Gransnet forums

News & politics

Perception of poverty and persecution

(58 Posts)
durhamjen Mon 07-Sept-15 10:48:03

I read this this morning.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/sep/04/christian-politicians-wont-say-it-but-the-bible-is-clear-let-the-refugees-in-every-last-one

The bible says we should let in every refugee, whether rich or poor. Poverty does not come into it. I read about a Syrian family that had three houses. Two were sold over the last four years and the last was bombed and they were literally living in a cardboard box on the side of the road.
Who decides who is rich and who is poor?

Anniebach Mon 07-Sept-15 10:39:24

Gracesgran, this is what many want to see, the poor grovelling , how dare they have the same hopes , want the same things for their children as the 'hard working man' and I don't mean a semi with a car in the drive etc

MargaretX Mon 07-Sept-15 10:36:03

These refugees who have arrived have hope and the really poor have no hope of a better life.
I have been through some rough times with no money the end of the week I'm sure many on GN have had to do the same, and many are still struggling. But if what you have is not enough and there is no hope of it ever becoming better for the ones you love and have to care for, then that is terrible poverty.

I can't bear people who think that the poor shouldn't have a phone or a TV. Should poverty be a punishment then?
A civilsed state should make provision for its poor and disadvantaged and accept- human nature being what it is -that a small percent will misuse it.
That is no reason not to increase benefits and try to do the best for those who can't manage on their own, and not sink to the level of almost accusing all the poor of cheating like the Conservatives do.

Gracesgran Mon 07-Sept-15 10:21:51

That's very much my feeling Anniebach but the idea that those on, as Cameron chooses to call it "Welfare" should parade their destitution horrifies me. The loss of the insured social safety net may be one of the Conservative's aims but how many of us have agreed to that. This is not a charity, it is a system we have paid into.

Anniebach Mon 07-Sept-15 10:04:17

I am so angry at the judgement of what 'the poor' should have, what their children should have, how they are judged for using food banks and anyone with a mobile phone whilst on benefits are cheats. The criticism of the refugees being well dressed is unbelievable , some want them in rags and shoeless

soontobe Mon 07-Sept-15 09:51:06

In no way do I think that refugees should be destitute before being given asylum. They are as much eligible to be granted asylum as anyone else from that country in my opinion.

The poverty one is a much more complicated issue, which I for one dont want to go into.
[Even the definition of poverty in this country is flexible. Some charities deliberately move it, in order to still be able to say that there are 15% of children below the breadline or whatever].

annsixty Mon 07-Sept-15 09:34:53

As to the poverty issue I don't think it is changing. For as long as I can remember people have been saying those on benefits shouldn't have televisions, cars, mobile phones etc but I think the refugee thing and the persecution they have suffered is quite new to some and they don't understand the concept. We who are older lived through the persecution of the Jews and they lived among us when they came to this country but to some here that didn't go well. History repeats itself no matter how we try to change it.

Gracesgran Mon 07-Sept-15 09:14:47

It has occurred to me recently that people perception of these is changing.

The first one - the perception of poverty - came up when, amongst my group of friends (all pensioners). One, whom we know has the lowest income of all of us and receives some pensioner benefits, changed her car. I was surprised when an admittedly right wing friend was horrified and immediately asked "how did she do that?", as if she had broken some rule which declared her not to be poor enough. What is poor enough to be poor? Should someone be destitute before they get benefits? I have a strong feeling this friend would think they should.

The second - perception of persecution - came from the fact that asylum should be given to people fleeing persecution. From reading posts on here and elsewhere (more elsewhere it must be said) people cannot comprehend that those currently fleeing Syria might be middle-class, educated and either have money or the ability to borrow it. Again, must refugees be destitute before they are given asylum?

You will probably realise that I don't believe you have to reach destitution in either case to fulfil either the criteria of the insurance pledge for benefits or the safety pledge nations have always made to the persecuted but it does appear that some do. Perhaps there is a convincing argument for this.