a refugee hostel lower house prices if there was not already prejudice against them?

Would a group house of white, middle class males lower the house prices? No. So why should a group of male refugees?

Surely the centres have to be located somewhere.
At some point, no, it doesn't matter much what the neighbours think, or they'd have to be built in a remote island off the coast, far away from view.
Sometimes house owners benefit (Crossrail in London), other times they don't (airport runway).

Also if public opinion takes precedent, how far do we let that go? Do we allow locals to prevent the opening of drug and alcohol treatment centers? What about women's refuges - afterall abusive men may be attracted there. What about group homes for children in care? Group homes for disabled?

Maybe we should find a new Australia and ship all of the undesirables out, because you know, house prices.

Allowing local opinion to override the need to help these people sets a dangerous precedent.

But then you get into the difficult territory of deciding which concerns are sufficiently genuine. It is proven that high amounts of immigration in an area can lower demand and house prices. Why? Is it just that Brits in those areas are inherently racist or xenophobic? Or are there genuine problems with integration in those areas that we don't want to listen to? Whilst the colour/background of my neighbours isn't an issue for me personally (or I certainly wouldn't be living where I do!), I have had a number of clients over the years who have experienced significant difficulty with refugees and immigrants moving into their area. I have been guilty of secretly judging most of them for being intolerant and unpleasant, but it does make me think. And I guess indo find the idea of making people put up with a sudden mass change to their home area against their will to be uncomfortable.

But then the other part of my brain says, er - like dropping bombs on it then?!

Or to put it another way: if you don't live anywhere near a refugee centre, is it fair for you to assume the concerns of those who do are nothing more than racism?

It seems to me that they are. But I don't live there, so I don't know how I would feel about being told that I was racist by someone 200 miles away IYSWIM

Is it just that Brits in those areas are inherently racist or xenophobic?

I think it's because an ongoing hate campaign against muslims and refugees has been going on for years, but no one seems to have noticed enough to stop it and those who speak out are shouted down by the bigots who seem to be able to shout louder.

Even the language used in the media dehumanises them. The Calais "Jungle" for example.

People's fear from what I can see on Failbook et al is fueled by the media. Terrorists sneaking in - they're already here. Muslim men raping white women - because white men don't rape white women, of course. Shari'a law being implemented in certain areas - of course it is, sweetie, now run along and play .

People trust the media. They don't question it. If it's on the news, it must be true.

The accommodation is in a horrid area - all bail hostels, whore houses and cheap b+b. I can't imagine many "locals" complaining - there's bugger all "community".

Less than half a mile away you have the centre of Cardiff with designer shops, John Lewis, fancy little cafes, chichi arcade shops, nice restaurants. There's plenty of employment for people who'll look for it. There's sport, theatres, the coast etc. People who are lucky enough to live in that city shouldn't be whining about desperate luckless asylum seekers and they certainly shouldn't be abusing them. Wristbands emphasise "otherness" and are awful. I'm glad the policy was dropped.

When you watch the news on refugees it's mostly young men, who appear to be of fighting age that are shown, yet UN figures show that these men are a small minority of the refugees who are mainly made up of women, the very young and the very old, where are these women and children on the TV?

The UN can find them, Buzzfeed who seem biased towards refugees can find them, why can't ITV and the Daily Fail?

We need responsible unbiased reporting and we need people to learn how the media works.

Yes some refugees are possibly inclined to criminal behaviour, but like every other culture, these are a minority and if that minority is growing we need to look for reasons. Is that they are, as a whole, more dangerous than us, or is that they disenchanted, angry and isolated because of the way they are represented?

Yes I agree with the campaign point, definitely. Something like that programme the other night, "the jihadist next door" - the media and social media focus immediately on the inflammatory stuff and not the fact that you're looking at about 6 isolated nutbars.

I thought the women tended to stay in camps closer to their original home, with the men undertaking the longer and theoretically more risky journeys further abroad.

True in general, but when you see the refugees going into Greece, there are many families, with small children too.

I think it's because an ongoing hate campaign against muslims and refugees has been going on for years, but no one seems to have noticed enough to stop it and those who speak out are shouted down by the bigots who seem to be able to shout louder

^ Really?

I have heard more Muslims speak out on the media about how tolerant the UK is, especially compared to many other countries!

There was a brilliant panorama program on last year. I think its this one.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050nj0z
The battle for british Islam.

Many Muslims/ leaders came on to say Britain is tolerant and its only the ISIS types who want to create a divide and rule, they want to see Muslim as other...Its ISIS and extremists who in fact take small incidents from the media and blow them out of all proportion.

They went onto explain just how hard it was being a muslim in many other countries in the world and indeed all the wonderful freedoms and opportunities the UK offers even above other Muslim countries.

In general, as far as every day living goes we are a multi cultural society and most of us live cheek by jowl with British Muslims and there are no issues.

scarednoob Tue 26-Jan-16 10:40:29

Indeed and the flip side is, one mosque is attacked and yet hundreds and thousands remain un touched and safe.

Yes some refugees are possibly inclined to criminal behaviour, but like every other culture, these are a minority and if that minority is growing we need to look for reasons. Is that they are, as a whole, more dangerous than us, or is that they disenchanted, angry and isolated because of the way they are represented?

That's an interesting point especially in the light of the stabbing in Sweden this week of a girl working in a center for young migrants, and also the mass sexual attacks across the EU on young white women.

Many countries opened their doors and arms to these young men, taking supplies, villagers came out to offer push chairs, clothes, food.

What more could they have done to welcome the refugees?

Or maybe these young men were not refugees but economic migrants? Its hard to say isn't it, but after such large numbers engaged in sex assaults and continue to do so, its a critical issue that needs addressing isn't it.

I'm really surprised at the poster who said it was insulting to people who died in the death camps, to bring up the similarly to the treatment of Jews before/during WW2.

On the contrary, it is because it is not disrespectful to remember what happened - and how it progressed from situations like this - that people are bringing it up!

Hate speech is everywhere at the moment. We're taking the mickey out of Donald Trump and his aides ("Are there no pure breeds left?") when we should be shunning them. "They should be grateful to be marked" is not a million miles from that tbh.

That's an interesting point especially in the light of the stabbing in Sweden this week of a girl working in a center for young migrants, and also the mass sexual attacks across the EU on young white women.

The first was one case. She's not the only attacked woman in Europe.

As for the mass sexual attacks, we have to wonder if they were genuine attacks by male refugees or made to look like that (e.g. by ISIS) to increase distrust.

Those in power are never the ones suddenly with 20 young men intent on violence and assault on women though are they? They won't be putting the hostel next to a cabinet minister's or even Corbyn's house.

Go to any of the countries like Egypt and the like and see how they treat women. Yes if people meet criteria for asylum they may be allowed to stay here but they must follow our laws. Perhaps if we let in say 90% female and 10% male that would be a good start or mostly children under 10 who are alone.

Not to take this too far of course but I think the idea that ISIS could be using refugees as foot soldiers to terrorize people by organizing mass sexual assaults plays into the anti-refugee crowd's hands.

There may well be cultural issues when lots of people from one place come into a different culture. Some of that will be good for us as a country (a stronger work ethic perhaps, an entrepreneurial streak, new ideas, community festivals that bring everyone together) some of it will be less good (distrust of modern medicine, strongly different expectations of gender roles). But when those issues raise their head we need to deal with them without hysteria and without looking for extreme excuses.

• off course, not of course.

I didn't say they were using refugees as foot soldiers.
I implied that whoever attacked those women could be posing as refugees.

Of course asylum seekers have to comply with national laws. Nobody says they shouldn't. But, perhaps they could be integrated sooner into society instead of in institutions with more unoccupied young men. Recipe for disaster in any society.

(as for Parliament, not sure that's a good example of good sexual behaviour...)

As for the mass sexual attacks, we have to wonder if they were genuine attacks by male refugees or made to look like that (e.g. by ISIS) to increase distrust

1. we dont know if they were migrants or refugees.
2. there is more evidence the behaviour is already known from Egypt it has a name, sexual assault and robbery. It has not been created by ISIS its a tactic that already exists.

I would be wary of any poster who does not live here but claims we are a terrifying society for Muslims to live in.

Promoting this seems to me very red top screechy behaviour and whilst un doubedelty there are pockets of racism over all - over all the UK is known to e very tolerant, indeed too tolerant.

lweji and how do you propose these nations do that? Integrate them sooner?