The Student Room Group

Thursday's Independant front page - Somebody's Child

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RFowler
I've seen that figure before, and it is very very misleading. That is just what is "built on" - it ignores things like parks, allotments and green spaces within towns, which are not technically "built on" but which any sensible person would include as part of the urban area (which they are).

When talking about how much of the UK is urban, the figure is a lot closer to 10%. Can't remember the exact figures, but I do remember that Wales and Scotland are lower and England is higher.

I don't want to get too drawn in to debating about whether we should accept refugees, I just wanted to point out that the 2% figure is misleading.


Yes, but as you say the 10% figure (actually I think it's 9% of England, 7% of the UK?) includes things like waste ground, roads and public parks which take up quite a bit of space in cities. Both the 10% and 2% figures refer not only to cities but to rural settlements too. It's totally OK to consider the green spaces part of cities but their very existence surely shows the city isn't overcrowded at all?

Of course the south east is crowded (just as there really are some towns with high immigrant populations) but that's really a problem of our own making what with refusing (in the digital age) to decentralise out of London.
Original post by scrotgrot
All conditionality should be removed from benefits allowing people to thrive and do what they want with their lives in the absence of any work to do.


Yes, let's open our borders to everyone and give everyone free money. Otherwise we're spoiled brats, or whatever else it is you've decided that standing up for your national interests and not allowing the continent to dictate your policies makes you.
"asylum seekers" - they are trying to reach safety because their country is invaded by bombs and chaos. So are you really going to sit here and say that? As parents they have responsibility for the safety of their child, them trying to escape from a war zone country was the potential opportunity to restart their lives again, give their children a good standard of living. And if you feel threatened by them coming to european countries, question your insensitivity. They are human beings just like you and me, have some decency - they are not aliens.
Original post by scrotgrot
I completely understand. How torturous it must be for this unholy alliance of knee-jerk xenophobes and fiscal conservatives we have had in the ascendancy over the past decade that the public mood has changed so abruptly since this picture was released.

They deserve every exquisite second of it: finally their twisted inhumanity is being put through the grinder. It makes one well understand the thinking behind that famous quote from a New Labour adviser about "rubbing the right's nose in diversity" during their first term.

Such polarisation of the debate helps no-one - but one thing is apparent: it is a polarisation driven entirely, decade after decade, by the blowhard xenophobes on the right.


I agree. It is so sad that some people have become so desensitized, especially due to money, comfort and the 'privelege' of being in the position to look down on people.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by scrotgrot
Claiming benefits does contribute to the economy due to marginal propensity to consume. There is not enough work needing doing in our modern economy we are that advanced. Leading to unemployment and underemployment. Hence the need for the proceeds of automation to be distributed to the people as a while rather than lucky rentiers. All conditionality should be removed from benefits allowing people to thrive and do what they want with their lives in the absence of any work to do.


Hahaha lmfao, yeah that paragraph right there proves just how deluded you really are. Goodluck seeing something like that happen in your lifetime.
Original post by samina_ay
"asylum seekers" - they are trying to reach safety because their country is invaded by bombs and chaos. So are you really going to sit here and say that? As parents they have responsibility for the safety of their child, them trying to escape from a war zone country was the potential opportunity to restart their lives again, give their children a good standard of living. And if you feel threatened by them coming to european countries, question your insensitivity. They are human beings just like you and me, have some decency - they are not aliens.


They are not asylum seekers they are economic migrants who in the most are unable to actually contribute but would rather be a drain on the societies they are choosing to move to.

They have left a safe country and placed their children and themselves in danger in the hope of a better life not because they are in Danger.

No need to question out insensitivity as we don't claim some form of universal brotherhood.
Original post by samina_ay
"asylum seekers" - they are trying to reach safety because their country is invaded by bombs and chaos. So are you really going to sit here and say that? As parents they have responsibility for the safety of their child, them trying to escape from a war zone country was the potential opportunity to restart their lives again, give their children a good standard of living. And if you feel threatened by them coming to european countries, question your insensitivity. They are human beings just like you and me, have some decency - they are not aliens.


Technically, they are aliens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29

What in your opinion is the maximum number we should permit to settle here at the expense of the UK taxpayer, to the nearest million?
Original post by Hedgehogkilla

Its not just the independent. I think the papers are in the right here, people need to see what is actually happening. No one sends thier child into water unless its safer than land. These people arent trying to 'steal benefits'


So we need Western intervention to invade these countries and establish a society run on Western, democratic lines.

How can anybody be opposed to military intervention when people are fleeing a barbaric situation? If their countries were based on Western democracies, with the rule of law and protection of their human rights, they would not be risking their lives to run away. They are actively running TOWARDS Western democracy so how can anybody say that it is "not our right" to impose our way of life on them.

Co-ordinated action by the US military and that across Europe, with a mass invasion and open war on Assad, Islamic State and other militant Islamic groups, would be bloody for a while but in the end the firepower of the West would be able to overwhelm them and establish Western society and Western freedoms in their countries.
Original post by samina_ay
And if you feel threatened by them coming to european countries, question your insensitivity. They are human beings just like you and me, have some decency - they are not aliens.


Yes, people do tend to be more sensitive with other people's money.
Original post by Plagioclase
Turkey and Jordan have each taken more than an order of magnitude more refugees than we have. Even Germany has only taken around half of the refugees that those countries have taken in. Turkey and Jordan make our attempts look absolutely pathetic, yet neither country (especially Jordan) is particularly wealthy and they are in no financial position to be able to take all of these refugees in. It is an absolute disgrace that people are perfectly fine with relatively poor countries like Jordan and Turkey taking in millions of refugees yet get outraged when the UK is expected to do a take on a tiny share of the burden.


You saved me a couple minutes typing :u:
Original post by thesabbath
Technically, they are aliens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29

What in your opinion is the maximum number we should permit to settle here at the expense of the UK taxpayer, to the nearest million?


Technically they are human beings, but we can legally dehumanise them if we want to.

What in your opinion is the maximum number we should permit to die in attempts to settle here, at the expense of human conscience, to the near million?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TimmonaPortella
There's a debate to be had on the actual issue but a picture of a dead child is not an argument.


It's a reminder that we're discussing people's lives, not statistics. People are trying to get tough about this issue whilst trying to forget that, by refusing to help these refugees, they are condemning thousands upon thousands to lives of misery that most people in the UK could never imagine and as this image reminds us, in some cases, death. Our lives in the UK are so easy and luxurious in comparison to the horror many of these people are coming from, yet people are completely desensitising themselves against the humanitarian problems.

A picture of a dead child isn't an argument but maybe it might just help some people remember that these refugees are human beings too.
Original post by Comeback
Technically they are human beings, but we can legally dehumanise them if we want to.

What in your opinion is the maximum number we should permit to die in attempts to settle here, at the expense of human conscience, to the near million?


we don't permit them to die

they are responsible for their own actions
Original post by BaconandSauce
we don't permit them to die

they are responsible for their own actions


permit (verb)

1.officially allow (someone) to do something
Original post by Comeback
What in your opinion is the maximum number we should permit to die in attempts to settle here, at the expense of human conscience, to the near million?


I don't have the fallout from the Syrian civil war on my conscience and assigning responsibility to the people of Britain as if the Middle East population itself has no agency seems to go against every "progressive" creed of the past century.

If you want boots on the ground and imperial governance you'd better say so. The last thing we should be doing is importing the problems here. That solves nothing but will destroy our own nation in suchlike fashion.
Time for a reality Check

He wasn't fleeing Syria he had been living in Istanbul but couldn't earn enough money as a barber so tried to get citizenship to Canada which was refused (his facebook page has this detail)

He then tried to smuggle himself and his family into Europe to seek a 'better life'

He's a Economic Migrant who through his own stupidity and greed managed to kill his family

I sill not shed a tear for this man nor should you.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Comeback
permit (verb)

1.officially allow (someone) to do something


yes that's right and we don't 'permit' them to die.

permitting means we actually are doing something to help them die rather than doing nothing which is the case.
Reality Check

He's tacking the family back home to have them buried

Odd to claim your fleeing a place but willing to go back for a funeral
They wouldn't put their children on boats if it was safer on land than on the water. Some people are so heartless and need to stop acting like we have a refugee problem. There are countries with thousands upon thousands of refugees in them, trying to escape horrific situations, and you're all crying that some of them are trying to cross the channel, but there has actually been very little success. They aren't trying to come here to commit crimes or to commit acts of terrorism, if they wanted to do that they would stay in their homeland, where it would be much easier. They just want better lives for themselves.

The people saying that it's their problem and we shouldn't let them in etc. etc. are the same people who are saying they'd leave this country if Islam became more prominent. They're trying to escape from war torn lands and unthinkable horrors, whereas you think your petty Islamophobia is a more pressing issue and more worthy of entry to a different country than their real issues.
why arent "muslim" countries like saudi arabia taking them in?

Quick Reply

Latest