the Migrant Crisis

[Aber gas]

 

[G-Dragon]

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Solidarity with refugees/migrants in demanding appropriate housing.

Fuck Western governments for not providing this.

Also fuck anyone who presents those demands (for basic human necessities) as selfish or ungrateful.

 

[HertsWolf]

Bastards! Fancy complaining about being put up in cold, damp garages. Two pieces of bread for a meal? Luxury. When I were young, we had bag of gravel!

 

[Aber gas]

Bastards! Fancy complaining about being put up in cold, damp garages. Two pieces of bread for a meal? Luxury. When I were young, we had bag of gravel!

Gravel? You were posh. When I were young we had a lick of a pebble and we were thankfull for it.

 

[Blitzballer]

beggars can't be choosers

 

[HertsWolf]

beggars can't be choosers

Nice phrase that, mate. Nice one.

They are talking, in the main, about basic human rights. Easy for people living in comfort, having benefited from 70 years of a welfare state, to talk about beggars being choosers. Ah, how well we do compassion.

Yes, many of them are perhaps a bit cheeky in what they ask for and some...many possibly..have unrealistic expectations of what they can expect in Europe. But that's not their fault. May are as trapped in an economic and social trap as they were before they left their homes. Many would work - and work hard - if they could. If there were actually any jobs for them. But they can't all be fucking investment bankers in the City.

 

[Womble98]

Solidarity with refugees/migrants in demanding appropriate housing.

Fuck Western governments for not providing this.

Also fuck anyone who presents those demands (for basic human necessities) as selfish or ungrateful.

When we can't house thousands who already live here how can we give them precedent?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

maybe we could train all the immigrants up as butlers. one per every white, nuclear family

 

[HertsWolf]

When we can't house thousands who already live hear how can we give them precedent?

We can house them. There are 200,000 long-term empty dwellings in this country and 600,000 empty houses in total.
We choose not to do it though.

 

[Womble98]

We can house them. There are 200,000 long-term empty dwellings in this country and 600,000 empty houses in total.
We choose not to do it though.

Those belong to people. You can't house people in someone else's property without their consent.

 

[Aber gas]

Those belong to people. You can't house people in someone else's property without their consent.

People owning houses that aren't used is a complete piss take though. It's an absolute waste of resources that are needed. The government should immediately take possession of any unused dwellings, develope them if needed and use them to house people. Such a plan would ease the immediate housing crisis and have the longer term benefit of cooling down the ridiculous rental market.

 

[G-Dragon]

Internet too slow...they safa! they safa!

 

[HertsWolf]

Those belong to people. You can't house people in someone else's property without their consent.

Why not? Most belong to absentee landlords.

 

[HertsWolf]

People owning houses that aren't used is a complete piss take though. It's an absolute waste of resources that are needed. The government should immediately take possession of any unused dwellings, develope them if needed and use them to house people. Such a plan would ease the immediate housing crisis and have the longer term benefit of cooling down the ridiculous rental market.

I generally agree with this, but it can be done through the marketplace too. It doesn't need government possession.

 

[HertsWolf]

Internet too slow...they safa! they safa!

Safa?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

some annoying fascist acronym (probably)

 

[Aber gas]

I generally agree with this, but it can be done through the marketplace too. It doesn't need government possession.

How would it work through the market? I still like the idea of a big civic minded land grab though.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

if a property ain't occupied for a certain amount of days a year it's seized by the state

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

When we can't house thousands who already live here how can we give them precedent?

We stop artificially creating a housing crisis by restricting supply. We build tonnes of social housing. We expropriate empty property or introduce laws that prohibitively tax owning more than one house and force them to sell that way. This would have to be done with rent controls or the costs would be passed on to tenants.

These policies would make it easier to house refugees, but they'd also make life better for the vast majority of us who don't own any property.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

In terms of numbers neither housing nor migration should be significant issues to Britain - we're a wealthy country and we should be able to both house everyone and let in pretty the relatively small number of people camped in Calais or Dunkirk.

But because we've created bottlenecks (for unsustainable short-term political and economic gain), problems that should barely be problems have been allowed to build into crises. But in both cases, the victims of the crisis are already poor and marginalised and so there's very little political will to actually solve it. As such, we have migrants freezing to death in camps in Calais, and homeless people freezing to death in Britain.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

We're not a wealthy country by magic though. We're wealthy, in part, because we don't do things like "prohibitively tax owning more than one house". I agree that the state should build a lot of social housing though. That'll more than pay for itself eventually.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

We're not a wealthy country by magic though. We're wealthy, in part, because we don't do things like "prohibitively tax owning more than one house". I agree that the state should build a lot of social housing though. That'll more than pay for itself eventually.

Binning off a parasitic landlord class would make us wealthier and happier.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

We stop artificially creating a housing crisis by restricting supply. We build tonnes of social housing. We expropriate empty property or introduce laws that prohibitively tax owning more than one house and force them to sell that way. This would have to be done with rent controls or the costs would be passed on to tenants.

I actually agree with most of that. More social housing and affordable housing needs to be built, and there needs to be some way of preventing buy-to-let wankers (who are no better than ticket touts, IMO) gobbling up the latter as that's the main cause of inflation in the rental market. Another possibility is some kind of arrangement whereby the government part subsidises the building of affordable 1-2 bedroom housing on the strict condition that it's sold at fixed price and can be only purchased by first-time buyers, people under 30 or whatever.

Can't quite get on board with the idea that the state should take (or "expropriate" if we must indulge in polito-legal euphemisms) empty property. Call me old-fashioned or selfish, but I don't want to live in a society in which the state can help itself to things I've legally purchased and own on the basis that (a) it doesn't think I use them sufficiently, and (b) someone else could use them more. Individual property rights are a key component of a free and law-governed society, and we shouldn't just toss the idea on the scrapheap because we want to stick it to the minority of twats who abuse some of the freedoms.

I might be more sympathetic to the idea if suggested with regard to a specific set of circumstances (e.g. no one in the property for X years), but generally I think what an individual does with his/her unneeded but legally owned possessions should be a matter for their conscience, not the state.

 

[HertsWolf]

'InHocSignoVinces', the original poster of that odious YouTube video, is the motto of the English Defence League. You are posting a truly nasty out-of-context compilation video produced, by the looks of it, by those who are at least sympathetic to that far-right political organisation. You are posting here, a video with a very strong anti-Islamic agenda.

Many would argue that the far right and the extremist Islamists are happy bedfellows. They benefit from the hatred, mistrust and animosity between peoples of different faiths to further their political aims. The extremist jihadists will be queuing up to thank you for your efforts to promote mistrust and animosity against Muslims.

It was no surprise to discover that the person who appears to have put together your charming piece of propaganda has uploaded other videos including the disgusting 'pigs head protests' against refugees in Holland, Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders speeches and the views of an assortment of other far-right clowns. InHocSignoVinces even uploaded a video "Muslim man brutally attacks wife" to his or her collection of xenophobic, racist, anti-islamic toss...presumably because no Christian has ever beaten his wife. So I can understand that one.

InHocSignoVinces 'likes' videos supportive of the far right, including videos promoting or amplifying such luminaries as Britain First, the British Freedom Party, Pastor James McConnell, Douglas Murray, Liberty GB, and the French National Front.

InHocSignoVinces also subscribes to a lovely collection of wide, compassionate, thoughtful and respectful YouTube channels such as the FN, BritainFirst, Freedom Party of Austria, the Czech Defence League, EDL and the far-right parties from much of Europe.

So that's provided the background of the person or people who posted your little video.

Then I decided to actually watch 'your' video more carefully.

Here is what the people talked about in the 9 minutes. It's interesting. You (and many who comment on the original YouTube site) are quick to point out the stupid comments about the internet, money for smoking, the 'we are dying' comments. Yet these silly statements become irrelevant when you compare it to the illnesses, the overcrowding, the hunger, the hopelessness, the homesickness, the cold, the inability to do even the most basic things you and I take for-granted.

In a chronological order, this is what this sorry compilation covered. And remember that all the comments are taken completely out of context:
Living in garages; people are ill as a result of living in garages; 500 people in garage; shared bathrooms for large numbers of people; only four toilets for (possibly 250-300) women; insufficient care/treatment for handicapped child; just two pieces of bread for one meal; always hungry; always cold; no clothes; slow internet/no language courses; needs money (for smoking/for mother in Syria); poor food; tents too hot, no TV; flooded tents; no electricity, no food, no toilet, broken windows; no ability to wash clothes; 9 people sharing 4 beds; still hungry; kitchen has no electricity, so no fridge; 30 minute walk to supermarket, 45 minute drive to hospital.

Perhaps you could look at the other side of the coin: their plight. There have been many videos, like here, here, here and here....that show another perspective. It is always easy to find the outlier, the nutter who will say anything, the hotheads, the vocal minority of idiots. Perhaps one could also consider the silent majority: the refugees who aren't terrorists, who aren't demanding Sharia law, who are helpless, harmless and looking for peace, security and who seek simply a better place to safely bring up their families.

 

[G-Dragon]

'InHocSignoVinces', the original poster of that odious YouTube video, is the motto of the English Defence League. You are posting a truly nasty out-of-context compilation video produced, by the looks of it, by those who are at least sympathetic to that far-right political organisation. You are posting here, a video with a very strong anti-Islamic agenda.

Many would argue that the far right and the extremist Islamists are happy bedfellows. They benefit from the hatred, mistrust and animosity between peoples of different faiths to further their political aims. The extremist jihadists will be queuing up to thank you for your efforts to promote mistrust and animosity against Muslims.

It was no surprise to discover that the person who appears to have put together your charming piece of propaganda has uploaded other videos including the disgusting 'pigs head protests' against refugees in Holland, Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders speeches and the views of an assortment of other far-right clowns. InHocSignoVinces even uploaded a video "Muslim man brutally attacks wife" to his or her collection of xenophobic, racist, anti-islamic toss...presumably because no Christian has ever beaten his wife. So I can understand that one.

InHocSignoVinces 'likes' videos supportive of the far right, including videos promoting or amplifying such luminaries as Britain First, the British Freedom Party, Pastor James McConnell, Douglas Murray, Liberty GB, and the French National Front.

InHocSignoVinces also subscribes to a lovely collection of wide, compassionate, thoughtful and respectful YouTube channels such as the FN, BritainFirst, Freedom Party of Austria, the Czech Defence League, EDL and the far-right parties from much of Europe.

So that's provided the background of the person or people who posted your little video.

Then I decided to actually watch 'your' video more carefully.

Here is what the people talked about in the 9 minutes. It's interesting. You (and many who comment on the original YouTube site) are quick to point out the stupid comments about the internet, money for smoking, the 'we are dying' comments. Yet these silly statements become irrelevant when you compare it to the illnesses, the overcrowding, the hunger, the hopelessness, the homesickness, the cold, the inability to do even the most basic things you and I take for-granted.

In a chronological order, this is what this sorry compilation covered. And remember that all the comments are taken completely out of context:
Living in garages; people are ill as a result of living in garages; 500 people in garage; shared bathrooms for large numbers of people; only four toilets for (possibly 250-300) women; insufficient care/treatment for handicapped child; just two pieces of bread for one meal; always hungry; always cold; no clothes; slow internet/no language courses; needs money (for smoking/for mother in Syria); poor food; tents too hot, no TV; flooded tents; no electricity, no food, no toilet, broken windows; no ability to wash clothes; 9 people sharing 4 beds; still hungry; kitchen has no electricity, so no fridge; 30 minute walk to supermarket, 45 minute drive to hospital.

Perhaps you could look at the other side of the coin: their plight. There have been many videos, like here, here, here and here....that show another perspective. It is always easy to find the outlier, the nutter who will say anything, the hotheads, the vocal minority of idiots. Perhaps one could also consider the silent majority: the refugees who aren't terrorists, who aren't demanding Sharia law, who are helpless, harmless and looking for peace, security and who seek simply a better place to safely bring up their families.

How is it anti-islamic? I am just looking at the other side of the coin like you said. Just not the side you want everyone to look at. Most people from 3rd world countries don't have and will never have all the things they are demanding. Slow internet? no TV?? 30 minute walk to supermarket??
They are going to have to endure longer for all the things that they are demanding. Things that most people do not, certainly not me, take for granted. They have to work for it.
The question is how the government is going to create jobs for all these people.

 

[TheMinsterman]

maybe we could train all the immigrants up as butlers. one per every white, nuclear family

You're going to arms these migrants with nuclear weapons now!? Fucking PC Ian going out of control here.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Will try not to derail the topic further after this post!

Do we? How many of these men speak about "men's issues" like suicide, decreasing performance in education, health problems and so on? There's an assumption that because Parliament is full of men our issues are therefore being addressed, and that in actual fact we are disproportionally having our issues addressed simply because the people in Parliament are men. Very recently somebody wanted to speak about men's issues in Parliament, a female MP scoffed and effectively stated "it's always time to talk about men's issues. That's a tacit assumption that our predominance in Parliament equates to our issues having a voice.

This isn't a even a "woe the men" type of post, actually I believe everyone has issues of varying severity and number and they should all be addressed, but I don't agree at all that we "have a voice" just because the dominant gender in politics is male. Very few of them talk about the issues effecting men like high suicide rates, there's a difference between there's a ton of men in there and there being men discussing these things.

Gender norms are a integral part of it I would agree but there is a increasingly hostile viewpoint that men's experiences matter less due to "privilege", we've had it so good for so long we need to be quiet and let the "oppressed" speak first etc. Just look at the assumption that because government is mostly male we therefore have our interests automatically represented disproportionately. I'm not saying this is a dominant view, but it's becoming increasingly more prevalent on university campuses where men do suffer from mental health issues (tied heavily to stress), the idea of "privilege" is becoming this tacit assumption that because you're a man you don't really have it that bad and trust me, when it comes to mental health, it's hard enough to convince yourself you matter and your feelings are important you don't need to be told how great you've got it just because you've got a set of testicles, are white, are straight etc. It can lead to you drawing the conclusion that well maybe you should just be grateful and get on with it.

EDIT - Honestly, this could be a whole other thread, I don't want to derail migrant issues.

The fact that men are overrepresented in parliament, the media and generally occupy influential positions in society means there's ample opportunity to discuss such issues. Whether they're being adequately addressed is a different matter entirely - my personal view is probably much the same as your own: that there's still an unfortunate stigma attached to mental health issues and that not nearly enough energy is being expended in exploring what we can do in terms of education and support. I think it's definitely worth acknowledging that men are at a heightened risk of suicide and we obviously need effective, and perhaps specific, strategies in place in order to combat this. However, I think it's also worth noting that a lot of men who profess to care about such issues actually seem to derive greater joy from railing against feminists, or just, um, women in general, which I think probably fuels some hostility in the opposite direction, all of which is really unfortunate and counter-productive.

Do you still think this is the case? I'm not sure. My missus makes more money than I do, and I do most of the cooking in our house. I don't feel emasculated

Yes, I think we've probably moved away from this notion somewhat to the point where that sort of commentary probably sounds a little outdated (there are no doubt plenty of men who are more than comfortable not adhering to what a lot of people would regard as rather antiquated gender roles). However, I think it still holds true to an extent - perhaps it's more applicable to those at the bottom of the socioeconomic pile who would formerly have expected to have a job for life in a male-dominated industry (many of which now no longer exist). I think the point I'm trying to make is that for a lot of men their sense of self-worth is tied to society's expectations - those men who are more likely to feel like they're not living up to those expectations are also less likely to access help and support networks.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Will try not to derail the topic further after this post!

The fact that men are overrepresented in parliament, the media and generally occupy influential positions in society means there's ample opportunity to discuss such issues. Whether they're being adequately addressed is a different matter entirely - my personal view is probably much the same as your own: that there's still an unfortunate stigma attached to mental health issues and that not nearly enough energy is being expended in exploring what we can do in terms of education and support. I think it's definitely worth acknowledging that men are at a heightened risk of suicide and we obviously need effective, and perhaps specific, strategies in place in order to combat this. However, I think it's also worth noting that a lot of men who profess to care about such issues actually seem to derive greater joy from railing against feminists, or just, um, women in general, which I think probably fuels some hostility in the opposite direction, all of which is really unfortunate and counter-productive.

I won't labour the point here much more either (I mean I am sure we could start a whole thread for this) but, I agree many people who specifically call themselves "Mens Rights Activists" are too interested in arguing with "feminism", but equally I know some who don't and they're tarred because people have made sure the term itself is utterly toxic at this point. I won't deny that there are men in lots of positions of power, but I still (respectfully I may add) believe that its an irrelevance to the frequency of our issues being addressed if they do not discuss these issues regardless of all the opportunity to do so (in fact, it's quite disgusting that despite all this opportunity to do so, they don't). You can't have people scoffing in parliament saying "it's always time to talk about men's issues" when we simply do not even do so based purely on the gender of the majority of MPs, the whole issue is toxic because of the very people you mention at the end and their counter part "SJW" opponents.

 

[Womble98]

I won't labour the point here much more either (I mean I am sure we could start a whole thread for this) but, I agree many people who specifically call themselves "Mens Rights Activists" are too interested in arguing with "feminism", but equally I know some who don't and they're tarred because people have made sure the term itself is utterly toxic at this point. I won't deny that there are men in lots of positions of power, but I still (respectively I may add) believe that its an irrelevance to the frequency of our issues being addressed if they do not discuss these issues regardless of all the opportunity to do so (in fact, it's quite disgusting that despite all this opportunity to do so, they don't). You can't have people scoffing in parliament saying "it's always time to talk about men's issues" when we simply do not even do so based purely on the gender of the majority of MPs, the whole issue is toxic because of the very people you mention at the end and their counter part "SJW" opponents.

Exactly. When Philip Davies (who in almost every other respect is a c***) tried to bring these topics up, he had those like Jessica Phillips laughing at him and telling him that they weren't important enough.