Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Daily mail-Malala Yousafzai living in the U.K? Watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It obviously isn't. Read my previous post.


    What has the employment by the Pakistan government of a Pakistani national in a support role in a Pakistan consulate got to do with unemployment in the UK?
    Obviously the Pakistani government know about it as well. It's a good thing to find a safe place for people oppressed in your country. These things aren't just coincidences, do you think the father's job position just happened to open up or was it created to give the family a reason to stay here?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Obviously the Pakistani government know about it as well. It's a good thing to find a safe place for people oppressed in your country. These things aren't just coincidences, do you think the father's job position just happened to open up or was it created to give the family a reason to stay here?
    Probably the latter. But it indicates to me that the UK government probably signalled privately that she wouldn't be allowed in as an immigrant or asylum-seeker.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This is like banging your head against a brick wall. She isn't an immigrant and isn't an asylum-seeker.
    She got shot and isn't safe back home. The reason given for her being here was the surgery, but as the OP pointed out we all know she's likely to be attacked again (and killed this time) if she returns. And now the family are deciding to settle in the UK. I wonder, what do you think 'asylum seeker' and 'immigrant' mean?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    And now the family are deciding to settle in the UK. I wonder, what do you think 'asylum seeker' and 'immigrant' mean?
    Taking a job with your own government in its consulate is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "settling here".


    Immigrant and asylum-seeker are both terms that specifically exclude serving diplomatic personnel and their families. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why should Britain be the 'band aid' for the worlds problems? If other societies are unfair and unjust it should be for the members of them societies to stand up, put things right and shape things the right way, instead of going begging to developed nations year after year in an endless sea of self pity. Where/when does it end? How will things change?

    Remember, developed nations are where we are today due to our fore fathers fighting and making a stand for the right thing. In Pakistan, it is the people causing pain to their own fellow citizens.

    If we allow people to come in on basis of 'asylum' we are falling into the hands of the wrong doers whom are happy to see these same people go, also most are economically driven and they have backgrounds which are un-checked and social behaviors which are often the cause why their own society is unpalatable.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Probably the latter. But it indicates to me that the UK government probably signalled privately that she wouldn't be allowed in as an immigrant or asylum-seeker.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Taking a job with your own government in its consulate is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "settling here".


    Immigrant and asylum-seeker are both terms that specifically exclude serving diplomatic personnel and their families. :rolleyes:
    Do you think the family will return to Pakistan? They'd be crazy to, at least for the next 10 years or so.

    And okay, technically they're tourists during whose trip the father just happened to get a job offer in this country, but practically they're fleeing from the Taliban in Pakistan to start a life here.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What about wanting to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands into tens of thousands? That was a loose promise to reduce immigration, and now this backdoor acceptance of a family? I'm not personally opposed to us helping such people, but I would rather the government come clean at the start than edge forwards with what they think they can get away with, and I would like to see why they came to Britain rather than the closer France or Germany, for example.

    It's effectively asylum. She got shot in her own country and would probably be shot again (along with her family) if they went back. If you don't think that counts then I don't know what someone would have to go through for you to consider them asylum seekers.

    The point is, why Britain? There are plenty of good hospitals nearer to Pakistan than those in Britain. It doesn't make sense for asylum seekers to come to Britain from anywhere but Ireland and maybe France - any other country will have a neighbour nearer to it than Britain.

    If you read my post properly, you'd see I was addressing the issue from the anti-immigration standpoint, and that is what it looks like. It isn't just a coincidence that such a job opened up so soon after he arrived in the country.
    Again, restrict IMMIGRATION - not Asylum. I have no idea why they came to Britain - maybe because we offered? Though as the Pakistani government paid for the medical treatment I don't see why they specifically chose Britain. It is no less logical for them to go to France or Germany though, which are hardly closer...

    It's not "effectively asylum". Obviously she qualifies for asylum, and it wouldn't shock me if they later apply and are granted asylum, but her father now has a job at the Pakistani consulate so she is here as a dependent of him - as many, many thousands of people are, most of which do not qualify for asylum as it has nothing to do with the asylum process.

    If you believe asylum seekers should all be settled in the nearest safe place to their home, then there is no point in even discussing the issue. Should a major disaster happen in Ireland I take it you'd be arguing that Britain should take sole responsibility for looking after Irish citizens?

    Of course it's not a coincidence - but what do you suggest? Britain starts dictating who foreign embassies are allowed to employ? I'm pretty sure that would be rather illegal...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Do you think the family will return to Pakistan?
    Yes.

    And okay, technically they're tourists
    Not at all. They are employees of the Pakistan government, or at least the father is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    People seem incapable of analysing what is reported. The girl isn't an immigrant at all, and hasn't been given asylum. Her father has been given a job by the Pakistan government in the consulate at Birmingham. She will stay as the dependant of a member of the diplomatic staff.
    This. Her father is no different from any other diplomat working over here bringing their family being supported by their own government. Blows the "coming here to get benefits" and the "dey turk are jerbs" arguments out of the water.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Again, restrict IMMIGRATION - not Asylum. I have no idea why they came to Britain - maybe because we offered? Though as the Pakistani government paid for the medical treatment I don't see why they specifically chose Britain. It is no less logical for them to go to France or Germany though, which are hardly closer...
    France and Germany are closer - if you get shot in the head, you're taken as quickly as possible to the nearest hospital that can treat such injuries. There's no way that Britain was the best option flying from Pakistan.

    It's not "effectively asylum". Obviously she qualifies for asylum, and it wouldn't shock me if they later apply and are granted asylum, but her father now has a job at the Pakistani consulate so she is here as a dependent of him - as many, many thousands of people are, most of which do not qualify for asylum as it has nothing to do with the asylum process.
    Don't you see that that position was just created to give them a reason to stay? They are asylum seekers who happened to get special treatment from both our and Pakistan's governments.

    If you believe asylum seekers should all be settled in the nearest safe place to their home, then there is no point in even discussing the issue. Should a major disaster happen in Ireland I take it you'd be arguing that Britain should take sole responsibility for looking after Irish citizens?
    I'd say their first port of call should be their nearest non-enemy, not-at-war country, and then move on from there in terms of transport/distance etc. I'd fully expect Irish people to come to the UK first, and then to opt for France, Spain etc when the UK's border checks become a bottleneck. Of course, one might pre-empt the rush and pick a less popular destination, but when you've been shot in the head you really should go for the shortest journey time.

    Of course it's not a coincidence - but what do you suggest? Britain starts dictating who foreign embassies are allowed to employ? I'm pretty sure that would be rather illegal...
    I'm pretty sure the UK government had this as their plan all along, in agreement with the Pakistani government. That family needed to get out of Pakistan,
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes.
    You missed out part of my sentence, why? And when do you think they will return? The Taliban are going to go for her if they can so no, they're going to stay here at least until Pakistan is safe.

    Not at all. They are employees of the Pakistan government, or at least the father is.
    And again, you miss out part of my sentence. The father's job came after they arrived here, it wasn't as if he had that job, his daughter got shot and they all decided to have her treated here since they'd be heading here anyway. Or is that what you think happened?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I admire Malala so much. Standing up for girls' rights and risking her own life by doing so. She deserves every bit of respect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    You missed out part of my sentence, why?

    No I didn't. I quoted the entire sentence, which happened to be a question, and answered it. Do you know the difference between a sentence and a paragraph?


    And when do you think they will return?
    How would I know that? Do you think I am responsible for recruitment at Pakistan's Birmingham consulate?. :rolleyes:

    The father's job came after they arrived here
    That is irrelevant.

    you miss out part of my sentence, why?
    I did that time, yes. That is obviously because the rest wasn't relevant to what I wanted to say. I merely wanted to correct your preposterous claim that they are tourists.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    France and Germany are closer - if you get shot in the head, you're taken as quickly as possible to the nearest hospital that can treat such injuries. There's no way that Britain was the best option flying from Pakistan.

    Don't you see that that position was just created to give them a reason to stay? They are asylum seekers who happened to get special treatment from both our and Pakistan's governments.

    I'd say their first port of call should be their nearest non-enemy, not-at-war country, and then move on from there in terms of transport/distance etc. I'd fully expect Irish people to come to the UK first, and then to opt for France, Spain etc when the UK's border checks become a bottleneck. Of course, one might pre-empt the rush and pick a less popular destination, but when you've been shot in the head you really should go for the shortest journey time.

    I'm pretty sure the UK government had this as their plan all along, in agreement with the Pakistani government. That family needed to get out of Pakistan,
    The difference in distance between France, Germany and the UK in comparison to Pakistan is negligible.

    THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY ASYLUM SEEKERS.


    What special treatment have they received from the UK government? I'm not aware of any.

    The border controls would never become a bottle neck because there aren't any between Ireland and the UK. So I repeat, you'd argue that the UK should take sole responsibility for all hypothetical Irish asylum seekers? And I'm no medical expert, but I'd personally factor in a bit more than distance when deciding where to get specialist medical treatment... Presumably the hospital was chosen because it's one of the best in the world with a history for treating those injured in military conflict? Yes, there are likely a few hospitals marginally closer but so what? Clearly not everyone is obsessed with distance as much as you are...

    I cannot emphasise how moronic a conspiracy theory this is... If the UK government had a huge desire to get them to claim asylum here, they would tell them to claim asylum, and like absolutely anyone under her circumstances would, it would be accepted by the normal process.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No I didn't. I quoted the entire sentence, which happened to be a question, and answered it. Do you know the difference between a sentence and a paragraph?
    Okay, why did you skip out the rest of my paragraph? I'm guessing it's because you didn't want to answer my implied question of when they'd return, but thought I'd ask in case there was something else.




    How would I know that? Do you think I am responsible for recruitment at Pakistan's Birmingham consulate?. :rolleyes:



    I did that time, yes. That is obviously because the rest wasn't relevant to what I wanted to say. I merely wanted to correct your preposterous claim that they are tourists.
    I think they'll want to stay away from Pakistan because of the threat to their lives, and given that they're in Britain for the next three years at least making connections, they'll stay in Britain. I'd like to see why you think they'll return, and when.

    That is irrelevant.
    It is relevant to how they came to this country. What came later was a political fudge.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I'm guessing it's because you didn't want to answer my implied question of when they'd return.
    It obviously wasn't, as I've answered it. I obviously don't know. :rolleyes:

    You aren't doing yourself any favours when you appear not to listen to straightforward reasoned answers and when you ask such ridiculous questions.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    The difference in distance between France, Germany and the UK in comparison to Pakistan is negligible.

    THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY ASYLUM SEEKERS.


    What special treatment have they received from the UK government? I'm not aware of any.

    The border controls would never become a bottle neck because there aren't any between Ireland and the UK. So I repeat, you'd argue that the UK should take sole responsibility for all hypothetical Irish asylum seekers? And I'm no medical expert, but I'd personally factor in a bit more than distance when deciding where to get specialist medical treatment... Presumably the hospital was chosen because it's one of the best in the world with a history for treating those injured in military conflict? Yes, there are likely a few hospitals marginally closer but so what? Clearly not everyone is obsessed with distance as much as you are...

    I cannot emphasise how moronic a conspiracy theory this is... If the UK government had a huge desire to get them to claim asylum here, they would tell them to claim asylum, and like absolutely anyone under her circumstances would, it would be accepted by the normal process.
    If you've been shot in the head and can survive an 8 hour flight to get to the hospital, then you really didn't need the world's best to save your life.

    How can you not see that this was planned by our government along with the Pakistani government? It's not the worst of conspiracies, to save the lives of an activist and probably her family too, but it shouldn't have been covered up like this.

    I don't think any country has a responsibility to help another's citizens. If a country is generous enough to accept immigrants (including asylum seekers) then that's good on them. It is, however, a piss-take if someone goes past many acceptable havens just to get to their favourite, they clearly can't be that desperate if they can take their time to choose.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It obviously wasn't, as I've answered it. I obviously don't know. :rolleyes:

    You aren't doing yourself any favours when you appear not to listen to straightforward reasoned answers and when you ask such ridiculous questions.
    As I'm sure you well know, I'm trying to get you to answer why you think they'll go back to a country that has a terrorist organisation out for their blood. Just because I'm having to spell it out for you step by step because you're giving short answers whilst ignoring parts of my posts does not mean I'm not listening.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    If you've been shot in the head and can survive an 8 hour flight to get to the hospital, then you really didn't need the world's best to save your life.
    I think you should stop and re-read the news reports a bit more carefully, and then think this through more thoroughly. The news reports have told you why she travelled to a new hospital along way away.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    does not mean I'm not listening.
    I effectively answered that question a long time ago, at post 23. Listen more carefully.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 4, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.