Cameron Shaming the Country

Oh silly me I should have realised that the red grans would not like anyone to disagree with them or indicate that that DC is anything other than a moral vacuum!
Anyway back to agreeing with POGS!

As for Cameron not 'giving a stuff' I don't agree'

He can't win can he. He is the first PM to guarantee/ring fence 0.07 percentage of our income goes to overseas aid.

Well he wouldn't accept people who swarm would he . He changed his mind because public opinion , media etc is at last getting through to him that he risks becoming unpopular , and all his holidays have ended

Can anybnody forget their political views for one moment and answer me this.

What is wrong with the view that the UK has/will continue to take in refugees by continuing to work with the refugee organisations actually processing applicants at the camps who have taken refugees in? The reason being they will have a guaranteed safe passage and not falling into the hands of traffickers or putting their lives on the line by trying to cross the sea in totally inadequate dingies/boats.

What is wrong with the UK taking refugees from the camps abroad guaranteeing they are genuine refugees in need of help and not economic migrants or simply somebody trying to gain entry to the UK because they see it as a way to not go through the proper channels.

I am also fed up to the back teeth of being told the UK is a disgrace, the UK is a country full of people with no empathy when this country is giving humanitarian aid far beyond what other countries are giving . I think the question is where is the United Nations in all this. Why are other countries not talking in refugees .

But that is just your opinion Jane10 which any of us may agree with or disagree. I really can't see the point of saying "but that's just your opinion XYZ" unless someone has presented an opinion as fact. We are all taking different stands on this and all are allowed an opinion.

I would think more of your attack on Anniebach expressing her opinion if you had offered some facts to show she had formed the wrong one - otherwise why say it? What Annie said is "that is what I meant ... he doesn't give a stuff about what is morally right". That is obviously someone's opinion; this is a forum for opinions. You are offering your opinion - so where is the problem.

Jane10 I would suggest that instead of Cameron having been thinking long and hard about changing his position on this, he has been totally embarrassed by how callous he appeared to be in the first place and how much the stance he was taking might have damaged his political image in Britain and the World.

In MY opinion DC has done the right thing: he's taken time, soundings from others and come up with a much more useful plan- to take Syrians who need help direct from camps on their border. The alternative, just blindly opening our doors to whoever presents themselves as asylum seekers would in MY opinion be extremely foolish and ultimately to be greatly regretted -too late.

In your opinion Anniebach! That would be my opinion too Jane10. The interesting thing will be just how many people have that opinion as this government in turn lashes out at the less able and limps into pleasing as many people as it can for five minutes, no matter what the effect. Embarrassing tan man has now returned from holiday so DC's buddies can alert him to his malfunctioning tin ear that yet again hears only what it wants too.

Yes he has said this morning we will now take more refugees

Has he changed his mind?

He has maintained his stance that the UK is one of the top humanitarian aid contributors , we have already taken 5.000 Syrian refugees but he has reiterated the point the UK has worked with / will continue to work with agencies working with the refugees abroad.

Yes Jane10, in my opinion, I hear he has changed his mind since his interview yesterday morning

I have just been reading about that POGS, yes, the refugees will be taken from camps set up for them on the Syrian borders and brought here, a far better thing than to encourage the traffickers and also nobody will be drowned doing it that way.Whatever Cameron feels personally, he is the PM of a country and can't just do 'as he likes' but has to listen to all others and take advice, as others have said, that is democracy.We are also, it turns out one of the biggest donors in aid for them in the camps there, so to all those on this thread who say'we do nothing and give nothing' you are completely wrong.The government also has a duty to it's own people that immigration is kept as low as possible, it has been castigated on this forum and in the media for not keeping figures low enough.

David Cameron and the PM of Portugal have just given a media interview and Sky News covered it, BBC News had Victoria Derbyshire on?

Cameron has restated the UK has already taken 5.000 Syrian refugees and the UK will continue to take refugees but the UK will take the refugees from camps near to Syria. The UK and America are the top two countries for giving aid.

I think it is a perfectly fair point to make that by taking refugees from the area you are not aiding and abetting the traffickers,' you are making the journey to the countries who are willing to take them safe and the country that takes them is assured they are genuine refugees from a particular country. I have absolutely no argument with those points. The alternative is what we are seeing now and the winners are the traffickers.

Germany has unilaterally chosen to suspend the Dublin Agreement. That is why the refugees are now saying they want to go to Germany. Germany has no right to then expect other countries to do the same and no country should be blackmailed into doing Germany's bidding either. There are 28 countries in the EU and they are not in agreement .

It is said the refugees are fleeing for their lives. Nobody can argue with that but why then do they feel they have a right to 'demand' free movement without going through the correct process. I would have thought if I was fleeing for my life I would gladly go through whatever process was required of me to be accepted.

I saw a refugee being interviewed who said he had a better life in Syria .

This whole situation has so many scenarios it is a minefield to navigate and I think the solution is to accept refugees from overseas it is utter madness as it stands at the moment.

As has been said, that's how democracy works, Anniebach. You can't possibly know what DC thinks personally about the crisis or what is 'morally right'.

In your opinion Anniebach!

Eloethan, that is what I meant, Cameron will take in refugees if the majority of the public change their opinions , he doesn't give a stuff about what is morally right

Some good and honest posts from you CelticRose, you have a good grasp of what's going on in the world , the UAE should certainly be doing their utmost for the Syrian refugees, instead of looking the other way.

Tut! To re-phrase: UAE coalition country to UAE coalition States. Even though the member states of the UAE came late - very late - to the coalition party.... I understand it is a Sura of the Qu'uran that brothers should not take arms against each other. But it appears to be in the interpretation... Anyhoo.. The Emirate States are the ideal choice for refugee neighbours. They have so much oil money they don't know what to do with it, for one thing. This is probably also why they are buying up so much of Scotland. Could also be planning to send refugee neighbours there to work for them.

Durhamjen HMS Bulwark. Good old girl. Came to our rescue in 1974 in Cyprus when the Greeks started their own intervention. Bulwark was in need of a re-furb then under a Labour government. Thought you might like to see this quote also: "HMS Bulwark and her crew will hand over to HMS Enterprise, a Survey Vessel Hydrographic and Oceanographic (SVHO). She is well suited to the next stage of the EU’s operation, which aims to go after the criminal gangs and smugglers. The ship will contribute to the broad maritime capabilities desired by the Italian Operational Commander and will assist in the understanding and picture building of how the operation will go on to seize and disrupt the assets of smugglers" There is more at www.gov.uk/government/news/hms-enterprise-to-replace-hms-bulwark-in-the-mediterranean. It seems obvious to go for the source of the problem. Which reminds me that the Middle East has been on the boil for centuries, and before the race to the moon which - in turn - led to the greed for oil. But I digress.... is Europe the easy option. Just listened to a male Syrian being interviewed on Radio 4. What about his wife and children - he is screaming. Why don't we feed and clothe them and give them housing? Why not indeed.. And what about the Afghan interpreters who helped the coalition. Surely, they are more deserving of the help of coalition countries. The UAE is a coalition country. What are they doing to help their brothers. Instead of importing labour from Pakistan, why not use the refugees of Syria.

I think that is a good description of how democracy works.

Anniebach I agree that Cameron is mindful of the fact that many British people feel immigration is out of control. I do think though that during the election he wasn't just responding to people's views but actually reinforcing and encouraging them - because it was a good vote winner.

Surely a leader, whilst taking account of people's views, also has a responsibility not to contribute towards creating a suspicious, fearful and mistrustful population and not to make pledges that he/she is unlikely to be able to fulfil.

In a situation as tragic as this one, I too feel frustrated and angry about the way this government is responding. Even some of his own MPs are urging more action be taken. It seems to me that because DC has been quite adamant we are doing enough, if he now has a re-think it will be because of public, media and political pressure rather than because he feels it is right.

You suggest we do this, do you, Petra?

www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/opinion/australias-brutal-treatment-of-migrants.html?ref=opinion

Which government spokesperson do you think would end up before the international court of human rights?

Some people ask: will people stop coming if they know the door is shut. That's what happened in Australia. Their 'boat people' problem is over.
Same thing with Calais. The numbers in the camps has stayed the same for some time. Because, word is getting back down the line that it's getting harder and harder to get across the channel.

By the way, the Republicans were stupid as well, as Obama is a Christian.

It doesn't matter that fewer supported Labour. What I said was that a minority support Cameron. That's true, whether it was 36.9% or 24%. Thanks for putting me right, Gracesgran.

Probably seems more stupid if you really thought the Tories had an actual majority niggly