Women's safety in Europe after Cologne

[DavidTCDaviesMP]

I have been invited onto Mumsnet to discuss the situation for women in Europe following the attacks in Cologne, and the challenge we face in Europe in trying to help millions of mainly young men, who are arriving in Europe from cultures which treat women very differently. I believe this is an issue which needs open discussion by political leaders yet is swept under the carpet. David Davies MP

Lumela, after reading the article it seems they are talking about the consequences and the need to have resources for immigrants in order for it to be sustainable. They are not talking about limiting immigration and make it clear they don't feel it their place to do so. There is some discussion of the pros and cons of immigration.

Your comment was is quite different and was,

''However, I like open space and woodland and wildlife, and I also sometimes wonder idly about the UK's food security, since England is the UK's breadbasket, but we keep building on it: I don't think it's sustainable.)'

'I'm not going to rise to it if you want to attack me'.

Sporting, I didn't. I just questioned why it was me in particular that could benefit from mindfulness within the conext of comments yesterday.

Which brings us back emily to the question of where those resources will come from. Which you won't answer.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/12165093/Up-to-5000-Isil-trained-jihadists-could-be-at-large-in-Europe.html

'16 year old' (ahem) rapes worker at Belgian Red Cross asylum centre two weeks after attending a course on how to treat western women:

mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VS21E

Sounds like another one of those "credit to the system" immigrants.

There's an awful lot of them about Grace.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/7121107.htm

Interesting read.

inaccurate figures, under funding...strong theme throughout is "the government use flawed population data in its own projections of housing need the official estimates for Slough show some perverse results"

flawed data, flawed counting....over and over.

points 44, on wards interesting reading

eg

46>

" 46. The nature and mix of migration in an 18 months' period is demonstrated on school rolls. 888 pupils from non English speaking countries moved onto Slough school rolls over that time. 200 were from Poland, 185 from Pakistan, 104 from Somalia and 91 from India. The remainder were from other African, European or other Asian countries. Two primary schools in Slough have had to take in 60 Somalian and 50 Polish children respectively in just one term.

Its a very detailed account of one boroughs issues.

Two primary schools in Slough have had to take in 60 Somalian and 50 Polish children respectively in just one term

Re the question of cost of immigration a pp raised earlier, this may be relevant "Breitbart news 16 hours ago "Swedish economist, researcher & business professor Jan Tullberg has looked beyond the immediate costs of merely receiving immigrants into Sweden &their initial impact - extra policing, benefits etc. He claims to have found the true cost of just 1 year's migration. Conservative estimate is 600 billion Swedish Kroner or £48.3 billion." So, that's going to take a bit of finding isn't it?

They can just pluck it from the magic money tree that grows in Emilys garden.

From Bill's link:
Belgium received 35,476 asylum requests in 2015, more than twice the level of 2014.

How can any country plan to make available the resources needed to deal with such rapid increases? Or with the increases in children from foreign countries quoted in Mouse's post? It's not just a matter of increasing the resources already there, it's providing resources which are different in kind as well as in quantity. E.g. in education, not just more teachers, but teachers who are trained to deal with kids who don't speak the same language, ideally including teachers with mother-tongue knowledge of the other languages.

Planning for all that takes time, no wonder governments are accused of failing to foresee needs.

sorry wont swamp but these are interesting points.

47. The centre also provides support for newly arrived parents. Many families new to the country have complex needs and require a level of information, advice or support that cannot usually be met by schools. By consulting new arrivals and their parents about their experiences and needs, the Assessment Centre has been able to provide comprehensive and accessible information. The cost of this, not least translation expenses, is considerable.

population is still considered by official statistics to be shrinking. The effect of this erroneous population count on the council's funding is severe with an estimated minimum loss of £5-6 million in funding to date. The council has managed through four years of under-funding by driving efficiencies and using balances. It can no longer do this making rapid reaction of this kind unlikely in the future.

Other indirect costs of migration

55. Elected councillors have had to make some difficult decisions on the level of services they can provide in the forthcoming years due to the financial effects of poor migration data on the council. It is important that these are seen as a consequence of migration to the town and the government's inability to track and measure population movement

And there is more "Sweden is not thenough only country now thinking of the long term cost. Germany, who present evidence that migrants require more dental and healthcare than native hosts. Currently, the German government is responsible for footing the bill but is requiring private health care companies to assist. By 2017, hundreds of small insurers and providers, who make up Germany healthcare, are forecasting a 1 billion euro deficit ". Oooerr. What say those who argue that immigration is a benefit to Europe?

Did anyone post this already? Apologies if so.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/12128598/Sweden-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-not-to-handle-the-Great-Migration.html

No worries Bungo

Yes for godsake in my link details of dental care family problems, unaccompanied minors coming in on lorries, all the associated issues, all costs money!

staggering read.

and yet the very people who moan about cuts are happy for the above, where is all ths money supposed to come from"

Yes, emily, but it's clearly a live issue for the CPRE's membership (lots of comments). The CPRE is generally regarded as a respectable, moderate body.

Do I need to say it again? I'm not against immigration per se. I'm not against immigrants. Many of them ARE a credit to the system. But I would love to see some joined up thinking on the part of government about how we handle it. Immigration (and emigration, come to that) has costs and benefits. Wanting to discuss that is not racist. It doesn't make me far right.

One of the comments linked to .
Here is a quote:
“There seems to be some bizarre taboo around the subject. It’s not quite nice, not PC, possibly even racist to mention it. And this taboo doesn’t just inhibit politicians and civil servants who attend the big conferences. It even affects the environmental and developmental Non- Governmental Organisations, the people who claim to care most passionately about a sustainable and prosperous future for our children. Yet their silence implies that their admirable goals can be achieved regardless of how many people there are in the world or the UK even though they all know that it can’t.”
Mostly he is talking about the world, but he also, you note, refers to the UK.

This is waaaay off the original topic. But I'm just trying to make the point that population increase (however it happens, and whether worldwide or in one particular country) is not a forbidden subject, and nor should it be.

It is a conversation that can readily turn to immigrant-bashing (which has happened on this thread, I feel) which is unpleasant and it's not constructive. But it doesn't have to go that way: it should be a conversation of what sort of immigration is feasible, and what we do about people elsewhere in the world who have awful lives: how can we best help them? Mind you, cries of 'Racist!' about just about every other poster on the thread from one corner don't help: they just polarise debate, as nuance is obliterated.

Sorry folks, for a long and boring post, but I am fucked off at being called far right for daring to discuss the size of the British population and what it means for the country we live it.

which has sometimes happened on this thread, I meant to say.
It's late and I have had gin.

www.space.com/30213-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-2025.html

Planetary Resources aims to send swarms of low-cost robotic spacecraft to extract resources from near-Earth asteroids - See more at: www.space.com/30213-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-2025.html#sthash.HpOSphzr.dpuf

On the subject of costs of that are brushed under the carpet, the country has to fund anti-FGM initiatives nowadays eg.www.safenetwork.org.uk/news_and_events/news_articles/Pages/FGM-poster.aspx
Yes it's money I want spent to protect girls now that these communities are here but what a backward, misogynistic practice to import and then have to combat.

It's reported that the Swedes are planning to use an ex cruise ship to house some of the migrants:

www.cruise.co.uk/news/cruise-ship-to-be-used-to-house-refugees/?utm_campaign=BULLETIN190216&utm_medium=email&utm_source=BULLETIN190216&[email protected]&eb_position=1&utm_campaign=toparticleone

Lumela there are some PM recommendations: vodka (Russian Standard), Jägermeister, Madeira, Marsala dry with biscotti or amaretti or listening to Chopin's walzes.

I mean PM is after dinner

Vodka gives me a hangover, Mari.
Madeira's good though